The main reason that the international community has cited against intervening in Syria has been a lack of unity within the rebels. The rationale goes that although al-Assad is clearly a despot, letting the Free Syrian Army or other disunited rebel groups run the country could further destabilize the nation.

            Even Libya and Tunisia’s interim presidents have denounced foreign intervention in Syria, including arming the rebels, on the grounds that it is currently unclear how representative and unified the Syrian rebels are. Yet, this argument reeks of hypocrisy. Were not the Libyan rebels disunited in their fight against Gadhafi and ceaseless appeals for foreign interventions? Nonetheless, after Gadhafi’s fall, the rebels were able to compromise and create an interim government. Why then does the international community keep insisting that the lack of unity in the rebels makes them unfit to follow al-Assad’s rule?

            The fact of the matter is that unlike the Arab Springs in Libya, when the international community was more or less united against Gadhafi, al-Assad staying in power in Syria would benefit many nations in one way or another.

            For much of the West, especially the United States, the Arab Springs have brought up the frightening question of whether or not secularism is more important than democracy. The secular autocrats that have been overthrown have been replaced with popularly elected Islamist governments. In particular, the Muslim Brotherhood has risen to prominence. This scares the West, of course, because the Muslim Brotherhood group has historically relied on terrorism to spread its values of Sharia law. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood gave birth to radical groups al Qaeda and Hamas.

            Post Arab Spring nations who support the rise of Islamism oppose the Arab Springs for other reasons. Most likely, the leaders in these nations have noted the economic impacts of revolt. While rebellion against a government has always led to at least a decade of economic uncertainty, it seems that this fact only materialized to the rebels once the regime was actually overthrown. Tourism-driven Tunisia and Egypt in particular have had particularly hard economic times as tourists have been worried about the stability of the nations.

            The economic cost in Syria, in particular, will be monumental. Business, particularly in conflict zones such as Homs and Aleppo have been closed for nearly two years now and looting in the rest of the country in the absence of authority has been widespread.

            Thus, while the argument that the lack of unity within the Syrian rebel groups is skeptical, the fact remains that there are grave challenges to an overthrow of the al-Assad regime in Syria. It seems that an Islamist regime and economic paralysis would negate and benefits for democracy that such an uprising has had. As such, the international community is justified in refusing to intervene in Syria as they had in the much more clear-cut case of Libya. 

            American ally Turkey, who rejected America’s Atoms for Peace nuclear energy program for decades, has recently agreed to set up Russian nuclear energy reactors in its country. 600 Turkish students have been granted scholarships to learn nuclear engineering in Obninsk, a Russian haven for nuclear energy just 60 miles outside of Moscow. Much as it did during the Cold War, Russia could very well be using its economic alliance with Turkey as a pretext for better political alliances with Ankara.  

            The United States is clearly quite conflicted over this issue; it has thus far refused to make an official comment on it. On the one hand, the United States risks losing its strong alliance with Turkey. The alliance that granted Turkey economic aid during the Cold War to rebuild its economy. The alliance that gave Turkey resolve to contain Communist expansion into the Middle East during the Cold War. Of late, though, Turkey has distanced itself gradually from the United States. For example, during the Syrian Arab Spring, while Turkey has definitely not sided with pro-al Assad nations, it has acted very differently from other NATO nations. While other European nations and the United States have been wary to launch direct military intervention for fear of exacerbating the conflict, Turkey has gotten involved in the conflict directly largely as a result of its shared border with Syria. It has harbored Syrian rebels as refugees, an act of war against Syria. It also shot down a Syrian plane about three months ago and intercepted a civilian plane en route to Syria. This deal with Russia could serve to definitively distance itself from the U.S. Nonetheless, America can do little about this new alliance. Condemning this deal would be both against America’s free trade principles and a violation of Turkey’s national sovereignty to form alliances as it so chooses.  

            However, the United States should definitely fear that this strategic move may be part of a larger global strategy. The Arab Springs have overthrown a generation of American puppet dictators in the Middle East. Thus far, the United States has done little to secure alliances with the new rulers of nations like Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. The White House even called newly elected Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood president Morsi an enemy soon after his election.

            With these new rulers distancing themselves from the United States by forgoing Western democratic principles such as secularism and checks and balances, the stage is set for Russia to form new alliances in the Middle East, one of the most volatile and critical regions in the world. It appears that the global environment is perfect to foster a new Cold War of sorts between the United States and Russia. Turkey may just be the first victim of this new power dynamic. 

