The Obama administration has struggled to position itself during the Arab Spring and its aftermath. Some would say we waited too long to voice our support for the Egyptian protestors. Even more people would say our support for the Bahraini government during that country’s protest period transparently revealed the U.S.’s protection of our economic and diplomatic interests, despite whatever grand pro-democracy ideology we might want to articulate. Call it prudence, call it lack of clarity, the fact is that the U.S. has conspicuously lacked courage when it comes to resolving our conflicting visions and pragmatic interests in the Middle East. It’s that untenable balancing act that a U.N. General Assembly vote on Palestine would disrupt. Approval for Palestine as a state would only expose and formalize the marginal role the U.S. now plays in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, a role of our own making.

Aaron David Miller, Middle East advisor to six administrations, emphasizes in his book The Much Too Promised Land that if the U.S. is to have any meaningful impact on this conflict it must start with full ownership and commitment on the part of the American president. Regardless of whether American voters preferred Clinton’s hands-on negotiation or Bush’s intransigent pro-Israel stance, Obama’s relative passivity suffers by comparison. At this point, neither Israelis nor Palestinians trust the U.S. as an honest broker for the peace process.

Regardless of whether the U.S. is able to enact a procedural delay or convince the Palestinians to hold off on proposing the vote, our flat-footedness on this issue only reinforces a narrative of weakness. Parallel to countless domestic policy frustrations, our foreign policy on this issue has deferred to the conflicting parties, hoping to diligently craft a masterwork of compromise behind the scenes, ultimately appearing complacent and untrustworthy to all sides.

President Obama’s promise to veto a Palestinian petition for membership in the United Nations further undermines American credibility in the Middle East. However, Obama today has little room to maneuver. It is regrettable that Mahmoud Abbas will force his potentially strongest ally into a corner.

The precarious state of the American economy makes it easier for the president’s challengers not only to undermine his fiscal strategies but also his policies in general. Obama’s main concern is the economy, and his reelection will depend on whether he is perceived to have acted competently in dealing with it. In the meantime the political environment makes it extremely risky to upset the status quo in other fields. If the economy is fixed, then the Obama administration will have the confidence to act more decisively. Until then there will be an aversion to progressive policies.

The disparate US government reactions toward the counter-revolutions in Bahrain, Libya and Egypt, for example, have been text-book in relation to the conventional interests at stake. Oppose the repression in Libya (madman in charge of a state with little strategic value), tentatively watch the one in Egypt (location of the Suez Canal), and ignore the one in Bahrain (home of the US 5^th Fleet). Should the question of Palestinian membership in the UN come up in the Security Council, it will be handled in the same way, conventionally.

Perhaps Abbas believes that Obama will not win a second term, and feels that Palestine has a zero chance of recognition with a Republican administration.  Perhaps Abbas feels he needs to do something historic before his own time runs out. What is certain is that the Obama administration could have helped the Palestinian cause in a second term. Three quarters of the way through an embattled first term, only votes for reelection matter. The timing of this anticipated Palestinian move at the UN could not be worse for Palestinians.

“I don’t want to support people who don’t take care of themselves,” barks my
co-worker. Yes, my jaw drops as soon as those words dart out of her mouth. No
universal health coverage? Especially, for a developed nation … like the United
States? And probably for the one that considers itself “the most developed?”

We have to first turn our attention towards the economic reality in our own
backyard. We have been through what is now called “The Great Recession.” Although
economists say the recession is over and we are on a journey towards recovery,
its path of destruction tells otherwise. In my neighborhood alone we lost
several mom-and-pop shops that have been a staple in my community – sort of our
own historical landmark. For months restaurants have been advertising
“recession sale” meals, clothing stores have the words “C-L-E-A-R-A-N-C-E”
plastered throughout their windows, and the shelves at my local Associated
Supermarket are nearly bare.

Are we really on this journey towards recovery together? According to the 2010
Census Survey, the poverty level was considered to be $11,139 for a single person and $22,314 for a family of four. However, if you live in an urban area, it’s impossible to
support yourself or even an entire family on such a low income level. Plain and
simple, you cannot survive, let alone even think about health coverage.

