Trump's voters lack "the ability to learn, analyze, reason, maneuver and drive on their own." Meanwhile, the Democrats are good at hating Trump., but they don't seem to have any positive alternatives for leading our country. I just hope we will see some young Democrats offering new, positive ideas for our states and our country. The GOP sure doesn't have any.
8
The current situation is a culmination of years of deliberate misinformation campaigns by Faux News and their political enablers to demonize the opposition. There can be no middle ground. Remember Newt Gingrich's campaign, the only thing that belongs in the middle of the road is a dead possum. They killed centrist thinking and compromise. Now we will lurch from one extreme to the other. It will be impossible for businesses or individuals to plan for the future. This will not end well.
12
The British Labour party is not quasi-Marxist. Its last platform was a return to social democracy. The Establishment Democrats aren't centre-left, they are corporatist conservatives. U.S. binary politics has deprived the country of a social democratic voice since FDR and consequently American social programs are the worst of all major democracies.
40
You left out the role of Russia and its state propaganda against democracy in the United States and elsewhere.
There is malevolence that goes beyond global and industrial changes.
Toxins that are based in bigotry, wealthy, and power have been spewed over America across the past couple of years. Trump did not rise due to his own demagoguery but from a perfect storm of propaganda by Fox, Breitbart and others, RT, and social media manipulated by Cambridge Analytica and dark money.
Old protections of democratic elections were destroyed through Citizens United, corrupt money (including not just American but Russian oligarchs who donated $7.34 million to McConnell and may millions to the NRA), partisan and racial gerrymandering, and systematic voter suppression efforts made possible by the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Russians hacked numerous state election databases.
The Roberts Court, the rise of malicious power hungry billionaires, and interference from a hostile foreign power combined with media distortions and lies had a lot to do with Trump.
The GOP gave Trump space, nourishment and air, and a tyranny of bigotry and billionaires is the result. Soon he will go an have a romantic get together with Putin.
10
“Machines are acquiring most of the unique attributes of humans — particularly the ability to learn, analyze, reason, maneuver and drive on their own.” Sounds like they would be far better at voting for political leaders and solutions than us all-too-fallible, irrational, ignorant humans, who repeatedly vote against our individual and collective self-interest. They would surely have sense enough to enact the National Popular Vote bill. They would surely be able to identify the most qualified nominees for the federal bench. They would surely be able to identify the most qualified nominees for cabinet-level administrators.
6
Two parties is hardly a blowup. If you consider the Republican/Democrat party as a single duopoly that has held this country back for decades, then it's only one party that's blowing up in the US. High time, too.
7
I'll concede the US political spectrum is obtusely binary. However, I cracked up laughing when Friedman tried to explain a tertiary division. Trumpism is obvious. Clintonian technocrats are an insult but partially honest. Complex adaptive coalitions though? Friedman lays out his Utopian "community-led" conservative society without the least hint of irony. Are you sure this wasn't co-authored by David Brooks?
You need to hangout in some of my circles because I don't know where you get this stuff from. You missed about two thirds of the political spectrum while completely ignoring the contrasting motivations that enable community-led projects to succeed or fail. Collective self-interest is not always the dominate interest. In fact, you have to fight very hard to keep the collective part away from the self-interest part.
Yes, I've been to Lancaster, PA as well. I was last there this winter. I could tell you quite a few things about Lancaster that I never want my home town to emulate. We can discuss once Friedman presents his opinion.
6
Let's put this another way.
Economically advanced countries have just experienced 3 or so decades of unprecedented social, technological, & economic change & this has left both the leaders & the rank & file at all levels in these countries increasingly uncertain where they stand, what the future holds & what they should do about it all.
Those that are inclined to feel that the deck is stacked have much going on in their lives that re-enforces that sense of alienation & foreboding. Anger & mistrust follow with the result that increasing portions of society in each country turn against established leaders & institutions & embrace charismatic unorthodox leaders, some of whom are demagogues with little to guide themselves except the need to satisfy their ego.
By contrast, traditional leaders & institutions (faced with a world they do not understand) have difficulty meeting the challenges in society & the appeal of the demagogues.
Political Parties are fragile institutions which fracture or realign in unexpected ways in this environment.
1
A great editorial, Mr. Friedman. Unfortunately we now have a president who doesn't read books and can't understand your analysis anyway, and a congress that is too old, limited in capacity, greedy and cynical to care about much besides re-election. Most of our government leaders (and their gerrymandered borders) no longer faithfully represent their struggling constituencies; most have no true stake in the future of young people, no passion for justice and fairness, no ideas for helping humanity. Many Americans are too uneducated or just too busy to draw lines between world events, technology, geopolitics and their kitchen table. We need young, smart, leaders who are good human beings to step forward and run our communities and states. Shout out to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez!
17
"These old knee-jerk positions won’t work anymore." (Friedman)
Judaism is a tragedy; Christianity is a comedy; Islam is a disaster.
But all three will have to adapt to the reality that the importance of cultural solidarity and loyalty will not disappear in the current era. The devout wish of Liberals that we will have an equitable New World Order controlled by Money Systems by diverse cultures and their national regimes that will bring "Fairness" in economic relations among all cultures and nations is evaporating before our eyes.
At least we gave Trump's hope and dream a chance, just like we did Obamas. Unfortunately, both failed.
Time for all of US to "Hunker into the Bunker", given no other political-economic-social choice.
Seems TF is spending more time on symptoms than causes. The interdependence spoken of is caused by a drastically increased and unfettered mobility of capital, people and ideas resulting from new information and communication technologies that blow up our institutions' core operational models and assumptions. The "parties" you speak of were designed for paper letters and clipboards, as were most everything else. Plus now we have the double whammy of their breakdown in effectiveness combined with their capture by narrow self-interest. So far, all "solutions" are fighting yesterday's battles. A latter-day Marshal Plan would only work if it completely re-imagined society as infinitely mobile, which so far, isn't pro-social.
5
the Breitbart propaganda arm of FoxNews Republicans has been exported, and is busy disrupting the world. The first day Trump became elected, Radio Free Europe was changed to be under direct control of the President. Fun times ahead.
4
I want to comment on the lifelong learning thing. In polite conversation I'm all for it. Change is good; we can adapt; can't stop progress; blah blah blah.
So please tell me, if we're supposed to be learning all the time, then where is there time for us to take advantage of -- use -- what we've learned? If you do take off from learning for some doing, then you'll fall behind again. At some point (like now, maybe?) this isn't going to work any more.
Glib but wrong. The difference now is that the elites who used to support the political parties have taken to destroying and changing them, to increase their power. Once the Koch's demonstrated that being primaried from the right was sufficient to discipline even the most powerful, only the politicians willing to take heat for their unpopular stances get support. The US still leads the world.
2
Democratic Socialism is not "communism" it emphasizes being FOR the people and infrastructure vs what we have, and where we are continuing to go in what is now obviously late-stage Capitalism. For lack of a better label, we can call it Corporate Socialism, with it's emphasis on investment in big business and protection of the multinational corporations based in the USA that have really no allegiance to the citizens of the USA, since they are global corporations loyal to creating ever-increasing short-term profits for their investors. When you look at countries like Norway that has a super-abundance of federal cash because it has an oil industry that is nationalized, which is also not wasted at the rate of $700 BILLION per year on a defense budget... you see a place where people really do have universal health care and a place, where women and children and the elderly do not have to worry about having a roof over their heads and good food. We could have that if we moved closer to Democratic Socialism instead of closer to Corporate Socialism aka Fascism. BTW - the way you deal with frustrated people in any Fascist society is via RELIGIOUS LAWS. We seem to be moving in that direction as well. I'm worried.
