In thinking about our struggle as Americans with respecting those with whom we disagree politically, I am reminded of the title character of Shakespeare’s play King Lear.
In the beginning of the play, the elderly King Lear demands that his three daughters express their love for him before divvying up the kingdom among them. When Goneril and Regan, Lear’s oldest daughters, butter him up in a transactional show of affection, he expects his favorite daughter, Cordelia, to do the same. Unlike her false sisters, Cordelia is intensely loyal to her father, and she refuses to publicly confess her love for him. Lear is offended and erroneously concludes she does not love him at all, angrily thrusting her from his presence with neither a dowry for her future marriage nor a portion of the kingdom.
Unfortunately, his failure to see through Goneril’s and Regan’s sinister motives and to feel Cordelia’s unfailing love for him in spite of her silence leads to disastrous consequences: he loses his kingdom and the life of his beloved Cordelia to Regan’s and Goneril’s treacherous usurpations [1].
Thankfully, our democratic republic is not run by an irrational king. Nevertheless, as the source of our government’s power, we, the people, are at risk of making the same mistakes as King Lear. Just as he was unwilling to accept Cordelia’s preferred manner of expressing her love for him, too many of us refuse to accept that those with whom we strongly disagree often also share a common love of our country and its people. At the same time, we fail to see through the frequently less-than-sincere claims of patriotism and goodwill made by pundits, politicians, and partisans espousing our preferred political views. In short, we are too quick to villainize people on the other side of the political spectrum and too quick to venerate those on our own.
This blind approach to politics and political discourse threatens to divide our country even more, and it fails to unite us on the many problems where acceptable common ground exists on both sides [2]. No cookie-cutter candidate or policy platform exists on either side of the aisle, so being overly loyal to one side or overly hostile toward another does not produce the best outcomes. Instead, the preemptive villainization of those with whom we disagree engenders everyday citizens with the fear that associating with a particular side stains them with an unshakeable partisan label. This prevents many level-headed, solution-oriented people who are normally unafraid to find common ground from engaging in the political parties which, whether one likes them or not, control the levers of government policy implementation.
Rather, voters must repeatedly reevaluate, as President Dallin H. Oaks has stated, which issues are of greatest importance to them before casting their ballots for or throwing their support behind a political leader or policy [3]. In fact, the most representative, long-lasting policies are most likely to be enacted when people of different political persuasions come to the table, hash out the needed compromises, and identify acceptable common ground [4].
One example of this phenomenon of intimidation and fear of expression has occurred among many conservative students on college campuses, who especially experience this unfair labeling for their stances on prominent cultural issues of the day. Recently, I read an op-ed penned by conservative students from various colleges in the United States who were reacting to the horrific shooting of Charlie Kirk. Kirk was a widely recognized conservative icon who himself empowered college students to be politically engaged and to stand for their beliefs, even if campus culture and society-wide movements labeled them as “bigots” or “backward” for doing so.
One of them wrote, “In the eyes of leftists on campus, the view that there are only two genders is a call for violence against L.G.B.T.Q. people. If I speak out against abortion, I am a misogynist who wants to take away women’s basic human rights. If I defend President Trump’s calls for mass deportations and securing the border, I am a xenophobe who wants to torture immigrants in concentration camps” [5].
Reading this line struck a chord within me as I realized that I too have sometimes felt frustration at being labeled, albeit indirectly, by the mainstream media, pundits, and peers on the left as “evil,” unsophisticated, or extremist when I express the honest opinions of my heart. I realize that many on the left likely feel the same way.
Upon coming to BYU, I was initially hesitant to associate myself, a self-identified conservative, with the Republican Party because of the negative connotation the party’s brand seemed to have gained in recent years. (I was also hesitant because I thought I still wanted to be a nonpartisan judge, and I wanted to preserve my political record as such.) Over time, however, I abandoned my quest to remain (at least on paper) politically neutral and joined College Republicans, one of two student organizations that are permitted to host partisan political events and encourage engagement with political parties under the BYU banner. I became an officer in the winter of 2025 and now serve as the association’s president for the 2025–2026 school year.
As president of BYU College Republicans, I am determined to model respectful engagement with individuals on both sides of the political spectrum because I believe political leaders and citizens need to have better clarity of judgment in evaluating how to engage with those with whom they initially disagree. Rather than oversimplistically categorizing them as unrighteous, bigoted, or even evil, we should seek to engage with them in ways that contribute to more productive outcomes and greater political engagement. Through hosting events that showcase different ideas within the Republican Party and encourage respectful debate with those who hold beliefs outside of the party, I aim to encourage all students to see both sides as essential parts of our nation’s political fabric.
I believe that we, the sovereign citizens of this great nation, can succeed where King Lear failed. We can do so by seeing through superficial proclamations of patriotism and altruism, disregarding unhelpful denunciations of the other side’s motivations and morals, and influencing our respective political parties in ways that encourage dialogue and compromise with the other side. This does not necessarily mean we believe those with whom we disagree are right, but it does mean we give them the benefit of the doubt.
