Ohioans gathered outside the statehouse to rally against senate bill 5 on March 29 in Columbus, Ohio. The bill would strip public employees of collective bargaining rights. (AP)

This is my 43rd and final column for The Carroll News. Next week, the World News section will be in the hands of Michael Reiser, and I’m confident that he’ll do an outstanding job.

At the same time, however, I’m reluctant to give up the reins just yet.

This country has some rough days ahead of it. Youth unemployment was the ticking time bomb that sparked the protests in the Middle East and toppled dictators in Tunisia and Egypt, where youth unemployment rates were 30 percent and 25 percent, respectively.

However, youth unemployment is also a severe problem in the United States. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official unemployment rate for workers ages 16 to 24 is 21 percent, and some two million college graduates are unemployed.

But could a developed and democratic country like the United States experience the same type of unrest as the authoritarian governments of the Middle East?

Absolutely yes, just ask Great Britain. Over the weekend, some 250,000 Britons took to the streets in London to protest deep spending cuts in health care, education and other social programs – the same kind of cuts that are being debated and made at the federal and state levels in this country.

In addition to these cuts, the rights of middle class workers – including teachers, university professors, firefighters, police officers and nurses – are coming under attack in states like Wisconsin and Ohio.

Meanwhile, the richest one percent of Americans own almost a quarter of the nation’s wealth. The health insurance industry is making billions off our illnesses. Oil companies are making billions with disregard to the environment. And the financial sector, which was at the heart of the global economic crisis, is once again experiencing record-breaking profits.

So why haven’t U.S. students organized massive protests like those in the UK and Middle East? The answer is, they have – but not with the organization and scale of those in other countries … yet.

However, the federal government has so far been unable to agree on a budget, with Republicans pushing for deeper cuts than Obama and the Democrats will allow. But if they can’t compromise on a budget by April 8, the government will effectively shutdown.

If that happens – or if the Democrats agree to deeper cuts that further affect the middle class – it might be just enough to spark the “Day of Rage” that so many other countries in the Middle East and Europe have experienced.

But perhaps that is exactly what this country needs to get it back on track, and to remind the country’s political leaders that it’s the middle class that is the heart and soul of this nation.

Picketers protest the American involvement in Libya on March 23 in San Francisco. (AP)

I don’t blame Americans for supporting U.S. military intervention in Libya. After all, when cloaked in the guise of multilateralism and the moral superiority of a humanitarian cause, intervention in Libya sounds like a responsible use of military power.

However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Obama’s “limited” commitment to protect civilians in Libya from Gadhafi’s forces is setting the United States up for either an embarrassing military failure or a dangerous, unwanted troop deployment.

By pledging to protect civilians from Gadhafi’s revenge, Obama has effectively committed the United States to toppling the Gadhafi regime.

Yes, it is possible that the no-fly zone established by the United States and coalition forces will tip the balance in favor of the rebels, and Gadhafi will finally be ousted from power.

However, it’s equally as likely that it won’t.

In this case, the government and rebel forces will become trapped in a bloody stalemate that results in civilian deaths on both sides. As the fighting intensifies, it will become increasingly unlikely that the two sides will ever be able to be reconciled, and Libya will be gradually torn in two.

Meanwhile, the lengthy military commitment required of the U.S. will slowly open up the Pandora’s box of potential nightmare situations. It is a fact that accidents happen in war. Despite Obama’s good intentions, U.S. bombs will fall in the wrong place and, unfortunately, kill the very people the U.S. vowed to protect.

As the civilian death count increases, mounting pressure will force the United States to either cut and run or escalate with a full-scale invasion.

The latter would put U.S. troops in a country that was never a threat to U.S. national security in the first place. Not only would this increase anti-Americanism in a region already replete with it, but it would also expose more U.S. troops to all the perils of occupation that we have seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The former would expose civilians to the same dangers that supposedly drove the U.S. to intervene in the first place, possibly resulting in thousands of deaths at the hands of Gadhafi’s cronies. It would also allow Gadhafi to claim that he defeated the world’s only superpower, which would bolster his legitimacy and completely destroy any chance of a successful Libyan opposition movement.

It was a mistake, therefore, for Obama to use military force in Libya. Not only is the United States now engaged in a limited but potentially open-ended war with the government of Libya, but Obama’s goals – to protect civilians and to not deploy ground troops – also seem to be at war with each other.

President Barack Obama, right, and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi pictured during the G8/G5 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, on July 9, 2009. (AP). (AP)

“We don’t want and we won’t accept any foreign intervention on our soil. We started this revolution, and we will finish it.”

Those are the words of Abdul Hafidh Gogha, the spokesman of the provisional government recently set up by the pro-democracy rebels in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.

The situation in Libya is getting worse by the day. Muammar Gadhafi has made it clear that he will not be forced out of power, and his violent crackdown on anti-government protestors has resulted in hundreds of deaths. Some even say the death count could be over 1,000.

Meanwhile, the country has been all but split in two. The eastern half of the country is largely controlled by the rebels, while the west – including the capital of Tripoli – remains mostly in Gadhafi’s hands.

It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that Libya is experiencing a civil war.

As the violence continues, however, the two sides seem to have reached a stalemate.

So is there anything the U.S. and the rest of the international community can do to tip the balance in favor of the rebels?

Although the United States was initially slow to take any action until all Americans were evacuated from Libya, the Obama administration now says that all options are on the table. Over the weekend, a number of sanctions were placed on Gadhafi in an effort to isolate him economically and financially.

The administration is also considering military intervention. Two of the most popular ideas seem to be arming the rebels and enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya so that Gadhafi can’t use his air force to bomb rebel positions. Some have even mentioned the possibility of carrying out air strikes against Gadhafi compounds as the U.S. did in Kosovo in the 90s.

However, military intervention – unless used for humanitarian purposes like delivering medical supplies or evacuating refugees – would be a bad idea for both Libya and the United States.

First of all, military intervention would undermine the legitimacy of the rebels and the revolution. Libyans have made it clear that they want to do this on their own, and if they receive American military aid, pro-Gadhafi forces can claim the rebels are just pawns of the United States.

Secondly, the United States should only use military power when our national security is threatened. The U.S. does not need to constantly flex its military might in order to deter our enemies. Rather, it needs to conserve its military capabilities and only use them when we need them. We can support the rebels diplomatically and economically, but Libya – whether democratic or authoritarian – poses no strategic threat to the United States.

So hopefully Obama listens to Gogha, and keeps the military out of Libya.

So were the neoconservatives right? Is George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda” – which included the notion that the Iraq War would create a beacon of democracy in the region and that other states would soon follow – finally starting to pan out?

President George W. Bush shakes hands with former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, right, in 2003. (AP)

To put it lightly, no. The Iraq War actually had the exact opposite effect. The entire Arab and Muslim world was united in opposition to the war, which increased support for the region’s tyrants. And soon after Hussein was removed, the country practically fell into a state of civil war.

The people of the Middle East saw this, and many decided they’d rather suffer the oppression of a dictator than risk the violence of a weak democracy.