7
When people like Steven Pinker dismiss thinkers like Paul Erlich and yet climate change is destroying much of Africa I think people should revisit Erlich’s “Population, Resources and the environment “—I believe I have the title correct.
The environment is going to play an ever growing factor in disputes. Species are being driven to extinction now in greatest numbers since the dinosaurs.
Sadly many people don’t get it..i.e. species diversity. And humans role in the degradation of the planet. Man is not the crown of creation…
6
So, with respect to the United States, we should all re-read de Tocqueville's DEMOCRACY IN AMEERICA, right?
1
Now that the Republican party has gone Fascist, the people must organize and make the Democratic party Socialist. This fight will decide the fate of America.
2
Because the world is round.
2
If you take time to read the Quartz report that Mr. Friedman cites, it seems he has misinterpreted the authors’ findings so that they would seem to agree more with his (Friedman's) own globalist views. Friedman writes:
"between 2000 and 2010, thanks largely to digitization and automation, 'manufacturing employment plummeted by more than a third,' which was 'worse than any decade in U.S. manufacturing history.'"
While the facts about manufacturing that Friedman cites are, indeed, what Quartz reports, his attribution of cause "thanks largely to digitization and automation"" seems to contradict what the Quartz authors actually say a few paragraphs later:
"There are also observable signs that automation wasn’t to blame."
The Quartz authors also discuss a 2016 study by economists Justin Pierce and Peter Schott in which they argue that “China’s accession to the WTO in 2001—set in motion by president Bill Clinton—sparked a sharp drop in US manufacturing employment.”
And the Quartz authors later conclude that one reason “revelations” from the economic studies they cited is so important is that “the myth of automation continues to have a strong grip on the minds of American policymakers and pundits”.
I can only conclude that, on this very important issue, Mr. Friedman is one of those misguided pundits. I have found his work to be very persuasive in the past, and I would have expected better from him and from the Times.
5
If separation of families at the border may be a pragmatic efficient, if "unfortunate" (Friedman hates it), policy instrument to manage and deter immigration flows from the "world of disorder in the south", then what stops us from using even more efficient means, say, indentured forced labor or even slavery or starvation diets in detention, or other forms of cruel punishment that may prove even more efficacious. If there are no ethical constraints to policy and legislation, hey, why not go all the way in the name of order, save our borders, manage the barbarian waves?
1
The world order was built on inequity, war and injustice between nations.
It was bound to end. It was never right. Political parties were an interesting idea, but if it was going to be 2 parties, the idea was DOA. Our founding fathers despised the fact that our constitution was quickly currupted and gimmicked to create 2 political parties.
This was never a good idea. Everyone knowledgabe at the time knew it. There aren't 2 points of view of the world, or even 3, there are many. So we need a many-partied system that seems more in tune with a parlimentary system than anything else.
The US is going to change drastically, and I would suggest we try to mimick some of the motherland's (England) wisdom.
3
I think the political parties we had are falling apart because the people who used to run those parties no longer need them. Worldwide, authoritarian oligarchies are taking over. Putin's Russia, China and across Europe, and certainly here in the US, where Republicans no longer make even a pretense of representing anyone but the 0.01% (call it the Mulvaney Rule) the former representative democracies are now becoming plutocracies, run by and for the very wealthy. Globalism means that the 99% is being leveled, and that moves former middle classes lower across borders. The Squeeze is happening everywhere. A middle class rises in China while eroding the American middles, and Europe's middles. Money flows across borders freely. Everything else is stuffed behind protectionist tariffs traded in 'tit-for-tat' tweets. Political parties gather power from the voters, but when the power no longer depends on votes, the need for parties goes away. Some countries are more explicit than others in how they reveal this decay, but does anyone believe that Congress here does what it does to respond to the will of the people? Parties are turned into cult groups, witness Putin's 90% approval rating... and Trump's desire to mimic his mentor.
9
Not often a fan of Friedman's work, but an awful lot of this seems correct. Times have changed radically in several ways. The ordered/disordered divide has created an unprecedented combination of push & pull factors for migration.
One quibble re: "From 1960 to 2000, Quartz reported, U.S. manufacturing employment stayed roughly steady at around 17.5 million jobs." During the same period US population rose by approximately 100 million.
This does not detract from the main points, though.
3
This is another in the NYT series of false equivalences that result in Hillary's emails being a major campaign story while ... you know the rest. The divisions in the Democratic party are quite normal for a center-left party of multiple coalitions. It is a responsible governing party, as demonstrated in the 2006-08 period, when it cooperated with the Bush Administration to supply the necessary support and Congressional votes to avoid a meltdown in fall 2008, and in the follow-on Obama years, even when it lost a Congressional majority. The difference between "medicare for all" and the ACA (with/without a government option) are trivial in grand terms. There is a hardly a Sanders-Corbin equivalence. We have now have one political party and one cult of personality. In the panoply of causes, the Financial Crisis itself played a major role, in the sheer disruption of many lives, the loss of faith in experts and expertise, and the increased sense that the system was rigged, easily exploited by a demagogue. Looking at local success stories is a nice feel-good but I fear that that the "stress tests" of the last few years have revealed some cracks in the foundation. If nothing "bad" happens in the next few years (eg, 9/11, a financial crisis, some other major disruption), I think we will make it to the other side intact. Otherwise ... we can ponder how "flat" the world is.
5
Both US parties need blowing up for reasons already mentioned. People are fed up with the old order and, no matter what faction you find yourself in, you recognize "the swamp" as a nicely descriptive term for it. The rocket to greater polarization shows only acceleration and that means the pressure to change the fundamentals of our nation seem destined to tear it apart, literally. It is only a small step from "act locally" to "cessation" or worse. The "c" word is at least a potentially peaceful way to find that super majority somewhere that can rewrite the rules for the kind of changing affinities that Mr Friedman so rightly points out. It may be true that the US is too big to survive. The trouble here is that if you were to draw the lines to gerrymander agreement on the big issues it would be city / rural, perhaps not even state to state is enough. The intellectual and emotional divides are growing so large that they have taken down civility and now threaten peaceful coexistence. The alternative, if the trajectory continues, is outright violence. If a member of White House staff is tossed from a restaurant, what is the next escalation? Maybe it is better to agree to follow separate paths like the former Yugoslavian Balkan states where separation at least avoided an escalating genocide.
2
Why are so many political parties blowing up, it is about time the question was asked, now maybe we can move past Trump, and the Russians, this is much bigger and always has been, the inclement wether has nothing to do with it. History provides some clues although we have never seen revolution on this scope before. Our system of planets include a wrecking ball, a malefic referred to as the awakener which pulverizes existing structures that no longer benefit us for the purpose of making room for new ways that are more in line with where we are headed. Uranus also known as the planet of revolution is the climate we are experiencing as it has fanned the political fires while in the sign Aries these past seven years. These are preliminaries which now will begin to take form in the second half of this storm that is turning radical quite unexpectedly. Our dark nights of winter have passed and are giving way to what is nothing less than the light of a new day. Morning has broken, the present political systems short period of time is up, not many of the old ways will be left standing back there once this storm has run its course.
1
Democracy is at the simplest level, mob rule. When lawmakers appear to be professional politicians then the mob lashes out, mostly incoherently. Unlike in any other profession where employment is based on qualifications and experience, democratically elected lawmakers are those who are most popular. Since the mob generally cannot distinguish between elites and elitists, those who can explain issues in the simplest language are most popular. The ability to whip up favorable emotions helps with popularity even more.
3
Well said, Mr. Friedman. Human progress has moved us from hunter-gatherers, to agriculture, to low-tech manufacturing and low-tech transportation systems in a country where were isolated by oceans and mountains to a globally interconnected web of high-tech manufacturing and high-tech communications and transportation systems. Staying put with energy systems based on coal and pre-computer, pre-internet, pre-air travel based business is like advocating for everyone around the world to go back to horse and buggy days, with high-tech communication being a telegraph line. We must continue to educate for the changes in our society...the people who made buggy whips had to learn how to repair internal combustion engines when automobiles became standard transportation. Why do Trump and his backward-facing minions not see the writing on the wall?
