Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

“Agape” needed to resolve America’s divisiveness

“Agape” needed to resolve America’s divisiveness
lilkar /Getty Images

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.


Read More

U.S. President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin in front of a landed airplane.

U.S. President Donald Trump (R) greets Russian President Vladimir Putin as he arrives at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson on August 15, 2025 in Anchorage, Alaska.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

What Would Putin’s Puppet Do Differently?

This winter, Russia plans to freeze Ukraine into submission. According to an intercepted Russian plan, Moscow intends to use hundreds of ballistic missiles, long-range drones, and glide bombs to strike Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Odesa with such intensity that they are cut off from power, heat, and water, slashing electricity and heat by up to 90 percent and crippling sewage systems. Russia hopes that with an energy system so thoroughly destroyed, millions of Ukrainian citizens would become so cold, sick, and desperate that their country might just surrender. Deliberately attacking the heat and water of civilians is a war crime, but Moscow thinks it can get away with it. Ukraine is running short on the Patriot interceptors it needs to stop ballistic missiles, and Putin is betting Trump will continue to betray Ukraine. It’s looking like a safe bet.

Trump shows no evidence to the contrary. On October 9, he got off a call with the Russian president and then immediately lifted U.S. sanctions on Russian diesel. The next day, after Russian strikes killed at least 17 people in Zaporizhzhia, Trump announced it was “time for Ukraine to get a new president.” Days later, the American-controlled satellite network Ukraine’s military depends on was throttled without warning, knocking out service to the drones Ukraine uses to chase down Russian attack drones. Trump denied giving the order, but The Telegraph reported that Musk pitched the idea and Trump agreed.

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less