Even today, Iraq is still no model for democracy. Political parties are divided largely along ethnic and religious lines. Corruption is rampant. The government struggles to deliver basic services like electricity, clean water and sewage services. And after last March’s elections, which were delayed for months as a result of political fighting, it took nine months for politicians to form a new government.

However, while Bush’s Iraq War was in no way a catalyst for the current revolutionary fervor in the Middle East, he can still claim partial responsibility for the unrest in a different way.

The global economic recession took place on Bush’s watch. And while he surely cannot take all the blame, he undoubtedly played an important role in its origin and had six years to do something to prevent it.

Since most Middle Eastern economies are somewhat insulated from the global economy, it took a while for the global recession to effect the region. However, when it finally did (some time in 2009), the consequences were brutal.

For example, economic growth in Tunisia, which averaged five percent in the past decade, shrank to three percent in 2009. Egyptian economic growth, meanwhile, shrank to five percent in 2009 after averaging seven percent between 2005 and 2008. When you combine these numbers with a large and increasingly educated youth population, especially in Tunisia, the result is social unrest.

The recession has also forced many Middle Eastern leaders to cut crucial government subsidies to citizens for items like food and oil, which has helped set the stage for protests in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Iran.

George W. Bush, therefore, can claim some credit for the democratic movements in the Middle East … but only because he was an idiot.

Anti-government protestors used Facebook to organize huge demonstrations in the streets of Tunis and Cairo. Then when Ben Ali and Mubarak began cracking down on media outlets, protestors used hashtags on Twitter to let the world know what was going on. And when the security forces started shooting at civilians, they took videos of the violence and put them on YouTube.

These social media platforms allowed the entire world to watch – and even take part in – two revolutions in a matter of weeks. And as the revolutionary fervor continues to spread throughout the Middle East, protestors from Algeria to Iran are using the same strategies to overthrow their own corrupt authoritarian dictators.

It almost seems as though if you want to start a revolution, all you need is a Facebook, a Twitter and a YouTube account. But how, exactly, does social media facilitate revolutionary movements?

A Syrian man connects on his Facebook account at an internet cafe, in Damascus, Syria, on Feb. 8. (AP)

Firstly, they promote social awareness. Anyone with a pair of eyes and access to the Internet (and, preferably, a camera) can be a journalist, which is particularly helpful when your professional news outlets are being controlled or suppressed by the government. And of course, social awareness is also a prerequisite for social action. People first need to know what’s going on in order to act.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly,  social media allow you to tap into your social networks, which are the building blocks of revolutions. After all, revolutions aren’t carried out by random strangers – they’re carried out by families and friends.

It takes a lot of guts to step out into the streets and face government soldiers with guns, batons and tear gas. You’re only going to do that with people you trust – people that are in your social network. That’s why Facebook is such a powerful organizing tool.

Social media and its focus on the mobilization of individual social networks also explains the leaderless grassroots nature of the protest movements that carried out the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. This lack of a formal leadership structure has been perhaps the key strength of the revolutionary movements. No matter who the government arrests, the spirit of the protestors cannot be broken.

By putting all the power in the hands of the people, the rise of social media seems to have revolutionized the revolution.

To many Americans, this nation’s main mission is to promote freedom and democracy throughout the world. And as revolution takes hold in Egypt, and protests continue to plague Jordan, Americans have been annoyingly reminded that the United States is thoroughly enmeshed in the business of propping up many of the world’s dictators for stability’s sake.

Americans, however, aren’t the only ones that are frustrated. People all over the world constantly criticize the United States for its hypocritical foreign policy.

But here’s the kicker: our support of the authoritarian Egyptian regime is actually what paved the way for Egyptians to carry out their revolution.

If you read my last column, you’ll remember that Egypt used to be the juggernaut of the Arab world. As the most populous and powerful Arab country, it went to war against neighboring Israel four times in a span of thirty years. Even though it had democratic institutions, Egyptian leaders used the Israeli threat to declare a permanent state of emergency, which allowed them to concentrate power in the executive branch by usurping power from the legislative and judicial branches. Meanwhile, the Egyptian people were united in their opposition to Israel.

An Egyptian boy waves his national flag as anti-government protesters demonstrate in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, on Feb. 8. (AP)

However, in 1979, Egypt became the first Arab country to make peace with Israel after it signed a treaty negotiated by President Jimmy Carter. Although the treaty would grant the Egyptian regime some $2 billion every year in U.S. economic and military support, it also sowed the seeds of the current revolution. By eliminating the Israeli threat, it became harder for Egyptian leaders to legitimate a “state of emergency” and hoard political power. It also shifted the Egyptian people’s focus from external threats to internal matters.

Three decades later, here we are. Whether intended or not, the peace established by Jimmy Carter has encouraged the Egyptian people to scrutinize their political leaders and call for change.

Sure, it may have taken awhile. But as we learned from the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq under President George W. Bush, democracy is not something that can be easily forced onto another state. The nation building required to impose democracy on a foreign land takes years, perhaps even decades, and comes at an enormous cost in both money and human lives.

Economic sanctions can’t do the trick either. Under the strictest of sanctions, authoritarian leaders from Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe to North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il to Myanmar’s Than Shwe have still managed to cling to power for decades.

The only way meaningful democratic change can come about, it seems, is if it comes from within. Therefore, if the United States really wants democracy to spread, it must promote regional stability when possible, avoid unnecessarily threatening authoritarian states with talk of invasion or sanctions and – perhaps most importantly – have patience.

But  in a peace treaty brokered by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, Egypt became the first Arab country to recognize, let alone make peace with, the state of Israel. Immediately, its stature as leader of the Arab world was lost. Not only was it kicked out of the Arab League, an institution created in Egypt and based in Cairo, but almost every Arab state severed diplomatic relations with it.

Although Egypt was eventually allowed back into the Arab League and restored its ties with other Arab states, it entered into a period of relative insignificance. Neither weak nor strong, economic growth sputtered along and the government failed to meet the demands of the country’s growing population.

So for some 30 years now, Egyptians have longed for the days of Nasser and Egyptian hegemony. But now, Egyptians may have a chance to change the status quo. As of Tuesday night, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was still clinging to power – but just barely. The army has abandoned him, and it’s entirely possible that he could be out by the end of the week.

The real question, therefore, is not whether Mubarak will be overthrown, but who or what will take his place?

Egyptians shout anti-Mubarak slogans during a march in Alexandria, Egypt, on Feb. 3. (AP)

Some are afraid that a democratic Egypt will allow the Muslim Brotherhood to take charge. If so, the Brotherhood may arm Hamas in the Gaza Strip and threaten Israel, which would then be encircled by a strengthened Hezbollah in the north, an emboldened Hamas in the west, and the Brotherhood in the south.

However, a democratic Egypt is nothing to fear.

Egypt received $1.5 billion from the United States last year. It will probably receive the same amount this year – as long as it respects its treaty with Israel. And since the current protests have focused largely on economic issues such as inflation, unemployment, poverty, and wealth inequality, Egypt is not about to risk giving up that money.

