Recently, someone asked me why I’m willing to discuss politicians, public policy, and even my informal opinions about political figures in the classroom, yet I rarely post those views on Facebook or X.
The answer is simple. I believe the responsibility of a university professor is not to tell students whom they should support, but to teach them how to think critically, analyze public policy, and evaluate competing ideas.
In my classes, we discuss Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Pedro Sánchez, Emmanuel Macron, Giorgia Meloni, Javier Milei, Margaret Thatcher, and many other political leaders. My goal is not to persuade students to adopt my political views, nor is it to turn the classroom into a political debate. Instead, I ask them to examine why governments adopted particular policies, what economic and political reasoning motivated those decisions, and what their intended and unintended consequences have been. By studying history, economics, and institutions, students can develop their own well-reasoned conclusions based on evidence rather than slogans, emotions, or political identity.
Public policy should never be about personality cults, emotional reactions, or partisan loyalty. It should be about evaluating policies on their own merits.
Recently, I saw people condemning a public figure simply because he wore a hat that said, “Make Spain Great Again.” Some immediately launched political attacks and expected everyone else to conform to their version of political correctness. To me, this illustrates one of the biggest problems in today’s political discourse: many people judge political identity before they evaluate public policy.
I’ve never claimed that any politician is without flaws—not Donald Trump, and certainly not Joe Biden.
For example, Trump’s tariff policies raise legitimate debates about protectionism versus free trade. Those policies deserve careful economic analysis rather than simplistic slogans of “support” or “oppose.” Likewise, I have criticized the Biden administration’s fiscal spending, industrial policy, expansion of government, and increased market intervention.
At the same time, intellectual honesty requires acknowledging where credit is due. In many respects, the Biden administration continued the structural strategic competition with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that began under the Trump administration. It also maintained closer coordination with America’s European allies on policies toward mainland China and the CCP, creating a more unified democratic response to the strategic challenges posed by the CCP. Regardless of one’s broader political preferences, I believe those aspects deserve recognition.
For that reason, I have always believed that supporting a particular policy does not mean supporting everything a politician does, just as criticizing one policy does not mean rejecting everything that politician stands for.
Overall, I believe that many of President Trump’s policy priorities are closer to free markets, limited government, individual liberty, and entrepreneurship than those advocated by many contemporary progressive governments. That is a legitimate position to debate—not one that should be dismissed simply because of political labels.
Likewise, although I disagree with many of President Biden’s domestic economic policies, I am perfectly willing to recognize areas where his administration made sound strategic decisions. A serious scholar of public policy should be capable of recognizing both strengths and weaknesses in any political leader rather than seeing only what confirms prior beliefs.
What truly concerns me is not whether someone identifies with the political left or the political right. What concerns me is when identity politics replaces policy analysis, emotion replaces evidence, and labels replace rational discussion.
Today, someone may be condemned over a hat. Tomorrow, someone else may be condemned over a single sentence, a photograph, a friendship, or a public appearance. Once political identity becomes more important than policy analysis, rational public discourse inevitably begins to deteriorate.
I strongly believe that a free society should protect the open exchange of ideas and allow people with different political perspectives to express themselves freely.
That said, I do have reservations about extending unlimited protection to speech that explicitly promotes genuine Nazism, communist totalitarianism, or other ideologies that advocate violence, systematic persecution, or the destruction of liberal democratic institutions.
My concern is not that these ideologies belong to the far left or the far right. My concern is that their defining objective is to eliminate the very freedoms that make open debate and a free society possible.
At the same time, I also oppose the increasingly common habit of labeling political opponents as “Nazis,” “communists,” “fascists,” or similar terms simply because they hold different views. Such rhetoric cheapens the historical meaning of those ideologies and replaces thoughtful discussion with emotional tribalism.
Ultimately, what I oppose is not any legitimate political viewpoint. I oppose the use of political correctness, claims of moral superiority, or extremist ideologies to silence disagreement, restrict open discussion, or deny others the opportunity to express their views.
People will always disagree politically, and that is both inevitable and healthy in a free society. However, our discussions should be grounded in facts, history, economics, and institutional analysis—not in emotion, identity politics, or ideological labels.
Policy should come before party. Analysis should come before ideology. Reason should come before emotion.
These principles have guided my work as a scholar and teacher for many years. They are also the principles I hope my students will carry with them long after they leave my classroom—not because I expect them to agree with me, but because I want them to evaluate public policy independently, rigorously, and honestly.
Copyright Notice: This article is the intellectual property of its author. If you wish to reproduce or share it, you must clearly indicate the original source and provide proper attribution. Unauthorized copying or distribution without acknowledgment is strictly prohibited.
How to Cite this Article (APA 7th edition)
Wang, H. H. (2026, August 9). Policy Should Come Before Party. https://williamhongsongwang.com/2026/08/09/policy-should-come-before-party/
William Wang 