1
I believe Mr. Friedman may have misstated the conclusion of the Quartz article he referenced regarding the drop in manufacturing employment since 2000. He continues the accepted explanation that it's primarily due to automation, but as I read it, the article actually reaches the opposite conclusion. It shows that domestic manufacturing output other than semiconductors has been much lower than the growth in GDP, and that the increase in the real value of semiconductors is not due to automation but to improved design and circuit density. As i read it, the article says the economists have been mislead by this anomaly in semiconductors which has very little to do with automation or real labor productivity and that the rest of the manufacturing economy is actually being hollowed out by globalization. The Quartz article is interesting and I suggest people read it and the research it cites and not accept Mr. Friedman's blithe misinterpretation.
1
I think we need term limits for all elected and appointed officials. That would attract a very different type of candidate- citizens who are willing to serve rather than those who wish to to be served. It may need a petition drive to get it on the ballot in all 50 states. Let the voter decide. Term limits might also lessen the grip of lobbyists as well. This may be the climate change we need.
2
21 century is still waiting for it's own geniuses to tackle with this problems in sociologic-economic and geopolitical level. So far we are driving this bus with 20th century mindset.
Another thing
Marshall plan couldn't be implemented pre WWII 1930's America, after War It was possible because conditions allowed it to be happen.
Another thing , How much we are confident about Governing ability and population size. the direct question is how far from we are at the moment of chaous ; the countres like China, India, USA, Brazil , Russia and Mexico. We are all assuming existing government structure is adequate at least preventing chaos . I am not so sure.
At this moment one of the most hopeful country is Singapore. Go figure why. but all data is showing that this country has everything in optimal level.
We are calling Sao Paolo is a city , Singapore a country.
21 century is here and advancing fast , we are tired and confused.
That is why Trump like characters exploited our complacency so well.
1
Yes! We do not need the disordered world invading our orderly world. The migrants brings their dysfunctional cultures with them and impose it on us. That's why the orderly world is turning populist. Even Sweden, now! Bleeding heart liberals need to wake up to what is good about our country and what we stand to lose. It's not prejudice, it's self-preservation and being able to hand over an orderly world to our children.
> "And how do Republicans think we’re going to keep these people in their homes when Trump opposes all climate change mitigation..."
Actually, it is Trump that wants to keep nuclear power plants open and it is Democrats in California and New York that are closing nuclear power plants.
Cuomo wants to close Indian Point which provides one-fourth the electricity for New York City and Westchester County.
The Democrats of California shut down San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in 2013 and plant to shut down Diablo Canyon Power Plant in 2024-2025.
Instead of closing down green nuclear power plants, a move that Trump is against, it would be better to shut down the coal powered power plants that generate an equivalent amount of electricity.
Since Friedman writes for the NYT located in NYC one would hope that he knew that it is Democrats that want to close down this green source of power and he should know that Trump wants to keep nuclear power plants open.
I would hope that Friedman who cares about the environment and greenhouse gas would know that California in shutting down two nuclear power plants is moving in the wrong direction from green, yet he makes these comments.
Trump wants to keep green nuclear power plants open. Cuomo/New York State and California have shut down or will shut down 3 green nuclear power plants. This is the reality. I wish Friedman would write about this.
1
Thank you, Mr Friedman. This is interesting, thoughtful, and potentially a good approach. Entropy (disorder) increases; how to cope?
This aged conservationist wonders if the occupants of our planet will ever realize that its resources are limited, that we are not owners but rather stewards of those resources, and that unlimited human population growth is not healthy for any of us.
I look forward to the next chapters of this series but I am not very optimistic about the future of humanity if this major concern is not addressed.
5
The answer is very simple -- the very wealthy have seized globalism as a tool to enrich themselves while everyone else sees their economic fortunes dwindle. But we'll get parts one, two, and possibly three, of Tom Friedman explaining this.
1
This column should be required reading across America.
3
I pray that the rift between the "Bernie Sanders wing" and the more centrist wing of the democratic party can be put aside so we can focus on stopping the fascist in the White House in the Fall (and again in 2020).
Our democracy itself is at stake, democrats have to look at the big picture, which is not generally our strength.
6
One way we'll know if the rift is healing is if the DNC mainstream apparatus and the Sanders wing movement will publicly and privately join themselves at the hip and at the shoulder to fight the upcoming mid-term elections and each election, each following year thereafter. With Justice Kennedy's retirement announcement today, the stakes are now higher than ever before.
5
hard to see that these are "wings". More like different parties. Certainly the Sander's wing would drag itself down joining up.
One major reason for the trouble for democratic parties and the move towards left and right extremes has to do, in addition to the reasons mentioned in the article, with the fact that the majority of the population is too young to remember World War II and the trauma of the dictatorial regimes of Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, The Soviet Union, Japan and several other countries before and during the war. The generation that witnessed that was much more careful in keeping democracy and globalization working smoothly.
5
OMG! Friedman has finally realized that "globalization" means "interdependence."
Unfortunately, except for the elites that have created global capitalism, many of the rest are increasingly dependent now on the outcomes of power games between those who control the global economy, independent financial interests and the CEOs of multinational corporations, and the role of the state in protecting its citizens against forces set in motion by these independent actors has been diminished.
2
Three climate changes. - cute. But the main problem is that the private sector doesn’t need workers for widgets, and expert systems supplant professional advice. Meanwhile the problems pile up in the public sector where nothing is done because Congress is controlled by a few wealthies indifferent to stuff like failing infrastructure, wage stagnation, affordable housing, health care, education. ... in fact, just about everything that needs attention.
And the White House is controlled by the ultimate distillation of billionaire ineptitude, a symbol of disfunction that surpasses even the GOP Congress.
Is it any wonder that change is sought by those actually experiencing the problems the imbeciles in command cannot even see, never mind address??
8
How apt is Mr. Friedman’s analogy between Climate Change and Political Change today! Addressing Climate Change requires action based on long-term complex thinking and self-sacrifice, for which humans are proven to be poorly suited. However, based on our own work in addressing critical environmental challenges at City as Living Laboratory (CALL) we are deeply buoyed by his optimistic closing that points to community-led projects or complex adaptive coalitions. As an artist who has worked in the public domain for five decades on projects designed to expand awareness and improve stewardship of the environment, I have found that multi-discipline, long-term collaborations are an essential and artists and designers are an essential part of the mix. There are no quick fixes to these toxic conditions, but there are many possible solutions that can be arrived at through cooperation, empathy, scientific, and technical expertise and creative vision in order to foster change, promote social and environmental justice, and a democratic society. The Arts have been and are an important and fundamental piece of the puzzle that CALL works to promote.
8
Tom,
I look forward to your next column but I don't believe that local organizations can effectively adapt and solve the huge challenges that the entire global population must confront and resolve for civilization to avoid crashing. The huge challenges are global warming, and the root energy supply problem, food, and water. Refugees are roaming the planet in greater numbers because these huge problems of energy, potable water, and food to make it possible for the global economy to provide for the needs of 7.2 Billion people and growing.
There no technical or scientific barriers to providing non-fossil energy resources, food, or desalinated water. The pathway I believe is space solar electricity that could be created with a Maglev launch system that can beam very cheap electricity to Earth for all the people. This economic kicker can make it possible to transport, harvest the food, make synthetic jet fuel from air and water, and desalinate the water to take care of the projected 10 Billion by the end of the century.
The pathway has been outlined by Dr. James Powell in his book Silent Earth, and the latest book Spaceship Earth.