Secondly, Mohamed ElBaradei, who has international credentials and is trusted by the West, has emerged as the leader of the opposition to Mubarak. As former head of the IAEA, the nuclear watchdog of the United Nations, he worked closely with American and European leaders in their negotiations with Iran. There’s a good chance, therefore, that he’ll be able to oversee Egypt’s transition to a democratic state and may even be elected the country’s next president.

And finally, Egypt has no personal stake in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They’ve seen the consequences of going to war with Israel. And while it will certainly remain an important issue to Egyptians, they would rather rival Israel economically than militarily.

More important to Egyptians is this: Turkey is currently the most developed Muslim state in the Middle East. Egypt wants that title.

I doubt Bouzazi thought his suicide would spark a revolution that would topple his country’s authoritarian dictator. But it did. And now the revolutionary fervor he inspired is spreading like fire – literally – across the Middle East. In the past few weeks, there have been at least 11 instances of Arabs imitating Bouzazi’s fiery self-immolation: five in Algeria, four in Egypt, and one each in Mauritania and Saudi Arabia.

Just as in the case of Bouzazi, these acts of martyrdom seem to have been driven by a shared sense of humiliation felt across the Arab world. From colonial manipulation to the Israeli annexation of Palestine in 1967 to the way so many current Arab leaders oppress their own citizens, the Arab world has had its dignity robbed for far too long.

Protestors burn a photo of former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali during a demonstration in Tunis on Jan. 24 against holdovers from Ben Ali's regime in the interim government. (AP)

But the tide is finally turning. The Tunisian revolution has encouraged a wave of demonstrations across the Middle East, and even leaders in Arab countries that seemed immune to domestic turmoil are starting to worry. Massive anti-government protests have broken out in Egypt, where Hosni Mubarak has clung to power for almost 30 years. And in Jordan, thousands have taken to the streets in anger over economic hardships and lack of democratic reform. The most interesting aspect of all these protests is that they seem to transcend ideological lines. It’s not just the Islamists, or the liberals, or the trade groups who want change. It’s everyone.

However, while the Middle East is burning, it also has the potential to explode.

Palestine, at the physical and psychological heart of the Arab world, is home to the two bloodiest uprisings in modern Arab history. Despite the breakdown of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, the continued construction of Israeli settlements, and the second-class treatment they receive in their own homeland, the Palestinian people have so far remained surprisingly silent. But if peace talks continue to fail, then the revolutionary fervor that has hit other Arab countries could easily provoke a Third “Intifada” (or “uprising”), in the Palestinian territories against their Israeli occupiers.

If that happens, Israel will also have to deal with a re-armed Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, both of which are backed by Iran and Syria, resulting in the largest Arab-Israeli war since 1973. Of course, Israel will win … but victory will come at a high cost. The unified Arab force will make Israel bleed, and the Middle East will continue to burn.

Absolutely nothing.

Either of them could have easily said what I said in much more detail. But that wasn’t the point. The point was to get a conversation started here on campus among the student body about the events going on in Sudan. And what better way to connect with the student body than through a student?

So I went up there, in front of a packed crowd of 87 people, and spent ten minutes talking about what I thought people should know about Sudan. Toward the end of the panel, we had a Q&A session, and one of the students asked what they can do to help Sudan. Don’t ask me how, but I had been appointed the moderator for the Q&A, and to be honest, the question caught me a little off-guard. I quickly looked at the others on the panel and handed the mic to the first person who looked like they had something to say.

But if I ever get asked that question again, I now know exactly what I’d say…

The violence that has taken place in Sudan is too gruesome to accurately portray in words. Pictures can do the job a little better, but the only way to truly understand the reality of what has happened there is to live it.

Before the panel began, Nico, who now attends Kent State University, showed me some of the pictures he had from when he was on the run from Sudanese government soldiers. He told me how his dad had been killed by the soldiers when he was just a boy, how he walked hundreds of miles with only his bare feet, how he can still remember the sound of the Russian-made airplanes of the Sudanese Air Force that attacked them on a regular basis, and how he was given so little food and firewood at the refugee camps that he could only eat one meal a day, and often had to pool his rations with others.

Then we talked about soccer, and how he thinks American football should be called “handball” since it didn’t involve kicking (I didn’t tell him I was on the football team). We also talked about college and how exams were coming up for both of us. For having such a traumatic childhood, I was struck by how he was still able to seem so normal.

When the panel was over, Nico came up to me with a huge smile on his face. He shook my hand and told me how much he appreciated my help. And that’s when it hit me. By educating others about what’s going on in Sudan, about what Nico had been through, I was promoting social awareness of the situation. And social awareness is absolutely necessary for social action to occur.

So on page 10, we have a whole page dedicated to the conflict in Sudan. Read it. Educate yourself about the conflict. Then educate others. Promote social awareness of the situation so that social action to help Sudan is possible. Do it for Nico.

You want to support the American effort in Afghanistan. After all, the Taliban is also gaining strength in the lawless tribal areas of your country along the border with Afghanistan, which threatens the stability of your own fragile government. And the United States has given you billions of dollars in aid with expectations that you help them fight the Taliban.

But Obama has promised war-weary Americans that he will begin withdrawing troops next summer. And although this move may win him political points at home, you know it will also leave Afghanistan, with its fledgling government and military, vulnerable to a Taliban takeover.

So here’s the million dollar question: Do you really want to make the Taliban your enemy if it’s entirely possible they could be ruling Afghanistan in a few years?

Of course not. But you can’t make it seem like you’re blatantly opposing the United States either – so you walk a tightrope between appeasing U.S. interests and keeping Taliban sympathies.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. (AFP/GETTY)

And this is exactly what the Pakistani president has been doing. As Zalmay Khalilzad, a former ambassador to Afghanistan, said in The New York Times last month: “Many of the supply lines and much of the logistical support for NATO forces in Afghanistan run through Pakistan. Drones striking terrorists and militants in the tribal areas do so with the Pakistani government’s blessing and rely on Pakistani bases. And Pakistani security services have worked with the Central Intelligence Agency to capture hundreds of Qaeda operatives. At the same time, Pakistan gives not only sanctuary but also support to the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani terrorist network.”

The United States knows Pakistan has been playing this double game. During Obama’s recent trip to Asia, he skipped right over Pakistan and, instead, spent three days in India, its archrival. Some foreign policy analysts think this decision signaled a discreet warning to Pakistan to get serious about fighting the Taliban or risk being isolated by the United States. But that’s no way to deal with Pakistan.

First of all, Pakistan’s complete support is crucial to success in Afghanistan. Without it, the Taliban has a sanctuary to retreat to when it’s being beaten in Afghanistan. Secondly, if the United States takes the rug out from under the feet of the fragile Pakistani government, the country – along with its nuclear arsenal – could fall into the hands of Islamic militants.

But all is not lost. If Obama wants to get Pakistan completely behind him, he needs to make it clear that the United States is not about to abandon Afghanistan.  Obama has made significant improvements to the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan by increasing troop numbers, opening up a diplomatic option with the Taliban, and putting Gen. David H. Petraeus in charge of the war effort. However, his 2011 date to begin the drawdown of U.S. troops is premature.

