In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Worst Tom Friedman column ever?

Jill

Considering the bile he’s published over the past few years, that’s a pretty bold statement — but I think he may have out-done himself.

I have no idea who is going to win the Democratic presidential nomination, but lately I’ve been wondering whether, if it is Barack Obama, he might want to consider keeping Dick Cheney on as his vice president.

Just… no. There is nowhere good this can possibly go.

In sum, Mr. Obama’s instinct is right — but he needs to dial down his inner Jimmy Carter a bit when it comes to talking to Iran, and dial up a bit more inner Dick Cheney. If Democrats want to win this election, they have to get these two in balance — they have to learn how to criticize the Bush record from the right and the left, to show they can be better at engagement and coercion. Successful diplomacy requires both. Americans will want to know that Democrats can do both. My guess is that many still aren’t sure.

Foreign policy negotiations are not episodes of Law & Order, and we need intelligent and thoughtful diplomacy, not a good cop / bad cop routine. Tom Friedman has proven that he is entirely inept at predicting and evaluating foreign affairs and political strategy. And his column is making me twitch with Teh Stupid, so read Glenn for an intelligent and spot-on take.

Glenn points out both the playground dynamics and the masculine anxiety looming over the Times’ op/ed page yesterday. Between Friedman’s tough-guy posturing and Maureen Dowd’s Hillary-as-dominatrix / Obama as whipped little pussy / Rudy as Manly Man schtick, it’s disturbingly obvious just how deeply gender roles and sexual anxiety will factor into this election.

12 thoughts on Worst Tom Friedman column ever?

  1. Eh, Friedman was writing tongue in cheek, in case you didn’t catch that. And he has spent time in the Middle East and he does speak Arabic fluently, and serious people do pay attention to what he writes. You apparently know next to zero other than some cheap and empty slogans. Jill: read more widely, learn something substantive, and then feel free to opine.

  2. Actually, I have read several of Friedman’s books, and I’ve followed his column regularly for the past couple of years. Perhaps you should do some reading on how he used his space in the Times to gear up for war against Iraq, and he’s long promoted this kind of tough-guy posturing as legitimate foreign policy. Of course I realize he doesn’t literally want Cheney as the next VP — but he most certainly does want a scary character like him in order to intimidate other leaders.

    And spending time in the Middle East and speaking Arabic does not automatically make one an expert or even an intelligent commentator. Friedman’s not a dumb guy and he certainly knows his history, but he’s been wrong so many times that it’s almost funny. Plenty of “serious people” think he’s a fucking joke. So I’d suggest that you read more widely, learn something substantive, and then feel free to opine.

  3. Oh, and Milo / Milorad / ghdjy / Mr. HuFu — don’t try commenting again. I stupidly let that one post because I didn’t realize it was one of your many attempts to comment under different handles in the hopes of getting one though. It won’t happen again. Please go away now.

  4. and serious people do pay attention to what he writes. – troll

    And that’s exactly what’s wrong with this country: the range of acceptable discourse is restricted to the serious thoughts of serious people. And where has that got us?

    Friedman’s not a dumb guy and he certainly knows his history – Jill

    Actually, no. Friedman may know his Middle Eastern history (and a fat lot of good that knowledge has done him), but he, e.g., doesn’t know his economic history. Pretty much all of his neo-liberal nostrums are straight out of the colonialist playbook — no successful country built up its economy following them and pretty much every colony (that is now underdeveloped) was forced by their occupiers to follow them. And now we’re forcing these ideas on others again? And “we” wonder why “they” hate us?

    Reading Friedman’s earlier stuff (which is often spot on), I wonder if the problem is that his in-laws’ money is eating its way through his brain — at one time he was smart, but as the money slowly started dissolving his brain and turning it into self-interested-theory generating mush … well … the mustache of understanding sprung forth!

    Although, there is something to be said about a little good-cop/bad-cop: where are the tough Democrats? If Democrats could seem tough, we’d get elected (c.f. your post on gender and politics … and my soon to be posted response).

  5. D’oh … it was this post to which I was gonna respond!

    it’s disturbingly obvious just how deeply gender roles and sexual anxiety will factor into this election.

    Nu? This is different than previous elections how? The GOP has, for quite some time, campaigned appealing to people’s sexism and wanting a “daddy party” over the “mommy party”. We’ve all noted how a lot of GOP rhetoric involves associating Democratic candidates with negative stereotypes of femininity.

    *

    Personally, I would rather have “Mommy” in charge. Daddy might be more fun and not tell us to clean our rooms but rather he’d give us tons of candy (as long as we’d give him a cut — as if he, as a diabetic should be having candy) … but if Daddy were left in charge, imagine how quickly the house would go to hell in a handbasket. I actually don’t get all this “strong father” memery from the right — maybe it’s cultural? in my culture, men are supposed to be rather otherworldly scholars who dote on their kids and it is the women who are supposed to be disciplinarians. Maybe though, as one of my cousins suggests, while people are sexist and turn away from the Dems. based on rhetoric that the GOP is tough while the Dems are effeminate, there is an element of “daddy is more fun than mommy” in people’s voting GOP. Indeed, remember what they said about Reagan vs. Mondale …

  6. Well said. America has a long history of feminizing the enemy in presidential elections (William Henry Harrison for example). It is interesting to see how at some points Hilary is feminized and at others she is masculinized depending on the agenda of the writer.

  8. Pingback: The Redstar Perspective » Fighting Terrorism at Home

  9. If Democrats want to win this election, they have to get these two in balance — they have to learn how to criticize the Bush record from the right and the left, to show they can be better at engagement and coercion.

    If Democrats need to criticize Bush’s policy from the right, Obama should consider adding Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton to his ticket.

  10. Oh, thank God, I thought I was the only one driven crazy by Thomas Friedman. My mom (totally a lefty) recced Longitudes And Attitudes to me, and I could barely get through the first essay, the condescension towards Middle Eastern people was so strong and nauseating. I put it down and never picked it back up.

  11. While Friedman is a first rate jackass, he made a smart point about Iran — if you want to bring down the Iranian mullahs, get the price of oil lower.

  12. Oh, thank God, I thought I was the only one driven crazy by Thomas Friedman.

    No, there are many of us. The man is a neoliberal tool who doesn’t understand the consequences of the policies and actions that he advocates.

Comments are currently closed.