2
I was rushed in my response but the report on the number of refugees set off the alarm. I think the political solution is a modification to the current international institutions. The scale to convert primary energy to non-fossil is probably the largest challenge in human history.
It's possible that the largest "climate change" we're going through is the end of the democracy experiment.
Granted, our founders built what they hoped would be a robust system of government. But it relied on huge resources being available forever: Industrial growth to absorb an endless stream of low-skilled immigrants. Millions of acres of land free for any restless pioneer or isolationist religious group (once the rightful occupants had been killed or driven into reservations). Boundless growth so that the rising tide would lift all boats (even if the boats of the poor leaked, and those of the rich were yachts. And of course, a vast enslaved labor force powering the economy of the South and spilling its wealth over into the pockets of every Northerner.
But look what happened to resolve that first enormous problem, slavery: our politics failed. Instead, we had a vast Civil War, killing more Americans than all the wars ever since put together.
But we did end slavery. So we turned to other low-wage labor instead, like illegal immigrants, but now we're facing an end to them. We have long since faced the "closing of the frontier": no more free land. That gun nut neighbor, or local cult -- you're stuck with them. Our economy is flat. The poor are not only poorer, they now die younger. Where are the solutions?
The biggest "climate change" confronting us may be the failure of our political system to be truly democratic and just. Or even to work.
3
"Why sre so many political parties blowing up?"
I believe the answer is simple: they don't see it coming. And there are two reasons for that: 1) They are focusing on the wrong crowd; and 2) They are choosing wrong sources to get their information.
To get information about where the public stands on various issues, party officials still go to their pollsters, who still use their antiquated surveying techniques. They still call those who are at home during the day, including many retirees and home-makers, asking the same questions they used to ask 20 years ago. But, regardless of the questions asked, the fact is this is no more the crowd that determines elections. Even "soccer moms" are no longer the right mass for gauging political opinions. The right mass today is the herds of young kids who are holding their Iphones in one hand and their college or university books in the other.
Most party organizations are run by old men who have little appreciation of the role of social media in organizing and informing the public. They have no idea how a single event can link up millions of young people and drive them to the streets or to the voting booths. This happens to be the crowd that is sick worried about the environment and their own futures as they see politicians, who think of themselves as "stable geniuses", are destroying their world. And they appear to be determined not to let that happen.
3
Seems to be in general agreement with David Brooks’ idea that the future of effective organization will happen... is happening... at the local level everywhere.
If the Macron approach or Clinton's ideas don't exert enough pull on voters, perhaps we need a little more discussion on why the voters are so immature or do not participate. And perhaps the better choices made by the voters are being undercut by gerrymandering, which makes any talk of what does or does not appeal to voters meaningless.
5
Mr. Friedman fails, as always, to acknowledge the cause responsible for the vast number of refugees and asylum seekers from the Middle East: the Bush administration's elective war against Iraq, which he supported, and the later destabilization of Syria and Libya. Nor does he acknowledge the West's unfair trade practices and exploitation of Africa's primary resources, which are responsible for much of the poverty that drives African wars and migration. The fact that the Middle East and Africa often have corrupt or inept rulers does not excuse the responsibility of the United States and many western countries.
3
"But how do Democrats think we’re going to manage the flow from the World of Disorder? In its annual report last week, the United Nations refugee agency said there is a record-high 68.5 million migrants, including 25 million refugees, wandering the world."
This statement by Mr. Friedman does not consider the proven statistics that show that the US is barely impacted by worldwide immigration trends.
The fear-mongering and racial hatred targeting immigrants to the United States is in large measure propaganda used by the far-right to generate fear and hatred. History is filled with despots who have used the same lies about an invasion of "foreigners" to build their power base. An amazing and highly documented summary of immigration around the globe over the past 15 years can be found in the data collected by Dr. Robert Muggah. in collaboration with Carnegie Mellon University. Dr. Muggah concludes after reviewing the hard numbers related to international immigration that: "Despite political fears, the US remains almost a non-player on the global stage".
http://www.businessinsider.com/maps-flow-refugees-last-15-years-2017-5?IR=T
2
68.5 million refugees and migrants
roaming the globe in search of security is a big problem. Especially when those immigrants lack education and skills. Just ask the towns in this country that are trying to teach non-English speaking kids in 5 or more different languages or find jobs for adults whose low skill levels qualify them only for low wage jobs that can't feed or shelter their families. I don't understand how you can say that this isn't having a negative impact.
4
It doesn't require racial hatred to recognize that the US can not take in every one of the world's unskilled, uneducated and destitute. It just takes honesty and common sense.
But the reflex to tar as a "racist" anyone who wishes to have serious control of our borders and set up a system of immigration which benefits Americans (of all races), is why the Democrats are losing this issue to a foul demagogue.
5
Thank you Thomas for addressing the decline in political party power in America. But, the window through which you are viewing our decline is too narrow. Political parties derive their authority from the moral, social and economic power of nations themselves, which are in mortal decline globally. Are we not witnessing the end of the nation-state itself? See: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-...
Nations, America certainly included, no longer control the financial resources that allowed them to support and enrich their citizens through taxes supporting social services. Financial resources are now global, no longer subject to national regulations; indeed, they are not subject to any international regulation, and therefore unavailable to fund social services via redistribution of wealth.
President Obama was right to define "inequality (as) the defining challenge of our time." Without a new form of international financial regulations social services cannot be properly funded, and socioeconomic inequality worsens.
Political parties which fail to address the need for transnational solutions to global human problems are of no help now.
2
Re "..If I work at a steel mill and am a member of the steel union Monday through Friday ....are my interests with capital or labor, with more government regulation or less?
NONE OF ABOVE
"Becoming a Steelworker Liberated Her. Then Her Job Moved to Mexico."
THAT IS WHAT YOU WORRY ABOUT
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/us/union-jobs-mexico-rexnord.html
2
Addressing our problems from the bottom up in local communities will do little to solve trans-national problems, such as the real climate-change problem, the proliferation of nuclear weapons to small countries, international crime, money-laundering, and election meddling. For that, a much-stronger United Nations is required.
This piece is refreshingly focused on presenting a pragmatic view of the situation at hand, while outlining the complexity that comes with globalization. We need to take a "radical candor" approach to discussing (and hopefully preparing for) scarcity events - in other words droughts, floods, fires, etc. We have little hope of maintaining any kind of geo-political structure if we don't - because scarcity is the catalyst to wars. (Syria as an example - would they have seen the same political unrest had there not been a multi-year drought?) We also need to recognize it's not someone else's problem. It's our problem - all of us.
5
The Republican party flying apart is no big mystery, but the forces have not been laid out in detail in a big, popular book or even a big academic style study, so most people are wandering around saying, "What happened?"
1. The Republican party ceded its leadership to Fox Noise and thousands of AM talk radio stations+wild internet sites. A bloodless revolution occurred right before their eyes and, in a way, they didn't even notice it happening until too late. Guess what? None of these outside forces have any investment in actual government; their plan is more an more disruption, dissatisfaction and more dollars for themselves.
2. A generation and a half of weak people came into power (yes, Paul Ryan) preceded by Newt Gingrich who laid out plans for the destruction of functionality in DC. Ryan and Mitch McConnell had no better ideas so they fell in line. The goal is not to move forward but, again, to cause disruption and get credit for doing so. (If you don't even address a problem, you can't be blamed for solving it.)
3. Outside money (Koch brothers, et al) has swamped the process. (tea party) Demonizing candidates by a barrage of television/on-line arts is now an art form.
4. Over 4 decades, the Republicans pushed out anyone who wasn't far right. After each election loss, the cry was, "More purity!".
5. Gerrymandering has fixed the game so they can win while losing support.
The influence of leadership through responsible media has been decimated by decades of attacks.