During his presidential election, Obama always said that Afghanistan was a “war of necessity,” and that statement is still true today. The consequences of failure in Afghanistan are too great. Our allies – especially Pakistan – need to know that we’re in this for the long haul. And if that means that we need to have boots on the ground until 2020 or later, then that’s what we’ll have to do.

Republicans want to put the entire responsibility of reducing the nation’s record-setting debt and deficit on the shoulders of the heart and soul of America: the working class. It is a plan that is immoral, unjust and ignorant of the fact that while the middle class continues to shrink, the upper class is experiencing skyrocketing income growth. 

There is, however, an alternative path to fiscal responsibility. And if you love me, or if you want to know what the alternative path is, then keep reading.

With a trillion dollar deficit and a $14 trillion debt, the federal government has two ways it can balance the federal budget: tax increases and spending cuts. 

But Republicans have made it clear that they oppose any and all tax increases – which means the only way they can balance the budget is by cutting government spending.

So what spending do they want to cut?

Kentucky Senator-elect Rand Paul, who belongs to the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party, said he would “reduce federal employees by 10 percent … [and] … probably reduce their wages by 10 percent.”

Since the federal government has about two million civilian employees, this policy would result in the firing of some 200,000 middle-class workers and force another 200,000 to take pay cuts.

But the fact of the matter is that even if the Republicans were able to pass this policy, they still wouldn’t be anywhere near a balanced budget. 

The only way to balance the budget without tax increases is to reform the two biggest contributors to the growth in government spending: Social Security and Medicare. Social Security supports the elderly after retirement, and Medicare provides health insurance to the elderly. Since both programs primarily benefit working class Americans, it would be these Americans who would bear the entire burden of paying off the national debt and deficit.

However, although cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits are necessary, the burden on the working class could be significantly offset by tax increases on the wealthy. And that’s exactly the type of plan that President Obama and the Democrats have in mind.

At the end of this year, the Bush tax cuts will expire, which means tax rates will go back to where they originally were under President Bill Clinton – i.e. the last time this nation had a balanced budget. This would save some $3 trillion over the next 10 years.

But Obama understands that it’s probably not the best idea to increase taxes during an economic downturn, so he has proposed to make permanent the tax cuts for the 95 percent of Americans making less than $250,000.

As for the five percent of Americans making more than that amount, the top two tax rates would return to where they were in the late 1990s; the 35 percent rate would return to 39.6 percent, and the 33 percent rate would return to 36 percent.

Now those aren’t exactly what I would call job-killing increases, especially when you consider that from 1980 to 2005, four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest one percent of Americans. 

But even though this plan would still save roughly $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years, the Republicans are having none of it. Virginia Republican Congressman Eric Cantor, who is expected to become House Majority Leader next year, said these modest tax increases would hurt the “job-creators.” 

Ah, yes. Protecting the “job-creators” would be much less harmful to the economy than firing 200,000 middle-class workers and forcing another 200,000 to take pay cuts.

But before I dive into the specifics of Obama’s health care reform policy, it’s interesting to note that the most common complaint I hear about health care isn’t about the policy itself but about the need for reform in general. The question many often put forth to me is, “Why do we need universal health insurance when anyone, insured or not, can receive emergency room health care?”

And the answer to that is simple: because emergency room care can cost a ton. And if you don’t have insurance, it can be all but impossible to pay off an emergency room medical bill. When that happens, as it often does, hospitals have to increase their costs all around to make up the difference which, in turn, increases the cost of health insurance for all of us. That’s one of the main reasons why health care costs are increasing faster than inflation and the growth in Americans’ income. And that’s exactly what Americans need to understand: universal health insurance isn’t the goal of health care reform. Rather, it’s a means by which to achieve the real goal of reform, which is controlling costs. 

Universal health insurance helps to control costs by making sure everyone is contributing to a system from which they will likely benefit sooner or later. But in order to implement universal health insurance, Obama didn’t institute a “government takeover” of the health care industry. Rather, he simply made three main tweaks to make the private health insurance sector work better. 

First, Obama’s health insurance reform includes a mandate that health insurers not deny coverage to Americans with pre-existing health conditions. These are the people who are most likely to need insurance, so insurers often consider them a financial burden. At the same time, in order to prevent only sick Americans from buying health insurance, which would bankrupt the insurance industry, Obama’s reform policy also includes an individual mandate. This mandate requires all Americans – with few exceptions – to purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty. And finally, since not all Americans can afford health insurance, Obama’s policy creates a system of government subsidies for lower and middle-class Americans to help them buy insurance. While most Americans probably agree that these subsidies are necessary, what’s controversial is where the money for the subsidies should come from.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that this policy is far from perfect. Although it will help reduce the deficit and insure millions more Americans, it still probably won’t do enough to control costs. It also includes a huge amount of regulations, and although a lot of them are pretty helpful, like allowing children to remain on their parents’ insurance plan up to age 26, I’m sure there are some that aren’t so great. 

But it’s a good start. And Republicans who are calling for the repeal of Obama’s health care law are irresponsible and ignorant of the problems Americans face.

However, the intense Republican opposition to health care reform is indicative of a deeper issue. Back in 1993, in response to President Clinton’s health care reform proposal, Republican senators put forth an alternative proposal that mirrored much of what is contained in Obama’s policy, including an individual mandate. This ideological transformation over the past 17 years reflects how Republicans have become increasingly conservative while Democrats – like the majority of Americans – are more moderate than ever.

Of course, I’m talking about Rob Portman and John Kasich, the Republican candidates for Ohio senator and governor, respectively. Portman was Bush’s trade representative for a few years before appointed head of the budget office, where he jumped ship in 2007 right before the Great Recession hit. Kasich spent eight years at Lehman Brothers, one of the first financial companies to go down in the financial crisis. 

So what is it that makes Ohioans think these two will fare any better than Bush-era Republicans?

Don’t be fooled, Ohio. The Republican Party hasn’t changed a bit. Kasich, who used to have a show on Fox News, a conservative news outlet, and occasionally guest hosted for  conservative talk show host Bill O’Reilly on “The O’Reilly Factor,” is your typical carbon-copy conservative. And Portman is still pushing for privatizing Social Security just as Bush and company tried – and failed – to do in 2006. Portman’s privatization plan, however, comes with an absurd twist. In addition to allowing young Americans to take a small share of their Social Security taxes to set up personal accounts, he would have the government bail out the accounts if they made bad investments.

It doesn’t take a genius to realize the moral hazard this policy would create. As Matthew Yglesias said, “If the government guaranteed to bail you out in the case of losses, then investors would make riskier investments and the number of people who need bailing out would rise.” I guess fiscal prudence is thrown out the window on the campaign trail.

Now I’m not saying that the Democratic candidates are perfect. Both Ted Strickland, whose running for reelection for governor, and Lee Fisher, who is the Democratic nominee for senator, have their flaws. But Strickland must be given time to clean up the mess made by Republicans – including former Republican governor Bob Taft, who the Washington Post called the least popular governor in the history of Ohio.

