21 June 2012

Thomas Friedman answers his critics

You can tell that Thomas L. Friedman is a centrist because anyone with any kind of ideology despises him. Depending on who you read, the New York Times columnist and best-selling author represents an overbearing "do something" government philosophy, an obtuse neo-liberalism, or unacceptable austerity in the guise of a "grand bargain." Most often, Friedman is attacked by liberal Democrats who resent his opinion that their party shares in the blame, equally or not, for gridlock and stagnation. As far as Democrats are concerned, Republican obstructionism is the necessary and sufficient explanation for everything that ails America today. Friedman half agrees. He condemns Republican obstructionism at every opportunity, but refuses to concede that that's the only problem. He infuriates Democrats with is constant suggestion that, no matter how much they've compromised already, they haven't compromised enough. "Why should we compromise more when the other side doesn't seem to compromise at all?" is the typical response. For Friedman, however, it doesn't follow that, as long as Republicans haven't compromised, Democrats have done enough. To a provocative degree, he seems to question Democrats' own vaunted willingness to compromise, even as he bashes Republicans unreservedly. In his latest column, Friedman once more bemoans the absence of a credible (i.e. celebrity centrist) presidential candidate willing to put tough, objective questions to both Romney and President Obama. He goes on to suggest that Obama could still carry independents, but only as long as he commits to a "grand bargain" recovery plan with emphases on deficit-reduction and wise investment. Then he addresses Democratic criticisms that have dogged him all year.

Obama loyalists often say: “Those Republicans are so bad. They’ve tried to block us at every turn.” Yes, the G.O.P. has tried to stymie Obama; it’s been highly destructive. But the people who keep pointing that out don’t have an answer for the simplest next question: Why have they gotten away with it? My view: It’s because too many Americans in the center-left/center-right do not feel in their guts that Obama is leading — is offering an economic plan at the scale of the problem that has a chance for bipartisan support and that makes them want to get up out of their chairs and do battle. 

The Obama loyalists would probably answer that they have a plan, only Friedman doesn't recognize it. Nor, Friedman suggests, do millions of Americans. What would these people recognize as a plan. Friedman sets some impressionist criteria: a proper plan will get 'voters to react in three ways: 1) “Now that sounds like it will address the problem, and both parties are going to feel the pain.” 2) “That plan seems fair: the rich pay more, but everyone pays something.” 3) “Wow, Obama did something hard and risky. He got out ahead of Congress and Romney. That’s leadership. I’m giving him a second look."'

The question for Democrats is: why doesn't Friedman see this in what we offer. I think the answer comes down to the desired second reaction: "everyone pays something." In a word: austerity. Friedman's suspicion seems to be that Democrats aren't really as interested in "shared sacrifice" as they claim. They obviously want the rich to sacrifice, but who else, really? Here's what Friedman sees:

When the Grand Bargain talks with John Boehner fell apart, Obama retreated to his base when he should have rallied the center by laying out — in detail — the Grand Bargain the country needs. That would have forced Romney to speak in detail about his plan — the Paul Ryan plan — and reveal it for what it is: a radical plan that few Americans would embrace if they understood it. Then people would see a real choice: a tough-minded-but-centrist plan with real bipartisan support versus a radical plan to gut Medicare, give more tax cuts to the already wealthy and drastically shrink discretionary spending so eventually nothing is left for education, veterans, roads, research, the F.B.I. or the poor. 

