The Hysterical Right, that cabal of national conservative commentators already verklempt over an innocuously named sexual position associated with permeable sachets of leaves, was driven berserk by President Obama’s now infamous performance at the Fifth Summit of the Americas, held in Trinidad last month. At this forum, Obama had the audacity to shake hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, a perennial catalyst for frenzied punditry. After supposedly bowing to the Saudi king and acknowledging U.S. arrogance at times towards its allies in Europe, Obama’s action seems tantamount to treason – at least according to the firebrands. Dick Cheney warned that abroad Obama might be seen as a “weak president” who will not “stand up and aggressively defend America’s interests,” and Newt Gingrich said that the handshake with Chávez “sends a terrible signal to all of Latin America.”

Since this February’s elections in Israel, when the right-wing Russian political party, Yisrael Beiteinu, took third place and its leader, Avigdor Lieberman, was appointed as Foreign Minister, Lieberman has faced withering criticism, being called “shady,” a “racist,” and a “fascist.”  These characterizations are probably accurate; yet, while the man is flawed, his peace plan shows great promise.  The Lieberman plan, called the “populated-area exchange plan,” is not the horrific apartheid-style idea that its critics make it out to be.  In fact, this plan offers a people-based and future-focused solution based in American values and divorced from the contrarian politics and contentious history of the region that have so long ruled the discourse.  

Claremont McKenna students react to leadership positions like kindergartners react to the busting open of the piñata at little Susie’s fifth birthday party. Once the stick cracks open the cardboard pony’s bright pink flesh, Susie scrambles to gather all the Tootsie Rolls before her guests can. Her haste and excitement, combined with a strange sense of entitlement, echoes our reaction to emails calling for applications. We scramble to send out resumes, write cover letters, and schedule interviews. And when an opportunity fails to go our way, some of us, like Susie, whine and complain about fairness.

At some point during this global economic crisis, it became commonplace for liberals and progressives to criticize libertarians and conservatives for being “slaves to the market.” Although the charge has been disputed, the discussion has not been a complete one. Lost in these debates is a more nuanced point that those who are skeptical of markets seldom argue: markets are a powerful tool for creating wealth and promoting freedom, but certain goods are not suitable for the market.