Objectivity is a quality that is central to the work of a serious dramatist. He or she must be able to present many types of conflict credibly, and to do so requires the imaginative comprehension of contrasting opinions. It is somewhat similar to formal debating, where a team will have to prepare to argue both sides of an issue. This is done for several reasons: for one, there are some issues that may provide one side with an emotional advantage over the other. (It's like changing directions in a soccer game at half-time so that both teams will have the advantage of the wind for a while.) But more importantly, it is to ensure that debaters "shed light not heat", or in other words, that "reason" maintain its "sovereignty", as Horatio put it.

Unfortunately, in political discussions, it often happens that people argue from an entrenched position that will admit no dissent - I've often felt that any position so constructed clearly disproves its viability - and that the party or politician that they support has all the answers, and that the other(s) do all the damage. This type of thinking is obviously flawed, dangerous even, but unfortunately it's frequently brought into classrooms, particularly those where literature has been replaced with social studies, when its opposite is really what should be encouraged.

Enter Shakespeare. One of the most astonishing things about his work is that it is impossible to pin down where it stands on political issues. For example, in the 404 years of Macbeth's existence, it has been seen from innumerable angles and used to support innumerable positions. And there's no end in sight. It will continue to produce thought and discussion of great sophistication - because it's dramatic art of the highest level, and because its author knew far too much to think that he (or anyone else) knew it all.