7
Another major force tearing the Republican party apart has been its success in electing radical members to Congress, particularly the House. From 2011 onward, there was open warfare in the Republican party led by the Freedom Caucus in the House. This war was not widely reported on, but played out in the media as "the back and forth in Washington", as if both parties were equally responsible. The result was that the wounds were not aired out properly and were ignored generally.
The voters for the last four or five two year election cycles have been saying, "Stop all this noise and get something done", while they send more and more obstructionists to Washington, DC. This process shows the intense value of honest reporting because when something is mis-reported, the solution is also misapplied.
3
I definitely agree with Friedman. The worlds political orders are disintegrating and reorganizing, and it’s not moving in any coherent direction that cannot result in peace and stability. The last time this happened was in the 1930’s and that produced the most destructive war in history. Only the U.S. survived strong and intact. Fortunately, it was an era of liberal minded leadership which placed peace and trade to be more important than power to subdue any adversary or competitor which produced the world order that conservatives an despots around the globe have longed to end.
His grasp of automation’s effects are correct in that without employing all the social effects could be catastrophic. The notion of thinking machines displacing people is science fiction, marketing hype to promote more automation which will make money. But without self conscious there cannot be A.I. None of the existing technology can do that.
2
Hope your OpEd about Lancaster, PA will include a compare and contrast to NYC and Santa Monica, CA. Lancaster, PA and NYC are building regional eco-systems while special-interest financed City Council members have been destroying Santa Monica's economy.
I am looking forward to reading his next column so I can learn how Lancaster Pennsylvania is wresting control of its destiny from the likes of Uber, Amazon, and AirBnB. This now appears to be the common theme of the Times' ersatz conservative columnists-- grassroots local movements tame corporate power.
To me this seems like a desperate attempt to avoid the fact that only big government can ameliorate corporate greed and equitably redistribute the benefits of society as technology makes labor worthless.
5
"The U.S. Republican Party has blown up in all but name, going overnight from an internationalist, free-trade, deficit-hawk party to a protectionist, anti-immigrant, deficit-dove party — all to accommodate the instincts of Donald Trump and his base."
Didn't you "ACCIDENTALLY" omit white nationalist?
2
I can usually add some additional thought to articles written by your opinion columnists but Tom Friedman has me stumped this time.
This realistic and far reaching article leaves me no room to "Hang my hat on". I can't find anything meaningful to add to his thoughtful conversation and he is not finished. More to come from him on this.
3
Tom let me explain something to you. There are problems in the world, but there will always be problems, because the root cause of all problems is human beings themselves. Humans beings are the most imperfect thing ever created, never satisfied, easily angered, full of ego, full of sadness, looking for love, seldom finding it. Sinful, prejudiced, envious, you name it we got it, why do you think that even here, in the world of so called order, the prisons are busting at the seams. We got everything over here, so much so, that people are begging to be let in, yet the jails are full. Nobody is happy with what they have , they'd be much happier if they had what the other guy has. Plus men and women are lustful creatures and that leads to all kinds of problems and always will. But the point is, Tom, that this is the way the human being was constructed, it can't be changed. It was the same in The time of the Roman Empire, the same now, its how Hitler came to power, because of all the terrible things implanted in the human mind and soul, boredom and the need to be constantly entertained is the worst.
3
The stuff espoused in this well meaning though completely boneheaded and irrational article, “I call,” Silly Optimistic Opinion. I love these kinds of articles, where we get to read pseudo–mathematical statements, like “change in the climate of the climate,” thus getting a hint of Friedman’s second derivative test for political parties; where, he’s going to spell it all out for us by telling us we’re at an “inflection” point in history, and that what we’re moving toward is massive interdependency (italicized), and “complex adaptive coalitions,” I guess, being his attempt at game theorizing and abstracting the ants on the ground like us that simply want to be and live and let live. Forget the fact that every time you solve a problem; you create a hundred more. This effect, “I call,” model absorption, where once entering a state, it is never left and the model becomes useless. This is the silliness in today’s world; a belief that technology will iron out all the people’s kinks; that transition states to new effective “parties” embracing such technology will make us better and such is our salvation. Sorry, Friedman—what a bunch of hokum!
Most of the disruption cited in the article can be directly attributed to free traders pursuing the utopia of "globalization". Ross Perot, Independent candidate for POTUS in 1992 said of NAFTA."that giant sucking sound you hear is American jobs fleeing to Mexico". That prophecy came true in spades. TPP would have made it much worse for the American worker. The problem with political parties is they claim to represent 50.01% of voters in any given election when in fact, as we have seen over the past few years, they represent only the moneyed interests on the right or alternatively the loudest minority positions on the left. The actual voters, not the perpetually aggrieved understand this, which is why in the US we see the GOP and the Dems committing suicide.
Lucky us, we get a preview of Mr Friedman's next book! I have to be honest, though - this mashup of concepts doesn't fit very neatly together. Three different kinds of climate change? Hurricanes of economic disruption? Kind of a labored metaphor, I'm afraid.
When the concept is good, you can just feel it. Case in point, "The World is Flat". Provocative title, but more importantly, the concept held together and made sense. This title. it just feels off. Too cute by half.
What was your backup concept for your book, Mr Friedman?
If the world of disorder is threatening us we have to put it in order. Put a thousand Salvadorians in a military program and send them back to clean up MS13.
1
Mr. Friedman, have you ever thought about running for office? You should.
1
Your steelworker has a union (?) job during the week, a slavery job on Sat. and the airbnb rental may provide her spouse with some pin money on Sun. Woohoo. Same old tired balony from Mr. Freidman.
1
The tech revolution has created rapid social change and social instability. Decisions about globalization and open markets were made fifty years ago by an elite at the top, well-knowing that it would heavily impact the American worker, but entrepreneurial interests prevailed. An economic system that disproportionately rewards one the more money one accumulates, along with special privileges and perks, drives up the cost of living for everyone, even as it drives their jobs and wages down, thus bifurcating society.
Post-industrial America is a divided society, because the middle class was sacrificed for the obscene benefits of an entrepreneurial elite. Corporate tyranny controls representative government; electoral reform was cast aside.
This is why we are facing increasing disorder and threat of major wars.
Yes, the South needs a Marshall Plan, because Reagan screwed up Central America. I watched it happen and feared the exact consequences we are experiencing. Masses of people turn to drugs when their lives lose meaning. That is the revenge taken against the ruling elites.
1
While I detest Friedman's glib repurposing of catch phrases (the earth is flat, climate changes) the substance of this piece is one of his better contributions in quite a while (by which I mean years).
2
Thomas Friedman.....brilliant and pragmatic as usual!!!!!!!
2
What we're seeing in last night's NY primary is the emergence of the Democrat equivalent of the Tea Party. The Center is on its way out along with civility, rationality and the the pubic good. If the center doesn't wake up immediately it's Goodbye, America.
3
Wow...NYT must have secret coffers buried deep to keep this columnist on the payroll. His words and all the motivations behind them sound exactly as they did in the runup before November 8, 2016. Wrong then, wrong now. And oh so damaging to his readers by disallowing them to at least have a fighting chance in 2020.
Even Ocasio-Cortez in his own backyard doesn't affect his misdirecting grit. Is it for the ratings? Maybe. More likely for the mortgage and lifestyle. So, while the DNC & RNC reorganized, this columnist's opinion remains "quiet". Too bad, because he is not simple.
People around the world finally became hip to the profound damage of neo-liberal policies by supposedly progressive parties. And those parties having lost their way (and their soul) are still finding their back to a semblance of a progressive platform after having only offered more of the same. This gave the hard right the opening it needed to exploit, so wide open that even a moron like Trump could get elected.
