Washington can learn from the Massachusetts election. Washington can learn what it means to be civil again. Washington can learn what it means to govern efficiently, not rule with blind ideology. The Massachusetts race has it all.

So long as the United States is dependent on oil as an energy source, it only makes sense to transition towards more domestic oil before finally moving past nonrenewable fossil fuels to fully renewable sources of energy.

This policy provides no path to legal status. That is the essential part of the DREAM Act that hundreds of thousands have fought for and that Obama promised.

Revolutionary forces must recognize that the military has been in power since 1952, and the decisions of the SCAF over the year and a half “transitional” period have only tried to preserve the old order. The sad truth is that alliance between the people and the army was only a means for the SCAF to pursue its own agenda.

Iran’s reaction to these talks has, time and again, proven that it is not what we are proposing that bothers them. What bothers them is that we are proposing anything at all.

China has an image problem and an influence deficit. Unsurprisingly, the Chinese government has already taken coordinated steps to raise China’s profile on the world stage.

The move is not due to an act of Congress but is instead solely due to the president’s directions to the Department of Homeland Security. Essentially, the president is telling the department to stop enforcing federal law.

So to all of the Obama supporters checking Politico every 30 minutes, take a breath. It’s going to be okay. And even if you don’t buy any of these arguments, remember that the average American doesn’t care nearly as much as you do.

Ultimately, whether these nearly-toss-up states become a bigger part of the campaign dialogue is dependent on the economy. An improved economy could be Obama’s biggest asset when courting the big states he needs.

In many congressional and state electoral contests, one party is dominant, making the primary the determinative (though not definitive) election. It is worrisome that so many of these decisions are being made through a largely neglected primary process.

Although we may not be sure whether what we know is absolutely right, we should in the spirit of civic-republicanism still strive to seek, critically evaluate, and express our beliefs. My generation cannot afford to ignore the political process.

Today’s most pressing debate should center on the latest economic initiative or education proposal or MTA budget - not the size of a Pepsi. And unfortunately, with Bloomberg’s relentless campaign to dictate the health choices of every New York City resident, issues that really matter – and that are really the business of the office of the mayor – are being sidelined.

Despite the local nature of the recall, it still has important national ramifications. The lessons learned from the Wisconsin recall election are pertinent to both presidential candidates and provide a preview for what to expect in the coming months.

In the first installment of this forum, Hussein Elbakri, of the Columbia Political Review, analyzed the arguments for and against the Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality. Next Noah Fram, of the Vanderbilt Political Review, discussed the Act from the standpoint of public policy, asking directly if the bill is “a normative good for society.” If we believe Hussein that the bill could be considered constitutional because it is a rational political solution to the healthcare problem, I hope I can jump off from that point and delve into just why the politics are so controversial.

Much has been said about the current debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), especially with respect to its fiscal responsibility and constitutionality. However, both of these topics skim over a fairly fundamental aspect of the new law: What, in fact, would it do? And is it a normative “good” overall?