Two days ago, DR Congo rebel group M23 made headway into the capital city Goma. M23 is a rebel group that split from the DR Congo military in early April 2012 after the DR Congo military failed to uphold its peace treaty with Congo. Currently, only Rwanda and Uganda support the M23 group.

            The rest of international community, including the United Nations, have condemned the M23 group for its crimes against humanity including forced recruitment of soldiers and rapes. However, the DR Congo’s “legitimate” government in fact has an even poorer human rights record: rapes, child soldier recruitment, arbitrary arrest of citizens and placement into forced labor camps. The list goes on.

            The United States and the international community at large should deal with the DR Congolese rebels much as they do with the Syrian rebels (i.e. limited or no intervention). After all, the DRC and the M23 have equally bad human rights records. At the moment, the international community supports the DR Congo government in the hope that once the government crushes the rebels, the international community will benefit economically through higher potential FDI in DR Congo, the country estimated to be the richest in the world in terms of natural resources. It seems that this time, though, the international community has put their money on the wrong horse. The M23 appears likely to take the capital city soon and the entire country could be under their rule within a year.

            What the international community seems to have failed to recognize, especially in light of the recent Arab Springs, is that corrupt, illegitimate nations are bound to fall sooner or later. Additionally, the government in place in the DR Congo has a strongly free trade economic system. As such, supporting them against the rebels will have few economic benefits. On the other hand, the M23 rebels that will soon come to power may not have such a liberal economic system. They may choose to limit FDI from Western governments who strongly opposed them and instead favor nations like Rwanda and Uganda who supported their rise to power and other countries that were neutral in the conflict. 

Despite the ‘rise of the East,’ the United States is still the world’s greatest military power, single-handedly constituting almost half of the world’s defense spending. As such, at the status quo, Palestine does not stand much of a chance at a long-term survival, much less at gaining recognition of its sovreignty.

            The main issue is that  the Palestinian Authority, the body recognized even by Israel to lead Palestine, is not truly an authority. Although the peaceful, moderate Palestinian Authority maintains power over the West Bank, terrorist groups such as Hamas and Fatah command Gaza. It was not the West Bank but the Gaza Strip that has ben launching missiles on and off over the past month including the missile launch on Tel Aviv on November 15^th that sparked retaliation from Israel.

            If Palestine ever hopes to receive international recognition, it will need a unified, legitimate government. Instead of strengthening the Palestinian Authority, the most effective course of action would be bringing in foreign rule, especially that of Saudi Arabia.

            As both a pro-Western nation and a strictly traditional Islamic nation, Saudi Arabian sovereignty over Palestine would be a beneficial compromise to all parties involved. Although Jordan, Syria, and Egypt appear dead set on maintaining their influence on the disputed territories that Israel illegally seized in the Six Day War, they have seen that the fragmentation of the Palestinian political parties and the strength of Israel makes control of Palestine a waste of resources and an unnecessary burden. Additionally, an Islamic run Palestine, even if not under their jurisdiction, would be welcome over a Jewish run Palestine.

            This strategic decision would also benefit Israel. Tied to America by oil trade, Saudi Arabia, unlike the fearless Hamas and Fatah radicals, would hesitate before striking upon Israel. If Israel was able to maintain peace with Israel, moreover, it could do leaps and bounds for Israel’s standing in the Middle East. This could potentially open Israel up to membership in regional organizations such as the Arab League and free trade agreements with other Arab nations. Also, such an arrangement could prevent or at least grant Israel a reprieve from Ahmadinejad’s pledge to wipe Israel off the map.

            Clearly, Palestinian sovereignty over the disputed Israeli settlements is not a viable solution for the future. It is detrimental both to Israel, who faces hostility at its border from militant Palestinian parties, and to the Middle East as a whole given that a Palestine ruled by fragmented radical parties predisposes the region to complete Israeli control. Saudi Arabia appears to be one of a select few nations whose sovereignty over Palestine could serve the aforementioned interests of both the Middle East and Israel. 

History has proven time and time again that the best form of government is a democratic one- a form of government where the people’s voice can balance the total power of the government. But what if the people are unable to make a rational decision because they are too ignorant or they let their emotions outweigh their logic?

This is the very situation that Korea is faced with. Until the Fukushima incident, South Korea was adamently pro-nuclear and produced reports annualy documenting the popularity of nuclear energy. For the past two years, though, South Korea has published no such report most likely due to widespread opposition to nuclear energy.