Notice that most of this excerpt is a strong denunciation of the Republican party -- but notice also the damning phrase, "retreated to his base." This gets to the heart of Friedman's beef with the Democratic party. He blames the failure of all grand bargains so far not just to Republican obstructionism and fanaticism but also on the presumed unwillingness to compromise -- to "pay something" -- on the part of a nebulous Democratic "base," or else on Democratic leaders' unwillingness to risk alienating the same base by making the "tough minded" case to them for compromise or paying something. Obviously Friedman is describing something real. Anyone who has seen anyone else ask, "why should the poor have to sacrifice?" or posed the question himself must admit it. But is this the attitude of the "base" of the Democratic party, defined either as its most reliable voters or its most generous donors? More importantly, Friedman's account begs the question: how crucial to his hoped-for recovery is it that this base "pay something," and how decisive actually has this base's presumed refusal been in the government's failure to achieve a grand bargain?  Given what we all know well about Democratic constituents' unwillingness to hold their representatives truly accountable, how much do elected officials really fear their base? At most, they probably fear its apathy, but aren't Democrats always fishing for independents and centrists to make up for that? As for whether this base is unwilling to share in the sort of sacrifice Friedman recommends, and whether their failure to sacrifice will ruin us, that's a question of priorities nearly as much as it is a question of resources or sustainability. Those who ask why the poor should "pay something" have every right to point to money being spent profligately on other projects (foreign wars, drug war, etc.) and question the priority or utility of those projects. The ultimate issue between Friedman and the Democrats, or between him and the "left" in general, is whether he's right (or "right") in his insistence that "everyone pays something." The left doesn't necessarily have a trump card for this debate -- the poor aren't always right -- but they definitely have every right to challenge Friedman when he takes the necessity of austerity for granted.

10 comments:

Calmoderate said...

Indeed, where is the celebrity centrist with no ideology? That's about as rare as hen's teeth. The Americans Elect fiasco was the most recent demonstration of that.

Once again, no one is going to ask the hard questions. Not the democrats, not the republicans and not the press. It's just business as usual.

TiradeFaction said...

I don't think anyone despises Friedman, I think people are just flabbergasted by his consistent obliviousness. And frankly, a lot like to poke fun at his expense because, well, he apparently lives in a self induced bubble and is kind of a broken record.

I mean really, let's examine a few core aspects of Friedman's proselytizing, shall we?

A.) We need "non ideological, "practical" solutions. But, apparently, only one type of "practical" solution is allowed. Take Social Security for example, he says we need to axe murder it to "save" it, but when people bring up the equally "practical" (and simple) solution of simply raising the income cap on Social Security (which would effectively make it solvent forever), he shalt hear no such thing. Funny how his "non ideology" seems biased towards one type of action.

B.) We need reasonable practical people in office! Like his BFF Bloomberg. You know, a guy who called a miniscule wage increase for 500 some employees contracted by the city "Downright Soviet!" (Yeah, I'm not joking there, he literally said that), whilst going forward with a soda size ban (apparently his concern for the smelly peasants fades when it isn't about how much soda they consume)

C.) We don't have a candidate that is Friedman's mix of "practical solution", except...we do have one, his name is Barack Obama, and he's in the fucking white house! (I don't even mean this from a positive standpoint, if anything it's a sharp criticism for a President, which btw, I didn't and probably won't again, vote for.) Miniscule tax increases with HUGE spending cuts? Well, that's Obama. http://www.nytexaminer.com/2012/06/the-third-party-zombie-and-other-friedman-recyclables/

Seriously, if I may say so with no disrespect, I think you give this bozo wayyy too much credit.

Calmoderate said...

Assuming that Friedman really is a pragmatic non-ideologue (PNI) and not oblivious, it would seem that he could come up with only one solution to any given issue/problem and stick with it. That might very well make him sound like a broken record living in a bubble to all kinds of people.

In theory at least, there is only one best solution to any given problem. People will differ about what that solution is, Sometimes they even differ about whether a problem is a problem. Thus, it would be the case that if Friedman and 99 other PNIs got together and decided among themselves, the collective solution would probably differ at least some, maybe a lot, from Friedman's preferred solution.

IMHO, there are very few, if any, people out there who are at least trying to be PNIs. That brand of politics is toxic for most (95%?) of the voting American public. Viable candidates in the two parties usually can't be non-ideologues because ideology is a necessary litmus test for party acceptability and endorsement. By definition, they cannot be PNIs. The only way to be a PNI would be to trick/convince their party and supporters into believing they are consistent with the party line and then steer a very different course once in office. For the 2008 election, Obama did a truly masterful job of creating an image that let people read into him what they wanted to see, including liberal democrats. Now, a fair number (most?) of the liberals and independents are disappointed with Obama and feel sold out.