That’s why it’s imperative for Democrats to make it out to the voting booth on Nov. 2. Otherwise, we may end up with a new least popular governor in four years.

So here’s the million dollar question: Is race a legitimate reason to support a presidential candidate?

For African-Americans, it absolutely is. Two studies released last week make it clear that roughly 40 years after the civil rights movement, racism and segregation are still embedded in this nation’s social institutions, from our education system to our criminal justice system to even our financial system.

According to a study published in the review Daedalus, African-Americans are disproportionately caught in a destructive cycle of poverty and prison. The authors of the study, a group of leading criminologists, found that the percentage of black high school dropouts who have been incarcerated has increased from 10 percent in 1980 to 37 percent in 2008. They also found that 70 percent of black male high school dropouts are unemployed. Those are the kind of unemployment numbers you’d expect to see in a third world country, not the United States.

Another study published in the American Sociological Review shows how racism played a key role in the financial crisis. By analyzing the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, the authors found that banks engaged in predatory practices – which typically refers to loans that carry unreasonable fees, interest rates and payment requirements – more often with minorities, especially African-Americans. In fact, even African-Americans with similar credit profiles and down-payment ratios to white borrowers were more likely to receive subprime loans, according to the study. As a result, foreclosures are hitting African-American communities across the nation much harder than white neighborhoods. 

What both of these studies highlight is how racism and segregation are undermining one of the defining aspects of American society: social mobility. 

If you’re not sure what social mobility means, think of the phrase “rags to riches.” Most Americans probably agree that demographic characteristics like gender, race, religion or sexual orientation shouldn’t restrict an individual’s ability to move up the social ladder. But more than 200 years of slavery and Jim Crow laws seem to have left an ugly stain on many of our social institutions. As a result, many minorities – especially African-Americans – still face a number of social barriers…which brings us back to the 2008 presidential election.

With these social barriers in mind, the idea of an African-American president represents the ultimate in social mobility for African-Americans. A vote for Obama, therefore, was a vote for social progress. That’s just as legitimate of a reason – if not more so – as voting for Obama because you support his policy on taxes, terrorism or abortion. 

Unfortunately, however, Obama’s climb up the social ladder wasn’t the standard. It was the exception. The above studies show that the United States still has a long way to go to achieve social equality for all its citizens. So as Obama heads into the second half of his first term, he should make social mobility a top priority. As one of the studies pointed out, he can start by amending the U.S. Civil Rights Act to create mechanisms that would uncover discrimination and penalize those who discriminated against minority borrowers.

What drove this transition? Competition.

Throughout that period, this nation faced some type of challenge that transcended political differences and motivated Americans to work, in one way or another, towards a common goal. During the 1930s, the challenge was nation-wide poverty brought about by the Great Depression. In the first half of the 1940s, the challenge was fascism and the Axis Powers of World War II. Then came the Cold War and the communist threat, which lasted until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

While Americans certainly had their differences throughout those 60 years, the challenges we faced seemed to have a sobering effect on our national political discourse. They forced us to focus our attention on whatever existential challenge the nation faced at the time, which minimized the ideological differences between liberals and conservatives. And within this moderated political spectrum, compromise was much easier to achieve, so America progressed and prospered.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, America has been a country without a cause. Americans are no longer unified by an overarching goal. As a result, American society is becoming increasingly complacent and fractured. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our education and health care systems are lagging behind those of other advanced countries. And the ideological differences between liberals and conservatives are sharper and more extreme than ever before. So divided is American society, in fact, that there almost seems to be two Americas. 

One of the unfortunate consequences of our divided society has been two decades of government gridlock. Politics has become a zero-sum game between Democrats and Republicans. Bipartisanship is all but extinct, and the filibuster – once used only sparingly – is now used more than ever.

But perhaps the most disturbing development has been the gradual shrinking of the middle class. The recent recession, which has accelerated this decline, has also stoked a sense of economic insecurity among Americans, which has slowly evolved into social insecurity and, ultimately, fear. 

Unfortunately, some far-right conservative groups, particularly the Tea Party movement, have taken advantage of these fears for the sole purpose of gaining political support. If these groups continue to take advantage of the vulnerable state of American society, its fractured and fragile fabric could be completely torn apart. America will then face decades of economic, political and social stagnation while countries like China, India and Brazil take the lead on the global stage.

It is of the utmost importance, therefore, to find a cause that can reunite American society and save the middle class. This should be the focus of President Barack Obama’s next two years in office, especially if Republicans take over control of Congress after the upcoming midterm elections, which would all but prevent Obama from achieving any more of his domestic or foreign policy goals. 

During his presidential campaign, Obama seemed to strike a chord with many Americans, particularly the young and the middle class. His message impassioned and mobilized a huge amount of Americans and resulted in one of the largest Election Day turnouts in the nation’s history. Although he was unable to maintain this momentum, he can still try to figure out what it was about his message that sparked such an emotional response, because that was the closest thing to a “cause” that this country has had in the past two decades.

In the remix of his earth-shaking summer jam “Power,” the abomination of Obama’s nation drops a quick little line of epic diplomatic proportions: “Keep our troops out of Iran.”

But will Obeezy listen to Yeezy?

Obama has made it clear that a nuclear Iran is “unacceptable” and continually insists that “all options are on the table” – which is diplomatic speak for “we’ll kick your ass if we have to.” And as Iran inches closer to having the capability to produce a nuclear weapon – which most experts say could happen in about a year – the drumbeat for a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is getting louder.

However, a military strike on Iran would cause more violence and instability than would simply allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon. So Obama should explicitly take the military option off the table and focus solely on diplomacy. Even if diplomacy fails and Iran eventually gets a nuke, deterrence – or the notion that the U.S. nuclear arsenal could obliterate any state – will prevent Iran from ever using it on us or any of our allies.

That isn’t to say that a nuclear Iran wouldn’t be dangerous. With the cover of a nuclear arsenal, Iran’s proxies, which it uses to protect its interests and promote its influence throughout the Middle East, could become more aggressive. Hezbollah and Hamas could attack Israel, undermine peace negotiations with Palestine, and destabilize the fragile political situation in Lebanon. Shiite militias in Iraq could plunge the country back into the same sectarian violence that almost led to civil war in 2007. Shiites from Bahrain to Yemen could cause political instability with Iranian backing. And Iran might even try to challenge U.S. naval power in the Persian Gulf, which would affect global oil markets.

However, while the failure of diplomacy may bring about these tragic consequences, a successful military strike would undoubtedly do so. Not to mention that another U.S. attack on a Muslim country would embolden support for Islamic extremists. And, of course, the problem still wouldn’t be solved. In fact, it would probably only take about three to five years before Iran would resume its nuclear program with a renewed vigor and increased domestic – and possibly international – support. At that point, you can forget about diplomacy.

