Flathead

I apologize for not posting at all last week- I’ve been super busy with work but I just got done with a huge project so I’m free…for now. Speaking of which, I was asked by my boss to read The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman, a fate that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. I read this book when it first came out and God, I forgot just how awful Friedman’s writing is. Yeah, maybe I’m not a phenomenal writer but the guy won three Pulitzers and he writes for, arguably, the most reputable newspaper in the country.

Now, the basic premise of the book is the usual neoliberal bullshit- that globalization has made some startling developments and the world, more than ever before, is interconnected. Friedman basically glosses over the effect that free trade has had on the labor movement, you know like those 3 million jobs that have been shipped off to China and Mexico. The book is so ridiculous in its generalizations, I want to scream. For example, Friedman cites the enormous potential of the Indian tech-sector based on his conversations with around 10 industry leaders. Here’s the problem, though. Only 5% of Indian workers are considered high-skilled compared to 95% in South Korea and India still has many, many structural problems it needs to address. The country’s infrastructure, particularly in basic primary education, is quite poor and globalization only amplifies such problems. This actually seems to be the takeway point in the book- free trade helps only the highly skilled and the well-educated and those not in this demographic are seriously screwed. For a great review of the book, read Matt Taibbi.

But this isn’t the only reason why I hate Friedman. Apart from torturing us with his views on economic issues, Friedman also writes a NYT column dealing with international issues. Now, the fact that Friedman was a staunch supporter of the Iraqi invasion- the phrase Friedman Unitwas coined in his honor- should discredit him but sadly, this is not the case. Today, he is considered a “public intellectual” and a  “serious thinker” and is invited to give commencement speeches at top universities.

Well, not content with helping liberate the poor Iraqis, Friedman is eager to sort out the Iranian mess, as well. Classic Friedman-

I’ve been at a security conference in the tiny Gulf state of Bahrain, attended by defense officials and analysts from all over the world, and all the buzz has been about the latest U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. It has left every Arab and European expert I’ve spoken to baffled — not in its conclusions, but by why those conclusions were framed in a way that is sure to reduce America’s leverage to negotiate with Tehran. The Gulf Arabs feel like they have this neighbor who has been a drug dealer for 18 years. Recently, this neighbor has been very visibly growing poppies for heroin in his backyard in violation of the law. He’s also been buying bigger and better trucks to deliver drugs. You can see them parked in his driveway. In the past year, though, because of increased police patrols and all the neighbors threatening to do something, this suspicious character has shut down the laboratory in his basement to convert poppies into heroin. In the wake of that, the police declared that he is no longer a drug dealer.“But wait,” say the Gulf Arabs, “he’s still growing poppies. He was using them for heroin right up to 2003. Now he says he’s in the flower business. He’s not in the flower business. He’s dealing drugs. And he’s still expanding the truck fleet to deliver them. How can you say he’s no longer a drug dealer?”

After sorting through that shitty and convoluted analogy, it took me about five seconds to point out the idiocy of Friedman. While the dealer here had been selling drugs for 18 years (the highlighted part), Iran has never produced a nuclear weapon. To even equalize the two situations is just wrong but since when has that dissuaded Friedman? In reality, Friedman has learned little from his cheerleading the invasion and his views, if anything, have become ridiculously dangerous. Consider his view on diplomacy-

If she were taking advantage of Mr. Cheney’s madness, Secretary Rice would be going to Tehran and saying to the Iranians: “Look, I’m ready to cut a deal with you guys, but I have to tell you, back home, I’ve got Cheney on my back and he is truly craaaaazzzzy. You guys don’t know the half of it. He thinks waterboarding is what you do with your grandchildren at the pool on Sunday. I’m not sure how much longer I can restrain him. So maybe we should have a serious nuke talk, and, if it goes well, we’ll back off regime change.”

…

But Mr. Obama’s stress on engaging Iran, while a useful antidote to the Bush boycott policy, is not sufficient. Mr. Obama evinces little feel for generating the leverage you’d need to make such diplomacy work. When negotiating with murderous regimes like Iran’s or Syria’s, you want Tony Soprano by your side, not Big Bird. Mr. Obama’s gift for outreach would be so much more effective with a Dick Cheney standing over his right shoulder, quietly pounding a baseball bat into his palm.

I’m not even sure how to address that- have the last eight years of saber-rattling taught Friedman nothing? A foreign policy built on a self-deluded illusion of masculinity and high-school antics is precisely what has gotten us into the mess we’re in right now. And, to seriously imply that the Bush & Co. foreign policy wasn’t hawkish enough is just so incredible, it belongs in the pages of The Onion, not the NYT.

If you’re still not convinced about Friedman’s dangerous views, I leave you with this classic interview segment, Friedman at his best-

-Indira