Assuming one accepts that as a reasonable approximation of reality, which I do, I would be inclined to cut the few, rare PNI voices, if there are any, some slack. The PNI point of view and impact is what is missing from politics. I now believe that is a major reason for much of the failure of two party politics, which are grounded in reality distorted by ideology. I am aware of no reason to believe that PNI politics grounded in reality should be any worse than politics grounded in the two ideologies that dominate today. And, I can think or some good reasons to believe that it would be better, probably much better.

If he is a PNI, I can see why most everyone dislikes Friedman. PNI politics will, sooner or later, undercut every political and religious ideology there is and probably ever was. So, which is it? Is Friedman a PNI irritating everyone's ideology, an oblivious bozo living in a bubble or something else?

Samuel Wilson said...

TF, I don't intend to give Friedman credit, but I bring him up frequently because he frequently brings up the unsatisfactory state of two-party politics in the country, and that's a real problem. I think he misdiagnoses the role Democrats play in that system, since their problem is the way they exploit the left's dependence in order to go centrist and make the left settle for it -- not any pandering to a leftist base.

Calmoderate, I don't think you're wrong, but I wonder how we all became ideologues. People were mindlessly partisan in the past, but now everyone goes nuts over how this or that policy is intrinsically wrong. Generations of propaganda from World War I through the Cold War probably have much to do with it. Now, before we re-learn pragmatism, we need to agree on the ends that would justify means. Collective survival might be a good starting point, but I fear some folks would freak out at the word "collective."

Calmoderate said...

My best guess as to how we became so ideological is in accord with what a couple of social scientists have argued, i.e., the parties, particularly the republicans, have figured out intelligent ways to really push emotional buttons and that tends to polarize thinking and the dialog. Check out these videos if you have some time - they are really and truly eye openers (Haidt interview on how the two sides see the world - http://billmoyers.com/episode/how-do-conservatives-and-liberals-see-the-world/; Lakoff lecture on moral politics - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9R9MtkpqM).

If that is not all or most of the explanation, then I can't really say how we got here. All I know is that we are here.

And, your are right. Don't use the word collective. Language like that just freaks people out. Keep the rhetoric and thinking simple, clean and as non-threatening as possible (e.g., like this - http://california-moderate.blogspot.com/2012/06/policies-from-pragmatic-non-ideological.html).

TiradeFaction said...

>In theory at least, there is only one best solution to any given problem.

I couldn't disagree more. There are often multiple workable solutions (Social Security being one example) to any given issue, it's just a matter of who's (whether groups or individuals) interest you have a preference for.

>That might very well make him sound like a broken record living in a bubble to all kinds of people.

People say he's a broken record because despite being proven wrong, again and again, he seems to repeat his schtick again and again and...again (He in fact, admits, he often reads his own works as his main inspiration)

Also, this idea that Thomas Friedman is free from "ideology" to me seems a little shallow, and seems rather ignorant of his beliefs. He may very well described himself as such, but I don't think that's an accurate label for him. Anyone who's read his works on globalization (Particularly the "World is flat"), it's quite evident he has a "grand vision" of some globalized libertarianesque economy that he believes will lift all boats, and almost all of his "solutions" confer towards that idea.

>TF, I don't intend to give Friedman credit, but I bring him up frequently because he frequently brings up the unsatisfactory state of two-party politics in the country, and that's a real problem.

I agree that's an issue, and I welcome more criticism of the two party state. But I don't think Friedman is a very good critic of the two party state. People already take the piss (and rightfully so) out of him for constantly calling forth a fantasy candidate that essentially has the same platform as Barack Obama, and his advocacy of Michael "10 dollars an hour? For 500 employees? Downright soviet!!" Bloomberg, probably won't help matters.