But even if Obama takes the military option off the table and diplomacy still fails in the short run, it could still work in the long run. When the United States acts threateningly towards Iran, it increases Iranian support for hard liners like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For example, in 2005, Iranians ousted reformist President Mohammad Khatami in favor of Ahmadinejad after President George W. Bush labeled Iran an “axis of evil” and threatened to invade. But if Obama took a less confrontational approach towards Iran, it would decrease support for hard liners and possibly open up an opportunity for a more moderate leader to come to power who would be more willing to negotiate. 

At the same time, a less confrontational approach towards Iran would also eliminate many of the reasons why Iran would want nuclear weapons in the first place. Surrounded by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s understandable why Iran would want nuclear weapons – especially during the Bush years. But if Obama took the military option off the table, Iran might feel more secure and be more willing to give up its suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons. Obama could also amend the Nuclear Posture Review to ensure that the United States would never use a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear Iran – a possibility that the current NPR leaves open.

The only way to achieve peace with Iran is through diplomacy. Obama will likely try to restart negotiations with Iran sometime next month. If he takes Kanye’s (and my) advice, he could have this whole problem solved before November 16 – which, incidentally, also happens to be the day Kanye drops his new CD.

That all lasted until Barack Obama was elected president…

I’m kidding, of course. But I’m sure Obama must miss his glory days too. He arrived at the White House while riding on a massive amount of popular support. Now his approval rating is less than 50 percent. So where did all his support go?

To be honest, it’s no surprise that Obama’s poll numbers have taken a hit. I think the only president whose poll numbers didn’t go down after two years was William Henry Harrison. (Too soon!)

But what’s alarming is why his ratings have gone down. 

There are a lot of really good reasons to disagree with Obama’s policies. Maybe you don’t like his stance on taxes, or the economy, or health care, or foreign policy, or all of the above. But unfortunately, the more I talk to people, and the more I read the newspaper, and the more I trove around the dirty basement of the Internet in the comment section of blogs and YouTube videos, the more I realize that what is really hurting Obama’s approval ratings is irrational fear. 

You all know what I’m talking about. And if you don’t, you’re probably guilty. Just over this past weekend, for example, a man told me that he honestly believed Obama wanted to reform health care so that, if you couldn’t afford a certain medication or procedure, the government would not let you get it – even if your life depended on it. What was even scarier about this belief was that it came from an educated, upper-class family man. 

Here’s another example: a couple weeks ago, one of my friends admitted in innocent, wide-eyed sincerity that he heard Obama wanted to get rid of credit cards and, instead, give everyone a certain amount of money to spend based on their job.

Now I’m sure every president has been affected at least a little bit by the rumor mill, but it seems to be different for Obama. A recent Pew Research Survey found that 12 percent of Americans believe the rumor that Obama is Muslim. A similar percentage believes the rumor that he was not born in the United States.

How is this nation supposed to have a legitimate political conversation when people think the president is a communist Muslim foreigner who wants to kill your grandma? 

Here’s the answer: it can’t. 

I’m not sure exactly where this fear is stemming from, although I could probably take a couple guesses. But I won’t get into that now. Instead, I want to point out the dangers of a society that lives in fear. Fear fogs the mind, confuses the conscience, and can make a person violate the values that he or she holds most dear. Fear is also reflexive. People fear things they don’t know that much about.

Events from this past summer show that this irrational fear of Obama is oozing into other parts of society. The Arizona immigration law revealed Americans’ fear of immigrants. The overturning of Proposition 8 in California revealed our fear of homosexuals. And the infamous “Ground Zero Mosque” has revealed our fear of Muslims. 

But a pretty famous American once said that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Obama chose to give his speech in Parma. If you’re from Cleveland, you’ve definitely heard of Parma. It’s the butt of every other joke around here. Even C-town legend Drew Carey once said that Parma is what Clevelanders make fun of while the rest of the country makes fun of Cleveland, or something along those lines. 

But Parma’s full of blue-collar working-class Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, which makes it a perfect spot for Obama to unveil some heavy duty economic plans and drum up some support for his fellow Democrats ahead of what’s probably going to be a pretty rough election season. 

Obama’s speech made it clear that he’s got his eyes set on both the short-term goal of tackling unemployment and the long-term goal of reducing the debt and the deficit. He talked about how he wants to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for most Americans while letting the tax cuts for the very rich expire. He also talked about his small-business bill that includes ideas that typically have strong Republican and business support, while also underlining his commitment to fiscal responsibility by proposing to freeze all discretionary spending unrelated to national security for the next three years. 

Now all of those ideas are fine and dandy, but here’s my concern: this nation will eventually find its way out of this economic mess. But if the past is any indicator of the future, I guarantee there’s going to be at least one recession – probably more – before I retire.

As president, Obama has the unique opportunity to decide how this nation will confront future recessions. We definitely don’t want to be caught with our pants around our ankles again like we were this time. So the way I see it, there are two approaches he can take. 

The first is prevention, which would likely involve a number of different laws and regulations designed at combating the factors that cause recessions. But I’m skeptical of this approach. There are simply too many potential causes of recessions that it’s all but impossible to try to prevent them all. In fact, lax financial regulation, special interests, big money lobbying and loopholes will probably keep us from even being able to prevent the same recession from happening twice. Therefore, instead of prevention, a better approach would be to accept the inevitability of recessions and focus on preparation by setting up programs and institutions that will better help us to “weather the storm.” 

One simple idea is to tie unemployment benefits to the unemployment rate so that if and when unemployment increases and jobs become harder to find, benefits for the unemployed are automatically extended. Another idea is to have a program that automatically provides federal financial assistance to state governments which, unlike the federal government, can’t deficit spend their way out of recessions and, therefore, have to make painful cuts in education, health care and other services. 

A third idea is to adopt a program the Germans like to call “Kurzarbeit,” or “short work.” This program offers government incentives to companies to reduce worker hours rather than lay off people during hard times and partially compensates workers for lost wages – and it has played a major role in Germany’s impressive economic rebound.

When dealing with an economic downturn, time is of the absolute essence. The sooner you respond, the more effective your measures will be, and the quicker you’ll recover. All of the above measures would give this country the tools it needs to quickly and effectively combat future recessions. They would also reduce the need for big, pork-filled stimulus packages that take forever to pass and even longer to implement. And with an American version of “Kurzarbeit,” we could start saving money now to prepare for the future – now that’s fiscal responsibility.

But will Obama listen to me? Negative. Will anyone listen to me? Probably not. But such is the life of a world news editor of an award-winning weekly college newspaper.

I should’ve just been a copy editor.

Everyone – from the Arabs and Israelis to the U.S., U.N. and EU – agree that the two-state solution, or the creation of a separate Palestinian state made up of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, is the only viable solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But it’s those sticky “final status” issues – settlements, Jerusalem, borders, security and refugees – that have killed virtually every peace process since 1979.

And that’s exactly what Obama has to realize: this isn’t just a peace process. It’s a political game. And more than 60 years of violence have taken a psychological toll on the people of the Holy Land. So Obama’s going to have to crack some skulls and bust some balls – diplomatically speaking, of course – in order to knock some sense into the Israeli and Palestinian leadership. And he’s going to have to start with the issue of Israeli settlements.