3
You just described Politics, the art of the possible, where imagination and creativity, along with solidarity, tries to allocate the resources needed so to satisfy the needs and wishes of it's people in as efficient and effective a way possible, given the constraints of space and time available. What we are living now is "politicking", a chaotic situation where politicians forgot their mission and ended self-serving themselves tribally, 'a la Trump', where loyalty trumps competency, and where the essential trust in democratic institutions is gone. This, as arrogant and ignorant demagogues exploit misinformed folks into believing that the 'screwing' of society is the way to go. This, by appealing to raw emotions, totally devoid of intellectual flavor, reason, common sense and prudence (the latter, doing what's right, however difficult). It doesn't take 'rocket science' to see why ordinary people are despondent, sure that their vote won't make a difference, and inviting anomie.
What The World Hates
This one fact the world hates; that the soul becomes; for that forever degrades the past, turns all riches to poverty, all reputation to shame, confounds the saint with the rogue, shoves Jesus and Judas equally aside. Emerson
America's Founding Father's feared faction aka partisan politics so much that they carefully crafted and created a divided limited power constitutional republic of united states with the people as the ultimate sovereign. And they were a homogenous white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male mix.
Winning elections requires money and time aimed toward rousing rather than reasoning with a base. Governing requires good faith negotiations and compromise to reason with a base. Money makes the candidate.
3
If they had been smarter, they would have incorporated a voting system besides "first past the post" (which inevitably leads to two party politics), like the alternative vote or rank-order voting. Our triumvirate division of power is useful for preventing overreach and consolidation, but it does nothing to address hyper partisanship and the decline of centrist compromise/coalition politics
Single-term elections at all levels of government might save democracies from themselves. They would get rid of the nauseating tendency of elected officials to act with an eye on the next election, which corrupts their policy-making while they are in office. They would de-professionalize politics and allow a constant rejuvenation of the pool of elected officials, instead of maintaining the geriatric preserve it has tuned into. They would strengthen the involvement of communities in politics, instead of their perpetual alienation and frustration in the sea of hypocrisy that has become a defining feature of our "democratic" politics. Why is this one-term possibility hardly ever debated? I am eager to hear any arguments against it.
1
What value our leaders? They are just like us except they run with trillions of dollars that they know how to use for there benefit and not the populace.
Thank You Tom for a article that addresses this. It was spot on.
This is a solid summary of the global situation, and I like the direction Mr. Friedman is going. Fixing things in community has always been powerful. But our Koch Bros. and like-minded Right Wingers in State governments are trying to even block local decision making but passing laws forbidding local laws countering their desires. Starving local governments the last several decades was not effective enough. Now they will simply render them impotent.
We still need a way to overcome evil. Voting is still that best way, in my opinion.
3
Wasn't all this already discussed in the 2005 book by Jared Diamond - Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed? We didn't pay attention in 2005 and we are seeing the cost of that lack of attention.
1
I hope the glue that is holding the Democrats together is strong enough to hold through November. Leaders must come forth to see that it does. I remember leaders years ago in Minnesota like Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McArthey, Orville Freeman and others who pulled the diverse parties on the left to form the Democrat Farmer Labor party, the DFL which exists today. We need such collaboration in the National Democratic Party if we are to save our country. The leaders are out there. Can they put aside the petty differences? They must!
1
People cannot escape the world of disorder- they can only bring it with them.
There are too many people. We are entering an age of disorder. There will be no safe countries.
Nations with a low population density have the best hope- but they are in the process of being inundated by hordes of people who cannot stop having children.
We need to stop this- not because we hate the people who want a better life but because we must to save our own lives and protect the future of our species.
If you try to save everyone you end up being able to save no one. Our own children deserve a fighting chance.
3
The one thing that we can take from this piece is this: If we're going to save anything (human survival on this planet, for instance) we had better start NOW!
There is more wealth being hoarded by the 1% than has ever existed before in our history. Human history, not American history.
If that wealth were taxed as it was after the New Deal we could be investing in infrastructure here and abroad.
Imagine: no War on Drugs which would immediately cripple the drug gangs of Central and South America; which would immediately cut down on the refugees trying to escape them.
Imagine: building highways, water and sewer systems, and affordable housing in those "worlds of disorder"; putting people to work and building something of lasting value for them.
t rump's America is a frightened bunch, hunkering down behind secure border walls, afraid of dark skinned people in their communities and the world, sending the military to express the American ideal (sic) instead of diplomats and aid. Meanwhile, China is in the "world of disorder" building infrastructure and good will.
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both paved the way for this build up of hoarded wealth. We the People must find leaders who are not afraid of the future.
3
It seems painfully obvious to point out that Friedman's world of order/ world of disorder dichotomy is a near perfect overlay for the colonizers and the colonized. In a long echo of colonialism and imperialism, it seems perfectly rational for people to try to redeem their stolen legacies.
1
Mr. Friedman can never seem to get it through his head that the species itself is not built for lifelong learning. In fact, that's why we have culture, which is inculcated at a very young age and meant to help you meet the conditions that will be met for the rest of your life, with some tinkering on the edges. The assumption is that those circumstances will not change drastically. Mr. Friedman, who also seems to have answers for everything never discusses what these eager disciples will be learning because neither he nor anyone else knows. The real purpose of this "lifelong learning" trope is to place the onus of their failure on the poor, dumb worker who just can't keep up. It's basically Social Darwinism with a smiley face.
3
Aside from your failure to understand that Brexit is not economic suicide but rather the UK jumping off a sinking ship, a very cogent column.
Back around the nineties, the mantra was everyone must learn technology. That was the educational future. Now suddenly it’s lifelong learning? Learning....what?
And communities suddenly coming together, solving problems, in a nonpartisan way.
I doubt it’s the Kool-aid talking, so it must be more ‘come let us reason together’ music therapy. There there, a pat on the head, comfy shoulder, dry that tear. Yes the world is changing, and this feel good panacea doesn’t begin to address many of the things we need to deal with it. But hey, see you in PA for Part 2 for the secret sauce.
I take issue with Mr. Friedmans claim that between 2000 and 2010, manufacturing jobs were lost "largely to digitization and automation".
That may be true today - now that most companies have completed the task of moving skilled-labor production to the lowest-wage, lowest-regulation country, but I doubt that it was in fact true in the period cited.
Mr. Friedman and others' constant attempts to passively dodge responsibility for the entirely predictable consequences of the failed free-trade policies they championed have become tiresome at best.
Worse still is Mr. Friedman's continued assertion that while capital must be free to move, people "can't" be.
Perhaps it is time for primary elections for Times columnists.
2
World of Order versus World of Disorder? What a joke! Immigrants aren't bringing disorder, especially not those brave souls who have run the gauntlet to get north. They are fleeing it, but what is the cause? Generally it is the same cause of the Great Disorder that is the present United States government. Right wing neo-liberal authoritarianism and austerity for the 99%, mindless cruelty, greed by those who already have too much, political, social and cultural manipulation to maintain power.
Fight the Disorder: vote (with paper ballots) and be careful what you vote for.
2
Another excellent analysis. I value your ability to connect the dots in order to understand the bigger picture.
2
With respect to the U.S. it is really sad that 75% or so Americans believe in the same things (including universal healthcare, fair (higher) taxation of the wealthy, an end to illegal immigration, no more affirmative action, free trade, amnesty for long-term undocumented immigrants, advocating democracy abroad, continuing our traditional Western alliances, etc.) but each major political party represents the radical fringe of their base. It would be great if a Centrist party could emerge sweeping up the center 75% of American political opinion and leaving out white supremacists, Socialists, Trumpists, open borders advocates, Occupy Wall Street types and other nut jobs.