I mean, and this is just my personal opinion of course, if opening up our system will just way to reactionary (and rather 1984 draconian I should add, remember how Zuccotti park is only meant for "Passive use"?)right wingers like Bloomberg, who's only difference really is he's cool with teh gay, I don't see that as much of an improvement...

Calmoderate said...

TF:

Please read what I said. I said there theoretically is only one BEST solution to any problem. I never said other solutions are not possible. I am talking about a kind of politics no one practices, i.e., smart, non-ideological, shrewd, public interest-first kind of stuff. I understand that that is hard to conceive, but just try. If you don't like it, you don't like it. That's fine. Just don't distort me to make your points.

To you, Friedman is "proven" wrong again and again. That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. I would note however that the guy has won two Pulitzer prizes and writes editorials for the New York Times. Its weird that someone with his credentials for being so utterly wrong all the time has that much heft and profile. By your assessment, he should be unemployed or flipping burgers somewhere. Right?

Let's get together and write the NYT and tell them they should fire the Friedman because he's a boob. The NYT will obviously fire him instantly on our word and that will shut the guy up. Hm, better you send the letter. I have no credentials or standing.

Please be gracious enough to forgive my country bumpkin ignorance and innate stupidity, but when someone claims, as you assert, to be self-described as non-ideological, I just take them at their word. Maybe that's just how they see themselves but it doesn't manifest as you would like. In my naivety and ignorance, I just assume that no one in their right mind would say they are not ideological unless they meant it. In politics today, ideology is a necessary requisite and the guy is in national stage politics up to his eyeballs.

Also, my view of a pragmatic non-ideologue is someone who will sooner or later offend every ideology there is. Such a person could advocate for policies that are left, right, center and/or none of those. Can you see that? Of course you hate the guy - you can't but him in any box or figure him out. Maybe, just maybe, his brand of politics is unfettered by ideology. That kind of beast can roam anywhere that logic might take it.

You certainly are passionate, but you are not persuasive.

TiradeFaction said...

>Please read what I said. I said there theoretically is only one BEST solution to any problem.<

Yes, I know what you said. Determining what's "best" is completely subjective however, as I stated earlier. It's a matter of who's (what individuals or groups) interests you make precedence for.

>To you, Friedman is "proven" wrong again and again.<

Not just to me, but to a lot of people.

>I would note however that the guy has won two Pulitzer prizes and writes editorials for the New York Times.<

So what? So does Paul Krugman (Who, by the way, is a Nobel winner of economics), and their responses to the "problems" of today couldn't be anymore different.

>Let's get together and write the NYT and tell them they should fire the Friedman because he's a boob.<

Somebody has already started that campaign though! https://twitter.com/firetomfriedman

But seriously, let's get to the actual substance of your response

>Please be gracious enough to forgive my country bumpkin ignorance and innate stupidity, but when someone claims, as you assert, to be self-described as non-ideological, I just take them at their word.<

Well, you're certainly free to be that gullible, but I don't share your naivete. Given you've ignored the substance of my criticism of Friedman's proselytizing (and electing to just say, "Hey, he works at the NYT!") I'll move onto this

>I just assume that no one in their right mind would say they are not ideological unless they meant it.<

Sure they would. It makes them seem more "practical", more "reasonable", and easier to cloak their agenda because the media just eats that up. It's like Michael Bloomberg, who's in fact quite right wing (and not reasonable or "moderate" at all) on the economy, can play himself as a "moderate", but gosh golly, he supports abortion rights and gay marriage.

>In politics today, ideology is a necessary requisite and the guy is in national stage politics up to his eyeballs. <

If by "ideology", you mean whoring out for corporate dollars (regardless of what party you're in), then yes, I'd agree.

>Of course you hate the guy - you can't but him in any box or figure him out<

Actually, I don't hate the guy (in fact I find him pretty funny), and I have already boxed him in.

Calmoderate said...