Thanks to The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPACA], signed by President Obama, young adults have been able to cling onto the healthcare plan of their parents until the age of 26; but, for the estimated 14 million currently unemployed, Medicaid becomes their safety net. The now jobless entrepreneurs that once lighted the streets on my block rely on the aid of the government to help their families through this hard economic time. Unfortunately, the Republican presidential candidates have all promised to launch a repeal of the PPACA.

So, is universal healthcare a democratic right? It’s certainly a human right. And
don’t democratic governments protect human rights? Universal access to
healthcare should be a right, not a privilege, in a democratic government, and
indisputably in a developed nation, such as our own. As for my co-worker, there
may come a time where she will search for that safety net, and it’s up to us to
make sure it remains secure in the future.

Feeling a little glum about Barack Obama’s string of recent scandals? Tired of the Republican presidential candidates’ general disdain for the use of facts? Sorry Michelle, I know you were hoping, but the HPV vaccination doesn’t actually cause mental retardation. And Rick, I’m sure those wild fires have NOTHING to do with global warming. Do you feel that Barack Obama and the Republican candidates are lacking the results, platform, or intelligence you are looking for? Then don’t vote Republican or Democrat, vote for someone else. There are other options and it really is that simple!

Voting for a candidate that doesn’t represent either the Democrat or Republican Parties has been happening in America since the mid-nineteenth century. Now you too could give it a try! Just look at these impressive results: In 1912 as a candidate for the Progressive Party, Theodore Roosevelt garnered a second place finish with 27.40 percent of the popular vote after Woodrow Wilson and the Democratic Party.  George Wallace, candidate for the American Independent Party, came away with 13.53 percent of the popular vote in the 1968 election. And think back not so long ago to the nineties. Ross Perot was the candidate for the Independent Party in 1992 and the Reform Party in 1996, winning 18.91 and 8.40 percent of the popular vote respectively.

Exciting options are on the table for 2012! Stewart Alexander, nominee of the Peace and Freedom and Socialist Parties is available for all of you progressives out there who want to see your federal government actually work for you. Among other fabulous platform promises, Alexander wants to develop a mass transportation system, a single payer healthcare system, and childcare for working families. For those of you who are big on personal freedoms but can’t stand government intervention, how about Roger Gary, candidate for the Libertarian Party? He too has some pretty appealing platform promises like ending the war in Iraq and putting a stop to federal bailouts for the financial sector and big business. Americans Elect has an entirely new way of thinking about how to vote for President. Voters will be matched with candidates based on the issues, not party affiliation. The winning candidate from the Americans Elect primary elections will then be put on the ballot in all 50 states. Want additional options? No problem! Click here for a complete list of current and potential candidates.

All humor aside, the point is that you can think outside the Republican and Democrat box when casting your vote for this nations next President. While it’s true that a candidate representing a non-traditional party has never won the presidential election, candidates representing other parties have been formidable opponents throughout election history.  Moreover, these votes sends a clear message to Washington that we are tired of the current bipartisan media debate plastered across our television sets and deserve to know all options listed on the Presidential Menu.

Any public transport–riding New Yorker will have noticed the ads: October 2, PBS is releasing Ken Burns’ new three-part documentary “Prohibition: American Folly.” Burns’ subtitle seems an accepted truism of U.S. history at this point—it was foolish to pursue a national policy banning alcohol. The 18^th Amendment was unenforceable, it didn’t positively affect public health, it clashed with our belief in personal liberty, and it was an act that promoted full employment for criminals.

Seeing these ads for the first time upon my return from Mexico, I couldn’t help but feel that our current prohibition—on drugs—faces entirely the same defects. Plus it includes an entirely more insidious one: we are creating circumstances of criminality in other countries as well as our own.

My week in Mexico was filled with delicious food, breathtaking Mayan ruins, some of the most beautiful coral reefs in the Americas… and guns. Everywhere you went there were at least a few men with automatic weapons. The ferries were patrolled by fierce looking marines, many of the police vehicles were Ford Ranger pick-up trucks with intimidating machine-gun turrets in the back bed, and even the cops driving along in their golf carts, handing out parking tickets, were in full body armor. In the heat, this last group looked more comical than menacing.

