Part 2 – Moving from Anxiety to Agency

When many of us look at the world today, the sense of instability isn’t just theoretical — it comes from real, high-impact events playing out on the global stage.

For instance:

• A dramatic U.S. military operation resulted in the capture of Venezuela’s long-standing leader, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, who were flown to the United States to face federal narcotics charges. Maduro’s supporters and many international observers have condemned the action as a violation of international law and asserted that he remains Venezuela’s legitimate president. The next court proceedings are scheduled for March 2026. Reuters+1
  
• In the political aftermath, Venezuela’s capital and its citizens face uncertainty, with an interim government asserting authority, clashes and repression reported, and opposition leaders vowing to return and contest for free elections. The Guardian+1
  

These developments have rippled far beyond Caracas:

• Global leaders, including NATO allies, have expressed alarm over the legality of the operation and subsequent rhetoric that suggests expansive U.S. geopolitical ambitions in the region — including comments about Greenland that have sparked pushback from Denmark and other European partners concerned about sovereignty and international norms. The Guardian+1
  

These are not distant policy debates. They are real geopolitical shifts that create anxiety because they touch on questions of national sovereignty, the use of military force, and the durability of international law under pressure.

Such events make people wonder: What does order look like when the rules themselves are contested?

Naming Complexity Without Yielding to Fear

It’s vital to name these realities precisely — not to amplify panic, but to acknowledge that we are living through a moment when:

• The assumptions that undergird international stability are being tested.
• Power dynamics among nations are visibly in flux.
• The consequences for ordinary people — inside Venezuela and beyond — are deeply real.

Yet these very crises can deepen anxiety if they are presented only as threats to what exists, without also engaging the deeper questions they raise about why systems feel inadequate or inequitable in the first place.

From Anxiety to Collective Sense-Making

Instead of retreating into fear or retreating into simplistic binaries (preserve this vs. destroy that), this moment invites a more mature public conversation:

• What obligations do democratic societies have — nationally and internationally — when institutions are used to protect some at the expense of many?
  
• How do we assess the use of force in ways that protect human dignity rather than deepen cycles of repression?
  
• How do we distinguish between defending stability and sustaining systems that have long marginalized voices and needs?

Naming these questions honestly allows us to look at current events not as chaotic breakdowns, but as fault lines exposing deeper unresolved tensions.

Stability That Serves People

Real stability is not the absence of upheaval.
It is the presence of structures that are just, participatory, and responsive to human needs — not just powerful interests.

When international systems — or local ones — are misaligned with people’s lived realities, tensions will emerge. Naming them clearly is the first step toward:

• Collective understanding, not fear.
• Thoughtful engagement, not passivity.
• Shared responsibility, not defensiveness.

In the next section, we’ll explore how individuals and communities can cultivate agency in such a moment — not by ignoring global complexity, but by anchoring themselves in principles of dignity, connection, and sustained participation.

A Practical Commitment for the Moment We’re In

When instability escalates globally, the impulse is often to do more.
But sustainable engagement does not always come from increased activity.

Sometimes it comes from greater clarity.

In moments when power is visibly in flux—when norms, alliances, and assumptions feel less certain—the most responsible response is not constant reaction, but intentional orientation.

This week’s commitment is not about expanding effort.
It is about strengthening discernment.

One Practice This Week

Choose one hour this week to intentionally stabilize your relationship to information, power, and responsibility.

This is not passive.
It is preparatory.

Possible practices include:

• Audit your information intake
  Notice where your news comes from. Reduce repetition. Limit exposure to speculative commentary. Prioritize primary reporting and step away from content designed to provoke fear rather than understanding.
  
• Clarify your sphere of responsibility
  Write down what you can influence, what you can support indirectly, and what you cannot control. Release the rest intentionally.
  
• Practice civic grounding
  Review how your local governance actually works—who makes decisions, how accountability functions, where participation is real rather than symbolic.
  
• Examine your own language
  Pay attention to how you describe “stability,” “order,” or “security.” Ask whether those words reflect lived dignity—or merely familiarity.
  
• Create a boundary of care
  Decide when you will disengage from global news for the day and replace that time with something regulating: movement, conversation, rest, or creative focus.

Why This Matters Now

Anxiety thrives in uncontained attention.

When people are flooded with events they cannot meaningfully process, fear becomes ambient—and ambient fear makes populations easier to manipulate.

Democracy requires not only action, but psychological steadiness.

The ability to remain informed without becoming reactive.
The capacity to care without collapsing into despair or aggression.
The discipline to distinguish urgency from panic.

This is not withdrawal.
It is readiness.

When people are grounded, their actions—when taken—are clearer, more ethical, and more durable.

That is how meaningful change endures.