TF,

You miss my point about best solutions. There really is only one objectively best solution to any problem. I understand that the way Americans do politics is mostly subjective. But, does that mean that it has to be done that way?

When a business makes an investment, what bases are the shrewd operators going on? Pure subjectivity or do they try to inject a cold assessment of reality and apply as objective an analysis as they reasonably can? When, say, an anthropologist submits a grant application for federal funding, does he/she submit the rationale for funding the research based on objective criteria and facts, e.g., a newly found ancient manuscript refers to a site that contained a great ancient library and that site should be excavated, or is the exercise grounded mainly in subjectivity, e.g., last week God told me to dig for sacred relics 32.8 kilometers south of the center of Baghdad? Which grant application has a chance of getting funded, objective or subjective? Why might that be? Maybe because in the long run objectivity beats subjectivity.

There is no reason that politics has to be the subjective irrational mess of ideology, spin and distortion that it is today. I again assert that there really is only one best solution to any problem within the purview of politics. The trick is to get people to see that. If your statements are any indication of public sentiment in general (and I think they are), the task is daunting to say the least.

I am so glad to see that you have figured Mr. Friedman out. Thanks for calling out my gullible naivety. Its refreshing (but still unpersuasive).

So, what is Friedman? A nasty liberal, a thundering conservative, a loony libertarian or a silly socialist? please enlighten us.

Oh and by the way, who is that "lot of people" who you claim have also "proved" him wrong over and over? What is their proof - their subjective disagreement with what he says? Bring on the substance.

TiradeFaction said...

>You miss my point about best solutions. There really is only one objectively best solution to any problem. I understand that the way Americans do politics is mostly subjective. But, does that mean that it has to be done that way?<

And you apparently miss my point about objectivity vs subjectivity. My point wasn't that therefore we should appeal to baseless "subjectivity" in regards to "GOD TOLD ME SO", but politics is inherently subjective in regards to *whose* interests are paramount to whatever action you take. The poor? The rich? The middle class? Californians? Native Americans? Chicagoans? Alaskans? Engineers? Nurse Practitioners? Etc. etc. etc. Sometimes, it pleases (and helps) everyone, often times though, everything comes to the expense of one group to facilitate another. Life is always like that, give and take. It's just a matter of who you *feel* should be facilitating what compromise. And that always comes down to a particular bias (often from one's own background)

Let's revisit the example of Social Security. At the moment, there's two workable solutions being touted out to the "issue" of Social Security. We can either take a pick axe to it (IE, either raise retirement age, "means test" it, slash benefits, all of the above, etc.) or raise the income cap to make it solvent. Both are workable, practical solutions, but both take one (admittedly a bit loose in this example) group's precedence over the other. (In this case, the wealthy versus well, the non wealthy, in specific lower income and moderate income earners) Which one is the "Best" solution? That comes up to who you want to give preference for. This is generally how reality works out.

>When a business makes an investment, what bases are the shrewd operators going on?<

That's a very ironic example, because from my experience business investments have a large degree of subjectivity, often to the point of irrationality. They’re made on the basis of internal corporate politics. Who has influence? What will benefit the individual senior managers? Internal alliances, even hatred. Just like any other deliberative body out there.

One of my favorite books on this issue is "Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco by John Helyar", but any book about Wall Street history will also provide ample examples, especially those about the thinking of senior management seen by merger and acquisition investment bankers.

"Oh and by the way, who is that "lot of people" who you claim have also "proved" him wrong over and over?"

What, you missed out on his coronation of THE ONE TRUE WANKER OF THE DECADE: Tom Friedman? ;)

But seriously, I'm not even sure what you're asking here? Do you want me to compile a list of criticisms of Thomas Friedman or something? They're not very hard to find (I'd suggest using the Google for this). I recommend Matt Taibbi’s reviews of Friedman’s books. The reviews are far superior to the books. One can learn from the reviews, whereas Friedman’s books suck intelligence from the reader’s brain like a vampire does blood.