While many have called upon South Korea to become more democratic and follow the will of its people, I fully applaud South Korea for this. Obviously, following the will of the people is always the top choice. If, as in the case of South Korea, though, the people are too shortsighted to advocate for their own interests, the government has the duty to override popular consensus. This is, of course, the purpose of a represetnative democracy instead of a direct democracy. Populism is by no means democratic.

The single incident of theu Fukushima plant and the related emotional appeal has led South Koreans to view nuclear energy as unsafe. This, however, could not be further from the truth. In fact, nuclear energy is the safest type of energy there is. Fossil fuel mining and drilling leads to many more deaths than nuclear energy. People only view nuclear energy as unsafe because it is the only type of energy disaster that can impact normal citizens not related to the energy field. Also, nuclear disasters often lead to panic because the effects are not concrete (i.e. symptoms can apepar years later)

Additionally, doing away with nuclear energy would create an energy crisis in South Korea. South Korea has already shut down two nuclear plants because of citizen oppostition and currently risks an energy crisis. Shutting down the nuclear program entirely would surely deprive Koreans of energy in the cold winter when they need it the most.

Finally, nuclear energy could be very effective in stimulating Korea’s economy. Much as in infrastructure development, energy development through nuclear energy will generate jobs and revive Korea’s frail economy. Furthermore, if Korea’s government is able to follow through with its nuclear timetable, it should be able to export 80 nuclear reactors by 2030 which would be worth $300 billion.

Clearly, South Korea must go pro-nuclear for the economic and social benefits for its people. A legitimate government must act in accordance with the will of its people whether or not the people are too shortsighted to understand what their interests are or not.

            More so than it was at any point in its history, barring perhaps the Six-Day War when it gained the presently disputed regions of Palestine, Israel is vulnerable.

            Most recently, Hamas missile launches on southern Israel have led to panic in Israel. Israel is seriously contemplating targeted killings of Hamas , thereby reducing the distinction between Israel’s government and the mafia. Israel tried this type of approach when it faced hostility from Hamas previously and the international community looked upon these targeted assaults very negatively. As such, if Israel chooses this route again, it will show that it has run out of alternative ways to deal with the group and that it has lost the potential for diplomacy in a two-state solution.

            Nextly, and perhaps most importantly, is the potential for an Iranian-Israeli war, nuclear or otherwise. Both sides in such a contentious war would likely develop allies and this could lead to a huge Middle Eastern or even World War which Israel would be at the center of and thus most likely to suffer damage and losses.

            Third is the possibility that the Syrian Civil War could spil over into Israel. For two days in a row, Syrian shellings have fallen in Israeli military bawses in Golan Heights, the disputed territory that Israel took from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israel has made it clear that it does not support the rebels but, if it were to side with al-Assad in such a war, the rebels who are sure to win would be strongly anti-Israeli once they came to power.

            The challenges that Israel faces with Syria could extend beyond to the Middle East as a whole. After all, Israel was never popular within the Middle East for violating international law and taking sacred Palestinian territories. However, for decades, Israel was saved the brunt of the blow because the Middle East was filled with pro-American dictators. Now, though, these dictators have been overthrown and replaced by Israel denounced the Arab Springs as a great step backwards for the nations involved and they may entail an even greater detriment to Israel.

            In the past when Israel was vulnerable, the United States protected it from harm’s way. Although the U.S. still has unparalleled military power (its military spending is almost half of the world’s total), it will likely reduce the scope of its Israeli alliance. After all, newly elected president Obama refused to meet Netanyahu when he came to New York for the UN General Assembly and has failed to even try to broker a Middle East Peace Plan for over two years. In the first term, it was necessary for him to at least protray the front that he supported Israel in order to get re-elected. In the second term, though, Obama will have much more flexibility to act according to his true political beliefs instead of pandering to populism. Even after Obama’s term, the U.S. will likely remain anti-Israeli. After all, there has been a general shift to liberalism, especially in foreign policy, since the damaging War on Terrorism under Bush. Americans have grown to despise foreign intervention, especially in the volatile Middle East.

            Perhaps the country most fervently in favor of Obama in the recent American presidential elections was France. Many economists have likened Obama to French president Hollande, the leader famous for imposing a 75% income tax rate for the top bracket.

            Fortunately for America’s wealthy, especially those in business, this likeness could be beneficial. Despite drastically raising income taxes for the rich, Hollande has reduced corporate tax rates for companies by 20 billion euros this year alone. If these corporate tax deductions could be emulated by Obama – on the correct economic sectors- it could serve as a boost to the economy as a whole. 