This show of force was far from the normal areas of drug violence, yet the War on Drugs (which the U.S. fights through proxy) has normalized continuous militarization in the nations along the drug supply routes from South to North America.

As the GOP’s debates, and eventually the presidential debates, continue, I am sure that we will hear many ideas on where our cash-strapped nation can cut “wasteful” spending. Let’s start with this contemporary version of teetotalism, which costs us close to $500 per second. And the victims of this policy are often other nations’ citizens caught on the front line of our “War,” dying and having their lives disrupted in our place. This folly is not merely an American one; it is a folly that America imposes on the rest of the region.

The first time a prohibition failed we were wise enough to ditch it after about ten years. This time it has been forty.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I suppose it bears repeating: Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are not feminists. They just aren’t. It seems simple, so why are we still confused?

Some may blame women like Naomi Wolf. On August 11^th, the Globe and Mail published an article by Wolf with the eye-catching title “Reactionaries are Feminists, Too”. In it, Wolf describes the resurgence of a ‘historically overlooked’ thread of feminist politics, rooted in libertarian, neoliberal values. Palin and Bachmann, Wolf argues, are the heroines of this other, equally valid form of right-wing feminism that women in America have been aching for—one that must be taken seriously as a legitimate expression of feminist struggle:

The core of feminism is individual choice and freedom, and it is these strains that are being sounded now more by the Tea Party movement than by the left. But, apart from these sound bites, there is a powerful constituency of right-wing women in Britain and Western Europe, as well as in America, who do not see their values reflected in collectivist social-policy prescriptions or gender quotas. They prefer what they see as the rugged individualism of free-market forces, a level capitalist playing field, and a weak state that does not impinge on their personal choices.

What Wolf describes is an unfortunate misreading (ie. fabrication) of feminist struggle that disregards the historical roots and intersectionality of contemporary feminist politics. I’ll refer here to a response by a Feminsiting blogger for a more detailed explanation of how Wolf’s argument represents “one of the worst, most de-politicized takes on feminism out there.” Yes, agreed, Wolf’s is a take on feminism; but it’s also a dangerous manipulation of feminist history.  Certainly Wolf isn’t so naïve as to confuse Palin and Bachmann’s women-oriented rhetoric with their patriarchal agenda. But folding such figures into feminism’s long and rich history excuses far more than explains—it does not make these women feminists.

Case closed, right? But here’s where Wolf’s last point gets me: if we aren’t listening, what happens to all those women who are? There is nothing to suggest that closing our eyes to this mutant strain of feminism is going to keep it from growing as we near 2012. It does not mean that women like Palin are going to stop manipulating history and hijacking feminist discourse to promote the agenda of patriarchal individualism, or that women like Wolf are going to stop manufacturing the validity of their claims.

It’s scary, or at least really annoying, but maybe we need to start listening to these ladies. If 2008 taught us anything about Sarah Palin, it’s that ignoring her does not make her go away. Discarding these interpretations of feminism does not change the fact that they are allied with the fervent populist demagoguery that continues to win freedom-loving hearts in the run-up to 2012.

Valid or not, refusal to engage with the potential strength of the “right-wing feminist” monster risks further legitimizing right-wing politics in a way that could do serious damage to longstanding feminist, anti-racist, and anti-imperialist struggles. Does this mean admitting that Sarah Palin is a feminist? If it does, I’m not there yet. But as a woman concerned with a deeply historical, collective, and intersectional struggle, I’ll start by at least taking Naomi Wolf seriously when she says “we ignore the wide appeal of right-wing feminism at our peril.”

Election Weekend, 2008. A horde of college students descended upon my parents’ home in Cleveland, for 48 hours of canvasses, rallies, and all-around “Yes We Can”-ing.  We had Shabbat dinner for 20, climbed over sleeping bags sprawled in every direction of our living room and basement, knocked on doors in the Kinsman projects as a pack of hoodie-wearing, button-sporting Well-Meaning White Kids and ravaged platters of fries and falafel at the renowned hippie bastion, Tommys. We rocked out to Bruce Springsteen and cheered all four Obamas, standing in the rain overlooking Lake Erie. We surged into the last 36 hours of election buildup full of idealistic adrenaline and layers of mud on our shoes and pant hems.

