Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Understanding mass violence and what we can do about it

Understanding mass violence and what we can do about it
Wildpixel/Getty Images

Van Oosterhout is a psychologist and author of “ Slow Down and Lighten Up: Letting Go of Stress and Tension.”

I was home playing with my children on my day off when I got a call from the clinic: "Your patient Paul called. He said his guns were loaded and he’s heading out the door to blow those people away. He said he promised to call you first." I found a movie for my kids and called Paul.


Paul (not his real name) was an intelligent, sensitive and creative man whose appearance and quirks made him an outsider. He was bullied in school and had dropped out. His talents and interests were neither recognized nor developed. People laughed at him. He didn't fit in and didn't feel like he belonged.

Paul had a lot of guns and he knew how to use them – they gave him a sense of power and control. He was drawn to conspiracy theories – they provided an explanation for his isolation and made him feel connected with others who seemed to be "in the know." Paul didn't hurt anyone that day and the people he would have killed were fortunate that his doctor had encouraged him to seek counseling. Many others were not so fortunate. There were over 1,800 mass shootings in the United States between 2020 and 2022.

I've been a psychologist for 45 years – counseling, teaching and community organizing. I've worked with dozens of people who had problems with violence and have seen a clear pattern. For the most part, they were isolated and didn't fit in. No one really knew or appreciated who they were. Their gifts and potential went unrecognized and undeveloped. They had no sense of belonging.

Human beings are social creatures. Belonging is a basic, essential need – ultimately our survival depends on it. There's no need for violence when we feel respected and understood. Violence isn't a consideration when we're curious and interested in something meaningful. We don't give it a thought when we're exploring who we are, who we can be and what we can contribute to our world.

Modern culture has made belonging conditional. It depends on who we are, how we look, the things we have and what we accomplish. This pushes some out to the fringe where they're isolated, alone and increasingly fearful. They desperately seek some sense of recognition and a feeling of power and control. Acts of mass violence provide an opportunity to emphatically and dramatically meet that need. Media reporting and our conditioned desire for sensationalism have made mass violence an attractive alternative to desperate and lonely lives. I recall Paul saying, "I'm gonna be famous."

Belonging is elusive when we put conditions on it. We can never really be ourselves when acceptance depends on appearance, impression or accomplishments. True belonging requires authenticity. The fear of being excluded gnaws at our self-worth as it diminishes our possibilities. Some of us overcompensate. Others give up. But the fear never goes away.

Natural fear is short-term. It can be transformed into caution and concern when balance is restored and maintained. We can slow down on an icy road, seek shelter in a storm, walk slowly away from a poisonous snake. Fear dissipates when the ice clears, the storm is over or the snake moves on. A lack of belonging builds fear that doesn’t dissipate.

Prolonged fear undermines physical, mental and emotional balance. It builds tension in our bodies, narrows our vision and thinking and numbs and intensifies our emotions. It affects how we see and relate to our world and each other. Prolonged fear restricts our awareness and undermines the search for truth as it disrupts our sense of belonging. It feeds the well-established belief that humans are essentially selfish, aggressive and competitive when it’s actually fear that makes us selfish, aggressive and competitive. This belief creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that generates more fear.

I've worked with, taught, trained, counseled or organized thousands of people over the past 50 years. Some had killed other human beings. Others had molested children or committed a range of crimes. I’ve never met anyone who was naturally selfish, aggressive or violent. The people with those traits were stuck in prolonged fear fed by stress, trauma and a lack of belonging. When they recovered from built-up physical, mental, and emotional tension and began to think about what was really important in life, compassion, understanding, and patience emerged. Selfishness, aggression and the tendency toward violence dissipated.

We can't intentionally harm another person unless we close our hearts and lose sight of who we and they really are. Closed hearts and restricted vision make violence possible. The solution to violence is to see ourselves and each other clearly with an open heart. It's hard to open your heart when your life is dominated by fear and your sense of belonging is conditional or non-existent.

The lack of belonging and escalating fear are widespread problems. Acts of mass violence are increasing all over the world. A constant flow of fear-based messages from the media, politicians, and entertainment industry grab and keep our attention. Escalating stress throws us further out of balance while diminishing our ability to see and think clearly. Rates of anxiety and depression are increasing dramatically. Technology provides opportunities for increased contact but we’re more isolated and disconnected than ever. Fear leads us to exclude others. Fear leads some of them to react with violence.

What can the average person do about all this?

I have a few suggestions: The first is to make a commitment to restore and maintain physical, mental and emotional balance. Get off the stress and fear treadmill that restricts your capacity to see and think clearly. Learn to separate natural fear from man-made fear. Ignore fear based messages that you can’t do anything about. Transform natural fear into caution and concern by shifting focus away from how bad things are to what we can do about them.

Pay attention to other people. See our shared humanity. Recognize our need for respect and belonging. Realize that everyone has gifts and potential as well as limitations and challenges. Remember that we're in this world together and that our actions affect others in ways we don't anticipate. Look people in the eye, smile, be respectful and welcoming. (There's a true story about a man who was on the way to commit an act of mass violence but changed his mind when a person on the street smiled at him.)

The roots of mass violence and fear stem from a lack of respect, understanding and curiosity about who we are, who we can be, and how we fit into the world around us. We can begin a process of becoming free of fear and violence by making balance a priority, disregarding fear based messages, and realizing the value and importance of belonging.


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less