2
The second law of thermodynamics can be paraphrased accurately as "overall,everything runs downhill". This also applies to economic systems. Before all world became so inter-related, an isolated economy could prosper for a while, but this is no longer possible and we are beginning to see the results.
1
Mr. Friedman. As always, another great presentation. I am in my mid 70s, and a migrant. Growing up, life was not easy. I talk to my grand children and make comparisons of what they have and enjoy life today, versus my then world. Back then, there was no TV, home phone, cell phone, calculator or even a computer. Fortunately, I am able to write my comments on a computer today, which was a different story several decades ago. Thanks to technology, and the continuing progress, a lot has changed to bring the world, to what we see today.
What has not changed is the income inequality. The ever widening gap between the wealthy and the rest of the society. We see this growing problem, not in just one place, but, a problem around the world. Political parties, here at home, and around the world continue to grapple with this problem, with no prudent approach to seek a solution. Both the republican and democrats continue to adopt or change their tactics or strategies. But, the problem remains.
We have yet to see, any positive impact from the recent tax reforms. If we see the problem of income inequality here, what exactly is the problem? Is it the system? Why do we have poverty in our country? Why do we see homeless people? Millions of people are with no proper health care. Yet, we are the greatest country in the world. Both the republican and democratic parties continue to address these issues. When will we see the solutions?
The great consolidation is on. Fewer and fewer people are gaining control over the things that the rest of us need, and to satisfy their quarterly reports, they are extracting more and more of our income. The number of hours you have to work to get housing, medical care, education, and food is going up as a result.
The people know this and they want it reversed. The centerists are incapable of doing it because the problems are too profound, so the electorate turns towards the fringes. For the Democrats, it's the Sanders wing; for the Republicans it's Trump.
The only way to dominate free-thinking individuals is to use actual force, or to control access to the things that they need. Progressive governments have traditionally mitigated this activity, but they are failing to do so over most of the modern democracies. We see it coming, we don't want it to happen, and we will vote for whoever can fix it. Trouble is, right now there's nobody capable of doing that.
Maybe Trump will be so bad that the Democrats will go back to the center, and the lesser of two evils will win. Then we get more of the same. Or maybe Trump and his ilk will carry the day and we can continue down the rabbit hole. Either way, it's not looking good for economic freedom.
Tom alludes to what I think is the core problem facing governance today: the ability for governing bodies to provide per capita basic state services such as property rights, a viable judicial system, food and water. The Club of Rome, a group of economists, political scientists, and environmental scientists, outlined this emerging problem in the 70's. The World Watch organization took up the issue and provided on-going data (analysis and opinion) under the leadership of Lester Brown until recently. Hardly anyone in the US and Europe took notice. Too busy watching reality shows to realize reality closing in on them? Couple this with the damage to local populations by colonialism and you have the perfect storm we are faced with now. The beginning of mass migrations which will now stress the countries who still have decent per captia government services.
In other words, the current immigration crises in Europe and America did not manifest out of thin air and/or current government policies in the immigrant's countries. They have a deep history that we need to acknowledge before we can conceive of solutions.
There are Limits to Growth and we are now encountering them. If the human population does not limit birth rate, the Earth will and it won't be pretty.
3
Tom avoids the issue of population (over population?) growth by refusing to mention it. Without population growth, issues of global warming would not be an issue, but the world economy would have stagnated, along with the advancements in science and technology/healthcare and communications.
1
Browbeaten by Depressions, Fascism, World Wars and the fear of Soviet ideology, the West agreed to decolonize abroad and empower minorities, Labor and women at home --- the Welfare State.
But two generations of peace and prosperity gentrified large sections of the formerly poor and oppressed. Repeal of the Welfare State was led by the New Right --- exemplified by Reagan, a former foot-soldier of FDR and Thatcher, the Tory daughter of a grocery store owner.
The wages of these sins are the return of the old demons --- economic and social inequality and stagnation and the rise of intolerance and Fascism in the West. The newly independent fell for autocracy and ethnic wars --- satisfying the West's expectations and predictions. China and India, the only two exceptions, are promising economies. But one is falling into the mold of pre-war Japanese militarism-fascism and the other, a democracy, safe for Big Business.
We are not facing new realities. Just revising the past. Fortunately, we have the remedy: Bernie Sanders!
2
"But one is falling into the mold of pre-war Japanese militarism-fascism and the other, a democracy, safe for Big Business."
Have studied Mr. Modi's past statements? And the society in which still casts are the basis of many relationships cannot be called a democracy!
Brilliant op-ed by the voice of reason, Tom Friedman.
Absolutely on-point, and we need this kind of thinking to infuse all of society and all of our politics.
The time we're living in requires this kind of strategic thinking, understanding that the massive transformation we're living through on this planet is guiding us toward a destiny we share as humans: freedom, empowerment, solving our problems through community-based local solutions, being the leaders we wish to see - and eclipsing identity politics.
Many Democrats and Republicans have lost sight of this centrist, essential view. The extreme fringe of each party is hijacking common sense on the national stage - most recently on immigration - and it's tearing people apart (literally and figuratively).
We need empathy for the plight of those escaping tyranny in a reasoned way, and we need border security. These two perspectives do not have to be mutually exclusive like some extreme Democrats and extreme Republicans would like people to believe. The heart and soul of this country was founded on compromise.
The way forward is the way Tom F. is pointing everyone toward. And everyone needs to listen - paying attention tomorrow is too late.
I hope your Lancaster column next week addresses the limits and weaknesses of local collective self-interest, like what happens if Lancaster's self-interest conflicts with that of it's neighbors. Your answers to these questions may indicate whether local self-interest can solve global problems, or we are merely witnessing the pretty first steps of a slide into Feudalism.
1
Excellent column Mr Friedman. If the human race wants to make it through to the next century, nations will have to work together (for a change), for change . Stop wasting money, energy, natural and human resources on armies and weapons, trade wars, walls, etc. Abandon the current false goals of GDP growth, stock market rise, profit, frenetic consumption and material accumulation (our new religion). Start reducing inequalities on a worldwide basis by promoting education, equal access to essential resources and health care, fighting climate change together, promoting agroecological farming and sustainable fishing practices, protecting the few pockets of natural environment and wildlife that remain, etc.
Party politics is so unimportant in the long run that it is really sad to see so much energy wasted this way.
But obviously it starts with electing heads of government with conscience and morals, a clear sense of civic responsibility and who are not indebted to industry lobbyists...
3
Mr. Friedman uses climate change as a metaphor here. Does he understand the real climate change, and that it is happening faster in geologic time, the warming, than what the fossil record shows has ever happened before. Species from this and human encroachment are becoming extinct at an increasing rate.
What about the disasters from storms, droughts, and sea level rise? Give us some real news here, instead of speculation based on political parties motivational advertising techniques, appeals by their nature which are glued to the past, just in their short term bias, if nothing else. What are the costs of global warming now as a percentage of GDP; how has this changed; what are the projected costs even with the conservative estimates of future warming if nothing or only half measures are done? The Paris Accords are half measures. When you talk about globalization, you are talking about Trade, generally a good thing and a rise out of poverty, but global warming is globalization in a truer sense. It's Nature, and the seas are going to rise everywhere, cancelling all those anti-poverty gains.
Globalization should be all the world's governments taking action together towards zero emissions, which is easily doable with a concerted effort, beginning with a carbon tax, the proceeds of which fund renewable energy at the lowest price (no tariffs on solar and wind, but carbon tax $$ spent 80% on locally produced). The result would be cheaper energy, plus clean air and water.
3
And Social Justice. At its heart, Environmentalism is about Social Justice. Why should a handful of the world's population, who own the fossil fuel and chemical industries, profit handsomely at the expense of everyone else, who are forced to do without clean air and clean water, and will suffer the consequences of droughts, floods, and rising sea level, which are occurring now at an increasing rate.