            However, for such corporate tax breaks to be succesful, they must be carefully targeted. They should not be granted excessively to failing green energy companies like Solyndra or small businesses. He should direct these tax breaks to large corporations that drive the U.S. economy including oil giants such as Shell and BP and banks such as Goldman Sachs and Citibank. These companies, not the small businesses and green energy companies that Obama panders to, impact the stock markets greatly and hire thousands of employees.

            I am a partial believer of trickle down economics. I oppose the idea that benefitting the wealthy overwhelmingly promotes consumerism and thus benefits all the classes. However, I do support the idea that benefitting the biggest corporations will benefit the economy as a whole.

            I fully agree, therefore, that the best way to raise revenue is to increase the income tax rates, especially for the wealthy. After all, the United States’  income tax rates are the third lowest in the developed world. Its income inequality is at the highest level since the Great Depression. As a result, increasing income taxes seems to make the most tense and raising the top income tax rate  is the most progressive form of revenue raising.

            However, by no means should the United States increase its corporate tax rate. The United States’s corporate tax rate of 39%, one of the highest in the world, stifles business and hastens outsourcing of American jobs. Although the corporate tax rate brings in huge revenue, it is the single type of tax that equally adversley impacts each socieconomic groups.

            As a president, Obama needs to focus on policies to benefit the majority of society (i.e. the middle class). Even if middle class workers do not work in or manage companies, they will benefit from lower corporate tax rates because it would encourage businesses to hire and thus lower unemploment. On the other hand, although higher income taxes for the top income tax rates would harm middle class families by reducing consumerism throughout the economy, it is the lesser of the two evils. Thus, Obama should follow Hollande’s example and stimulate the economy  by reducing corporate tax rates while increasing income tax rates on the top brackets.  

            California, with over 1/10 of the United States’ total electoral votes, is arguably the most important state for presidential candidates to win. California is currently the most liberal state in America yet, until 1988, the state consistently voted Republican. With the huge influx of poor Hispanic and Asian immigrants who advocated expanding social programs, though, the state turned Democrat.

            Granted, Republican George W. Bush was able to win the presidential election twice with California’s 55 electoral votes all going to his Democrat challengers. Romney and McCain would have lost their elections even if they had gained California. However, the majority of Republican losses in the presidential elections in the future will come down to less than 110 electoral votes (considering that if a candidate lost California they would give up 55 votes and their opponent would gain 55).

            So, the Republicans need a new way to ensure that they can get California red again. In fact, among Hispanic voters who overwhelmingly supported Obama in the election, the economy and foreign policy, the two main platforms for both parties, are largely unimportant. Instead, they care overwhelmingly about social issues like health care, same sex marriage, abortion and immigration.

            The Republican Party, if it hopes to remain competitive in the future, will compromise its position on social issues in order to gain power. After all, the majority of Republican supporters, especially those in the swing states, are neutral socially. The states that are currently Republican would stay Republican even if the GOP changed its stance on social issues and the Republican party would become more popular in minority-dominated states. The religious right would likely become agitated over the Republicans changing their stance on social issues but, when faced with the alternative of Democrats, would likely still vote Republican because of their belief in self-reliance stemming from religion that Republicans profess in the economy.

            And, even if the Republican party lost the support of the religious right, it would not be a huge hit to the party. After all the religious right is not doing any favors for the Republicans so far. Take the religious right movement BattleCry that has risen of late. Based in San Fransisco, one of the United States’ most liberal cities, its leaders claim that “those who speak loudest will get to shape our country.” The group has declared a war on American culture and seems delighted with the possibility of returning the United States to 19^th Century conservatism.

            These kind of supporters paint a radical picture of the GOP which is not entirely accurate. They also force Republican candidates during the primaries to appeal to voters’ radicalism while in the presidential elections, candidates have to portray moderation, likely their true positions, to gain votes. This is the issue that Romney faced and his flip-flopping stances during the primaries in an attempt to gain the approval fo the religious right is one of the main reasons that independent voters chose Obama over him.

            Even Republican presidential candidates of late, save for the overly-radical Jon McCain, have proven to be indifferent to social issues. Compromise is an area where Republicans have consistently proven to be weak which is why, in the increasingly liberal, minority dominated American future, the Republicans will become extinct and replaced by a new party unless they can pick up the skills of diplomacy and compromise soon.

The end of election season in America brought hope. Hope of an end to the ceaseless negative campaign adds but more importantly hope that the Republican Party would finally be willing to compromise.