We knew then, somehow, that this campaign would stir us in ways that were unlikely to be replicated in our lifetime. But as we approach 2012, those students are experiencing something far deeper than just incumbent complacency. We are faced with potentially greater depressant, the bitterness of the misled and disenchanted. The gap between our expertly-stoked passion and the relative silence from the presidential bully pulpit, accompanied by dissatisfying legislative compromises that have defined this administration, have severely depressed the base. Remember those 1 million small-dollar online donors, enthralled by the chance to really put their Hopes into real Change? It’s hard to envision them turning out in those numbers again. Obama’s fundraising will have to rely on more and more max-out bundlers, reinforcing the image of elitism replacing his populist following. No matter how skillful, Obama’s campaign can only suffer by comparison to the magic of 2008.

Obama’s disconnected base is well–documented as one of his biggest internal liabilities (meanwhile, the external liabilities posed by his potential opponents seem quite surmountable. For now). We can easily anticipate a story-cum-meme of the Disgruntled 2008 Obama Volunteer, barely able to muster the will to vote, much less head to a swing state and go door-to-door. Or donate $10 from an unemployment check.

How do those college kids, my parents, myself even, want to be portrayed? If we plan to throw our weight behind the President (as we quite likely will when faced with the alternative) it may be time for us to define our own new narrative for why we are fighting for Obama again.  And then the final task remains – to do so while reminding our candidate how the perception of timidity – on health care, on the debt ceiling, on tax cuts, the size of the stimulus and so on – diminished our fervor.

While watching the Republican Presidential Debate on September 12^th I couldn’t stop thinking the exact opposite of the crazy spewing out of every candidates’ mouth. Then, suddenly, my ears perked up as I found myself agreeing with Ron Paul’s logical statement that many Americans don’t understand the true causes of 9/11 and have a misunderstanding of the entire Muslim world  (amidst the boos of the Republican and Tea Party audience members, since I would expect them to play the opposites game with me).

Over the past decade since 9/11, the White House and the “liberal” media have done an incredible job of casting the entire Muslim world as the “other,” evil jihadists fighting against “everything America stands for.” I believe Rick Santorum said something mind-numbingly generic about “freedom and opportunity for everyone around the world.” What many Americans really need is a dose of Ron Paul Reality so false views of the Muslim world can slowly start to be eradicated.

The eradication of false views implanted into our collective conscious about Muslims and their general hatred for Americans could start in many ways. It could start in our schools by educating children about Muslim history. It could start with our pundits and newscasters covering the effects of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from a human perspective. It could start with more currently elected officials publicly supporting the constitutional rights of American Muslim citizens to own private property wherever they choose. It could also start in American communities where both Muslims and non-Muslims integrate themselves with cultural events and street fairs, anything in order to understand each other. I grew up 20 minutes away from Dearborn Michigan, home to the largest Muslim population in the United States. Besides a few high school tennis tournaments here and there, I never had contact with a Muslim teen, or any Muslim for that matter. Two days ago eating lunch with my Muslim girlfriend, talking about eye shadow and graduate school, I wondered what impact I could have made on my family, friends, and myself by simply taking the time out to understand my competitive and cultural opponent.

Now times must be different. Times must be different for all Americans because when billions of tax payer dollars are spent on wars that were started under false pretenses, wars that have no end in sight, it’s time to know who we’re warring with and why. Times must be different for the Republican presidential candidates because one of them finally sided with truth and logic instead of lies and just plain dumb. So c’mon Rick, Michelle, Mitt, Newt and the rest of the pack, do yourselves a favor and sample a dose of Ron Paul Reality. Lead our country to a better understanding of Muslims and the true causes for 9/11. This could ultimately change American opinions on U.S Security and Foreign Policy and create sane, more cost effective policies for generations to come.