Steve Corbin is Professor Emeritus of Marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.
Valentine’s Day is upon us when most people will express -- in some fashion -- one, two or three forms of the word “love.” But, many individuals will completely ignore the fourth type of love – agape – at a time we need that as much as the other three.
The first type of love is eros (AIR-ohs). It originated from the ancient Greek philosophy referring to physical attraction and romantic love.
Storge (STOR-jay) describes family love, the bond that develops between parents, children, grandchildren, brothers and sisters.
The third form of love is philia (FILL-ee-uh). Philia is observed in meaningful friendships as well as when people express their care and compassion for people in need.
The Greek word agape (uh-GAH-pay) is noted by some as the highest of the four types of love described in the Bible. Agape is perfect, selfless, sacrificial and unconditional love for humankind.
According to Joshua Inwood of Penn State University’s African American Studies, agape -- “the moral imperative to engage with one’s oppressor” -- was the central tenet of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s movement he built from 1955 until his assassination in 1968.
King once stated, “. . . Agape means nothing sentimental or basically affectionate; it means understanding, redeeming goodwill for all men, an overflowing love which seeks nothing in return.” `Understanding’ is the key word.
Today, in our divisive America, we need to embrace `agape’ and try to understand – not debate, ridicule or fight – just understand those who have opposing views. Demonstrating agape for just one day, let alone a week, would be a major step forward.
Ponder this data point as an example of our divisiveness: according to Pew Research Center’s Aug. 9, 2022 report, the majority of Republicans and Democrats view members of the other party as more immoral, dishonest, unintelligent and closed-minded than other Americans. Really? Immoral? Dishonest? Unintelligent? Close-minded?
Our divisiveness is not necessarily making reference to the political far-right wing wackos or the far-left wing crazies. We are estranged on social issues as well.
Here are some different points of view where if agape was practiced, it might permit us to become a more civilized America:
Vaccinations vs. anti-vaxxers; America’s 98 white supremacist, homophobic, xenophobia groups vs. acceptance-tolerance; voter suppression vs. freedom to vote; immigration reform vs. immigration exclusion; pro-United Nations and NATO vs. isolationism; civil rights vs. human rights abuses.
Economic equality vs. inequality; straight vs. gay rights; homelessness vs. find-a-solution; affirmative action vs. inequality of opportunity; tax support for public school vs. private school; bipartisan dialogue vs. party before people; disinformation and misinformation vs. truth.
Wild-Wild-West gun laws vs. sensible gun control; bipartisan debt ceiling resolve vs. faceoff and worldwide economic collapse; climate change advocates vs. environmental change doubters; pro-economic, political, social, cultural and trade globalism vs. pro-nationalism.
Freedom of press vs. book banning; candid history vs. selective history teaching; scientific proof vs. conspiracy theory fiction; integration vs. segregation; pro- vs. controlled-women’s medical rights; freedom of speech vs. censorship; democracy vs. authoritarian-fascism.
There are a plethora of other topics tearing Americans apart.
Considering, pondering and exploring where the `other side’ is coming from might be wise to adopt for our long-term survival. Having open discussions of differences and division is the starting point.
May your Valentine’s Day be filled with eros, storge and philia, loving your family, friends and neighbors who are in need. And in the days ahead – when confronted with opposing opinions – may agape be applied trying to understand (vs. fighting, hating and despising) others who think differently.
Let’s truly work together and practice agape to build a better “United” States of America.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.