Independent Newsmedia
By Michael R. Stone | Glendale
OPINION — To Arizona’s elected officials and transportation decision-makers: This proposal should not be decided based on ideological pressure or activist outrage, but on principle, consistency and respect for political plurality in Arizona.
Opposition to naming Loop 202 after Charlie Kirk appears to rely almost entirely on subjective accusations rather than verifiable facts. Claims of “racism,” “hostility” or “misinformation” are repeated buzzwords, not substantiated arguments. Disagreement with someone’s political views is not evidence of moral disqualification.
Arizona is not a one-party state, nor should its public institutions cater exclusively to one ideological faction. Our highways are funded by taxpayers across the political spectrum. Using government authority to deny recognition solely because a figure challenges progressive orthodoxy sets a dangerous precedent — one that will eventually be used against anyone outside the dominant narrative of the moment.
While Kirk was not born in Arizona, his organization has achieved national prominence from its headquarters here, mobilized millions of young people to participate in civic life and brought sustained attention to this state.
Whether one agrees with him or not, his impact and connection to Arizona are measurable and undeniable. That has historically been the standard for public recognition — not ideological purity tests.
Arizona politicians should ask themselves a simple question: Are we governing for all Arizonans, or only for the loudest activists?
Public infrastructure should not become a tool for political censorship. If Arizona begins erasing or disqualifying individuals based on viewpoint alone, we abandon neutrality and invite endless retaliatory politics.
Leadership requires resisting pressure campaigns, not rewarding them.
This writer is using a pen name. Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.