On Sept. 26, Israel’s moratorium on settlement construction will expire, and Israel has shown no interest in extending it. Palestinian leaders, meanwhile, have warned that if construction continues, peace talks will end. But Israel has always argued that [most] of its settlements in the West Bank would eventually be swapped for an equal amount of land to Palestine.

So before that deadline expires, Obama needs to force the leaders to figure out exactly which settlements will be swapped, presumably those closest to the border with Israel. As for the rest of the settlements, especially those deep inside the West Bank and around East Jerusalem, they are going to have to be dismantled just as the settlements in Gaza were in 2005. It’s not going to be pretty, but it has to be done. After all, the settlements are a violation of international law.

Linked to the settlement issue is the status of Jerusalem. Many Israeli conservatives – including Prime Minister Netanyahu – insist that the city has to remain the “eternal and undivided” capital of Israel. But Palestinians want to make the predominately Arab east Jerusalem the capital of their Palestinian state, and their request should be honored.

Next on the list should be the issue of Israeli security. This is Israel’s primary concern. The more secure Israel feels, the more likely it will accept a peace deal. Therefore, Israel’s demands that it station Israeli troops on the borders of Jordan and Egypt to prevent weapons smuggling into Palestine should be honored, as should its demand that Palestine not have a national army.

With the issues of settlements, Jerusalem and security settled, the issue of borders would fall into place. The only issue remaining, therefore, would be the status of Palestinian refugees. Since 1948, violence has driven some three to four million Arabs from Israel. Arab leaders want Israel to recognize the refugees’ right of return – but that’s not going to happen. Such a decision would defeat the entire purpose of a two-state solution. Instead, financial compensation and citizenship to Palestine or another Arab country will have to suffice.

Speaking of financial compensation, recent articles in Time magazine and The New York Times have suggested that the one thing most Israelis and Palestinians may value more than peace is prosperity. When Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 and Jordan with Israel in 1994, all three states received billions of dollars in economic aid from the United States. So it should be in this case.

While six decades of violence may have made Israelis and Palestinians a little loony, it’s also made them stubbornly strong. So if peace talks fail and they have to endure another 60 years of intermittent violence, they can. And they will.

However, in the partially paraphrased words of Bill Clinton, if Obama is serious about peace, all he has to do is one thing: remind the Israeli and Palestinian leaders who the [expletive that rhymes with “sucking”] superpower is here.

So grab that big stick and swing away, Barry. Swing away.

After college, he landed a job as a delivery man for a company that sold office furniture. Real cool, right? Wrong. But the company had a chair it dubbed “the ugly chair.” It was old, ugly, and no one could sell it. So one day my dad bet the sales team that he could sell  it. And he did. 

The next day, he was moved to the sales team. 

Point number one: I may get my good looks from my mom, but my killer work ethic definitely comes from my dad.

Point number two: Immigrants are the bedrock upon which this country was built. The blue-collar attitude they first brought to this country continues to spin the wheels of American industry even today. 

But while most Americans only have to trace their family lineages back a few generations to find relatives that made that first trip to Ellis Island, antipathy towards immigrants has always been present in American society. This antipathy has fed a persistent effort to keep our borders closed. Every year, tons of money and resources are wasted on policing our borders and building walls to keep illegal immigrants out. And yet every year, more illegal immigrants pour into this country. 

The controversial legislation recently passed by Arizona, which gives police the power to detain anyone they think might be an illegal immigrant, has thrust the issue of immigration back into the political spotlight. Hopefully, the Obama administration will finally put an end to this wasteful and ineffectual policy. But what policy can be used instead?

In 1984, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial that put forth the simplest, cheapest, and most effective way to deal with illegal immigration. It read, “If Washington still wants to ‘do something’ about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders.”

The United States can complement this policy by addressing the social factors that lead people to immigrate to the United States in the first place. Mexico, for example, is plagued by gang violence, drug trafficking and a lack of economic opportunities. Open borders would free up resources to combat drug trafficking. Strengthening U.S.-Mexican political ties and increasing economic integration would also help.

This type of policy would treat immigration not as a single issue but as part of a bigger picture. It would uphold and respect human rights and embrace immigration as a proud and essential part of American society. And finally, it would improve the welfare of our neighbors, which would result in a more peaceful and prosperous regional community.

However, if the factors that lead to intrastate conflict could be identified, then perhaps future conflicts could be prevented and current conflicts could be brought to a peaceful end. Religious and ethnic factors are often cited as causes, as they are involved in many of the world’s most intense intrastate conflicts. But while these factors no doubt play a role in intrastate conflict, they function more like facilitators of conflict rather than causes of it.

Instead, the real cause of intrastate conflict is related to the failure of a state’s power structure. The power structure of a state determines how and to whom political power is distributed. For example, in a dictatorship, power is centralized in the hands of a dictator. In a democracy, power is given to elected officials and usually divided among the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

To understand how failures in a state’s power structure can lead to conflict, the concept of power must be viewed as an economic good that’s governed by the laws of supply and demand. As long as the power structure can keep the balance of the supply and demand of power at equilibrium, peace can be maintained. But with only a limited supply of power available, if demand for power exceeds supply, then empirical observations suggest the probability of intrastate conflict substantially increases.

At times, the power structure of a state is divided along religious or ethnic lines. In Sudan, for example, a disproportionate amount of power resides with the predominately Muslim north. This unequal balance in the power structure led the predominately Christian south to rebel against the government in 1983, resulting in a civil war that lasted until 2005 – although violence and killings still continue today.

However, even power structures that are not divided along religious or ethnic lines are prone to intrastate violence. For example, in Somalia – home to perhaps the most violent conflict in the world – practically everyone is ethnically Somali and religiously Sunni Islam – but the power structure of the country is clan based, and clan rivalries are what plunged the state into civil war in 1991.

The reason, therefore, that many assume that intrastate conflict is caused by religious or ethnic differences is because the power structures of many states are divided along religious or ethnic lines. But the real cause of conflict is the failure of these power structures to maintain an equilibrium between the demand and supply of power, which then results in disproportionate balances of power. This leads groups that are marginalized to rebel against the government, resulting in civil war or, at the very least, intrastate conflict.

It’s obvious that Tea Partiers think there are a lot of problems with the country today. The debt, deficit, taxes, stimulus and health care reform all received their fair share of criticism at the rally. And according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, while 46 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy, that number jumps to 91 percent among Tea Party supporters. 

But amid all the criticism and complaining, what I didn’t hear at last Thursday’s rally were solutions. In fact, the Tea Party in general seems to be completely lacking in the solutions department, which is a shame because the problems they’re trying to highlight are some of the biggest issues facing the country today. 

With the economy in the pits and the deficit and debt at record levels, the Tea Party has the opportunity to bring a lot of fresh ideas to the table. But “fiscal responsibility” and “limited government” aren’t policies – they’re principles. And it seems as though the Tea Party is quite content on “Easy Street,” playing the role of Monday morning quarterback and criticizing the policies of both Democrats and Republicans alike.