Unfortunately, despite Obama’s re-election, Republicans seem unwilling to budge. John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House, claimed that Republicans would still be unwilling to budge on Obama’s tax rises which only affect the top 2 percentile of incomes.

While I am completely in favor of tax cuts during times of growth and times of budget surpluses, America’s debt is currently over 100% of GDP. Both parties want to increase spending, the Democrats on public assistance institutions like the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, and Social Security, and the Republicans on military. There are, of course, inefficiencies in the system that could be reduced but a certain level of red tape is non-negotiable in the great bureaucracy of the American political system.

What would an America look like with reduced income taxes and increased spending? It depends. The U.S. could very easily resort to other means of raising revenue aside from simply relying on direct income tax. Compared to much of the international community, duties and consumption taxes are extremely low in the U.S. Also, nationalizing certain industries would produce a huge boost to revenue. Perhaps the greatest boost would be the legalization of drugs which would boost the budget by nearly $100 billion annually when considering the money saved on combatting the drug war and the money that would be gained through regulation.

Do these moves seem likely though? Probably not. Consumption and duty taxes tend to be regressive and even the economically conservative Republicans aim for tax burdens to be equal or higher for the rich. The concept of nationalization goes against American economic entrepreneurial, self-reliant ideologies. Also, America is overall socially conservative and does not seem likely to legalize dangerous substances like drugs anytime soon even in the midst of a huge debt.

So, it must be assumed that America in the Republican viewpoint will maintain debts. It was a Republican, after all, who proposed increasing the debt ceiling. In the short term, a rising debt would likely have no major repercussions on the United States.

Were that debt to increase proportional to GDP at a level close to Greece’s or Spain’s, though, the United States would be in trouble. In that case, its credit rating would really drop and it would have to resort to austerity in the midst of a recession sure to follow such a move to balance its budget. The other scenario where the U.S.’s debt could come back to haunt it would be if the international community lost confidence in America’s currency and were to use the renmibi or the yen instead as an international currency.

America’s rising debt is not adressed as seriously as it should be because of the arbitrary numbers involved. Yes, if America went into 15 trillion more dollars of debt, it would be a problem but it has only racked up 16 trillion dollars of debt in over 225 years, right? Well, budget deficits are a recent trend; consider the fact that in Obama’s presidency alone the debt rose by around 4 trillion dollars. The debt, not jobs, is the most important economic crisis that the United States faces and until the Republican Party can prioritize the collective economic good of America over appeasing their supporters with tax breaks, America will have a tough struggle in front of it. 

            Elections as we know them today are not a choice between rational ideologies; they are a choice between the lesser of the two evils. On the one hand are the Democrats arguing for legalization of drugs, reducing America’s foreign policy to one simply of defense and refusing to fight to uphold American values or the good of the international community. On the other hand are the Republicans who refuse to increase taxes even when the deficit is monstrously high,

            The recent ballot initiatives such as legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington, legalizing same sex marriage in Washington, Maine and Maryland and the election of 19 female senators to the Senate and the re-election of a Democrat to the White House portrays the image that the United States is becoming more liberal, especially socially.

            However, this is simply not the case. In fact, America is simply becoming more polarized. The states in which the ballot initiatives for marijuana legalization and same sex marriage were legalized were all typical Democrat state including swing state Colorado (which has sided liberal in the recent past). However, the traditional Republican states of the South have become, in the recent past, even more radically right wing.

            Four states repealed the Affordable Care Act even though doing so had no legislative grounds and is merely an act of resistance. Georgia refused to recognize teacher unions and grant charter schools. Outside of California, state residents were reluctant to increase their own taxes in order to fund destitute social programs.  

            Clearly, the two-party system is failing. The common American belief is that a new party will rise when neither of the two main parties provides the people ideas for the common good. However, even in the midst of widespread disgust in America over party radicalism no new party has emerged, largely as a result of a lack of publicity. The majority of Americans don’t even understand the political beliefs of third parties such as the Libertarians and the Green Party.

            The U.S. can combat this issue in a few ways. First and foremost, the SuperPACs need to end. Repetitive negative advertising in the battleground states as a result of largely tilts the election in the favor of the established parties with the funding for extensive advertising.

            All candidates should have equal spending limits for advertising and public funds will entirely fund these campaigns.

            The third party candidates Johnson and Stein, both of whom have equally moderate and appealing platforms as the Republicans and Democrats, gained less than 1% of the popular vote each. This is simply unacceptable. The two-party system may have served the United States well in times of political compromise and moderation, but in the radical political times of the present, the government must do more to encourage a multi-party system.