But it takes a lot of guts to seriously take part in the political arena, particularly because putting forth a policy automatically makes you vulnerable to criticism. Perhaps leaders of the Tea Party have seen the way its members have torn up other government policies and are afraid to submit any of its own?

If that’s the case, then the Tea Party will remain nothing but a circus act that gives out free hot dogs and American flags on Tax Day. And you can be sure that as soon as the economy recovers, it will fade into the pages of history, just as so many other fringe political groups have before it.

Of course, it doesn’t have to be that way. Many Americans support the Tea Party’s principles of fiscal responsibility and limited government. If the Tea Party were to simply apply those principles to the way it confronts the problems facing the country, it could probably come up with a pretty solid platform.

So pay attention to what I’m about to say, Tea Partiers, because you’re going to have to make an important decision very soon. Your party is currently stuck at a fork in the road. One path leads to certain irrelevance. The other has no guarantees of success, but definitely has a lot more potential. According to the same poll mentioned above, Tea Party members are more educated than the average American, so you’re completely capable of making the right choice. You’re also capable of coming up with a policy or two.

The goal of today’s Tea Party is to promote a grassroots effort that gives a voice to the common person that is sick of high taxes and wasteful spending. Even though that’s a message that probably resonates with many ordinary Americans, people often identify the Tea Party as a conservative political movement.

But the words “conservative” and “liberal” should be completely removed from the country’s political dialogue. Why? Because they prevent Americans from thinking for themselves.

Often times, when a person labels himself as a “liberal” or “conservative,” it’s because a few of his or her most important views correspond with the stance of a certain ideology. For example, pro-life supporters often identify themselves as conservative, while supporters of gay marriage usually identify themselves as liberal.

What ends up happening, however, is that a person’s ideology will then determine the rest of his or her political views. The pro-life supporter who labels himself a conservative will automatically adopt the rest of the conservative platform.

What’s even worse is that since Americans identify the conservative ideology with the Republican Party and the liberal ideology with the Democratic Party, ideology also often determines who Americans vote for.

Furthermore, the ideologies of liberalism and conservatism in the United States are significantly inconsistent. How can conservatives be pro-life while supporting the death penalty, or advocate for small government while pushing for massive armed forces? And how can liberals argue for “freedom of choice” in the abortion and gay marriage debates and yet continually deny Americans the right to own a gun?

It’s almost as if the term “liberal” and “conservative” are nothing more than labels for arbitrary combinations of policy views.

So here’s a word of advice: don’t let yourself be defined by ideology. Instead, confront each issue individually and try to come up with a stance that’s consistent with your own principles.

The Tea Party will focus primarily on economic issues, specifically taxes and government spending. It will apply a consistent set of principles to these issues to derive its policy positions.

Even if its principles are different than yours, keep an open mind and remember that your principles are not set in stone but are constantly evolving – especially while you’re in college.

And whatever you do, don’t let the labels of “conservative” or “liberal” keep you from experiencing an opportunity to define yourself.

If I’ve lost you already, here’s a hypothetical example to illustrate what I mean: imagine a representative who must choose between two bills. One would bring 100 new jobs to a neighboring district. Another would bring 50 new jobs to his own district. Which would better promote the general welfare of the country? The former bill, of course. But since the representative was only elected by the members in his district, it’s easy to see how he would probably place their interests above the interests of the rest of the nation and choose the second bill.

Unfortunately, this happens all too often in D.C. For example, despite the fact that solar power from Arizona and wind power from the Dakotas could provide the entire country with renewable electricity, senators from northeastern states have opposed proposals to build a national power grid that would make it possible to export that energy to other states that need it. Why? To protect their own local energy suppliers.

Then there’s the billions of dollars that could be put towards education, lowering taxes or paying off the debt, but are instead used to build more jets, aircraft carriers or missiles that we won’t need, all for the purpose of providing a few jobs for a district or two.

And don’t forget about the hundreds of “pork barrel” projects passed by Congress each year that result in thousand-page bills – like the health reform bill or last year’s stimulus bill – and billions of wasted dollars.

So is there any way we can make the federal government more efficient? Here’s a simple solution: remove the arbitrary district lines that divide the country. These districts not only make it easier for special interests to invade public policy, but also result in gerrymandering – a process that divides districts politically so they favor one party or another.

Instead, citizens should vote for political parties. Here’s how this would work: if a party won 20 percent of the national vote, it would be awarded 20 percent of the seats in the House of Representatives. Party leaders would determine who would hold these seats, which would make parties more ideologically disciplined. Republicans would probably promote more conservative policies, while Democrats would promote more liberal policies. This would also likely result in the creation of a third or fourth party that would embrace more moderate policies.

Without specific districts to cater to, parties would have to develop and carry out a plan that would benefit all of their supporters no matter where they are – which would result in a greater promotion of the public good.

In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington warned against the threat of political parties. But parties are here to stay. It’s time that we embrace them.

For the next eight to 12 months, that will be the last tweet on Lil Wayne’s Twitter account. The rapper was sent to the slammer a couple weeks ago after he “got stopped by a lady cop” who found a loaded .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol in his tour bus. Unfortunately for Weezy, the incident took place in New York, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States. But what makes Wayne’s tweet so fitting is that only a few days earlier, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, a case that will decide whether state and local gun control laws violate the Second Amendment.

So just how reasonable are gun control laws? Some states, including New York, only recognize handgun licenses that are acquired in that particular state. That means even if you obtain a license to own a handgun in Ohio, you can still be arrested if you bring it to New York. And even if you tried to apply for a separate New York license – a process that can take up to six months to complete – you still wouldn’t be able to get one because New York only gives licenses to full-time New York residents.

But the restrictions don’t stop there. Texas, Florida and Illinois all prohibit individuals from openly carrying guns. And in California, an individual can carry a gun, but there’s a catch – it can’t be loaded. So despite the fact that the Constitution guarantees the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, many states restrict the vicinity in which an individual can exercise that right to only the privacy of one’s own home. In doing so, they’ve made it practically illegal to carry a gun.

Now Lil Wayne is no Aristotle, but he’s right to infer that there’s really no reason behind most of these gun laws. Yes, guns are designed with the specific purpose of injuring and killing. But the simple possession of a gun causes no direct injury to others and should, therefore, not be criminalized. And while some assume that the use of a gun is inherently bad, the primary function of a gun is self-defense. Put simply, guns are life-savers.

Of course, the majority of people don’t want criminals or drug abusers to have access to guns, but federal law already takes care of that. It’s state and local gun control laws that are preventing law-abiding civilians from exercising their Second Amendment right. Luckily, the conservative wing of the Supreme Court should take care of that.

If not, here’s some food for thought. Empirical evidence has shown that when something is outlawed (i.e. marijuana or alcohol during the Prohibition), criminals still find a way of getting their hands on it. So the more restrictions that are put on acquiring and carrying guns, the more society will become a place where the only people carrying guns are criminals.

Remember the Fort Hood shootings back in November? The military base in Texas banned individuals from carrying guns on its premises. The result: one criminal with a gun, 13 dead and 30 wounded.

Perhaps society would be safer with less gun control laws. I know of at least one person that would agree with me.