1
This Op Ed is truly real Food For Thought.
Agree with it or not; or just parts of it, or none of it, it forces one to think beyond one's 24/7 daily perspective and beyond the petty divisiveness of our ego driven political rhetoric and our narrow minded ever more tribal punditry on all sides.
I often do not always agree with Friedman but I respect his work.
His "The World Is Flat" a classic in educated, logical thinking in a common sense way. It has influenced my own thinking since I first read it years ago. This Op Ed is perhaps as equally Strategic in its scope and logic.
I think it is right up there with "The World is Flat" and Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel."
3
This column is pure nonsense. It presumes a fictitious "world order" where free markets and democracy rule nations and prevail in an orderly world. It ignores the advance of autocratic nations ruled by despots who play by no rules and who's only interest is "self". The only "party" in Russia, Turkey, China or Saudi Arabia is the ruling party. The fact is that in this advancing socioeconomic blight brings disorder and anarchy. What Tom should be writing about is the rapid and alarming decay of order and the advance of disorder that will terminate, not change western democracies.
3
The Republican Party transformed "overnight"? If by overnight you mean the last 25 years. Chauvinist, nativist policies were hallmarks of the Bush Administration ("freedom fries," steel tariffs, John Bolton's extended tantrum at the UN), the "Tea Party" movement, and radical Republicans led by Newt Gingrich in the House of Representatives during the 1990s.
6
The problem is not in the political parties but in the lack of faith.
The politicians just exploit the absence of faith to pitch us against each other and benefit personally by staying in power. The politics are not a source of the troubles, but just a symptom...
Education cannot be substitution for the faith. The education makes you educated, not strong, smart, steady and faithful!
The faith teaches you how to control you emotions. Both men and women are equally emotional. Don’t fool yourself there is any gender gap between them.
Why do the men jump headfirst into the bloody conflicts?
Because their emotions and fear overwhelm them so they cannot comprehend what in their best interest is.
That’s why the Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks. They wrongly believed that by attacking America the Arabs would solve their domestic Middle-eastern problems?!
That’s why the USA invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya (one non-Arab country and three socialist ones) although the terrorists were the Egyptians, the Saudis and the Jordanians - all of them from our allied states and all of them the fundamentalist Arab Sunni Wahhabis.
Why did our government do it? They were fearful of losing the power. If they publically admitted the source of problem was in our closest regional allies, they would share the partial blame for the attacks...
Fear is the strongest indication of the lack of faith.
The traveling ban is a sign of fear too, not the display of national strength...
1
faith is the opiate of the masses - I heard that somewhere (wink)
2
When we get there we will call it Utopia.
2
Just a brief aside: Nicaragua in addition to Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, is also collapsing.
2
Complex adaptive coalitions?! Whoa. I thought I was reading an op-ed column, and, next thing I know, it morphs into a an article from a sociology journal! I am not opposed to alliances between workers, businesses, politicians, et al. But I cannot resist pointing out that Thomas Friedman is America's most renowned cheerleader for globalization, and that he is only now scrambling to understand that a lot of Americans have seen their lives upended by it.
2
Chris Rasmussen, I always have a problem when people use terms "like cheerleader for globalization". Globalization is not a policy choice but a fact of existence on our planet for many decades now. The only policy choices are how to deal with it. There is no "for" or "against" it anymore as you can beat for or against oxygen or sunlght. It just is.
1
Capitalism itself is very good at upending lives. Are you a socialist? Not insulting you, I have my doubts about socialism, but also about capitalism.
1
When I last read a column so instructive--so enlightening--so challenging. . . . .
. . . . .I don't know.
Thank you, Mr. Friedman. Wonderful piece.
I have read about William Pitt the elder. (A name preserved in Pittsburgh. . . .Pittston. . . .other places in Pennsylvania).
The man had gout. He may have been bipolar. After his glory years (culminating in the British takeover of Canada), he was driven from office. He brooded. He sulked.
"And then," says Churchill, "by some mysterious operation of nature--the scales fell from his eyes."
OH! . . . . .MY! . . . . .GOODNESS!
"What," he must have asked himself, "is happening to the British empire?"
Thirteen American colonies--all but in full-scale revolt.
He stood up in the House of Lords. "THIS, my lords,--THIS is the situation!" He endeavored to rouse those slumbering peers to the realities.
He failed. And hey! Here we are. The United States of America.
Sometimes, you HAVE to wake up--"wake up and smell the coffee." As they say.
Looks like YOU have, Mr. Friedman.
How about our government?
How about the leadership of today's Democratic and Republican parties? And hey! One last thought.
Do LET'S. . .. please!. . . ..
. . .get rid of Mr. Donald J. Trump. And his minions.
They aren't helping.
Thanks again.
1
Only the faith helps you control your greed and other foolish emotions, not the stupid politics or any kind of education.
The politicians just try to exploit your weaknesses by persuading you that your faults are somehow the national strength.
Nothing is so well-received and lavishly rewarded as those politicians feeding our ego, conceit and fictional greatness with the colossal lies in order to get elected.
The politicians keep telling you how great and smart you are while simultaneously connecting their saddles to your back and attaching the bridles to your heads...
Heresy! Tom Friedman states that "we can’t just take in all the tired and poor who now want to come." People crossing the southern border illegally represent "the World of Disorder"--might as well call them murderers and rapists! In fact, these views expressed by Mr Friedman come close to the average voter sentiment. Unfortunately for Dems, they (especially Nancy Pelosi) have spent the last two years campaigning for MORE, not less, illegal immigration and MORE, not less, immigration overall.
2
Utter nonsense! Show us where and when Pelosi campaigned for more illegal immigration. You can't.
3
So then your solution, or rather the best we can do, is a ground-up Marshall plan. I've had (naive I'd say) conservatives argue that poverty and homeless ness etc should not require government investment, that charitable organizations should be enough. The Marshall Plan succeeded only because the full weight of the US government was applied to a series of major international problems. Piecemeal approaches today will not be up to the task either.
3
This is nothing new it has happened throughout history.
The unknown is the product. Mindful of David Hume's problem with induction, probability tells us it's not good.
Optimists are going to whistle all the way to their entry into a camp, and the luckier will receive a get out of jail card and go directly into oblivion, which is by far an away the better of the 2 alternatives.
The world is on the verge of another one of its death rattles, read the tea leafs.
"To think of humans as freedom-loving, you must be ready to view nearly all of history as a mistake."
John N. Gray
1
When 1/3 of the manufacturing jobs disappeared in less than 10 years this destabilized a large segment of our population. This disproportionately affected the blue collar class, decimating jobs for not just Bubba, but Bubba’s kids as well. The result? A primal scream for change.
2
Tom, you forgot the 4th current option: demonize and bully, name call, use dog whistles, hold no ethical standards, lead just 39% of America, lie every day from the White House......
We cannot continue on this destructive path.
5
Brilliant. Cogent. Thank you.
Some parties richly deserve to blow up. And the Presidential Apprentice is waving the dynamite and lighted matches, daily. YOU own him, GOP.
4
People are sick and tired of business-as-usual corruption eats up their lives in slow motion. Voters are waking up and they are angry. Does that answer your question Tom?
2
The Republicans sold out to Grover Norquist long ago. He and the Koch brothers control the purse strings and the fascism of Libertarianism.
5
Tom is wrong about Republican Party in his analysis. In other countries it may be true that the old parties have been wiped out and new parties with new ideas emerged, but in America Republican party is still standing and doing well. It is because it has a new leader who is willing to abandon rigid rules and dogmas like free trade, globalization and uncontrolled immigration and replace it with pragmatic new rules. He is willing to regulate trade, control immigration, abandon climate extremism. Without these changes Republican party would have become the party of elites and would have lost touch with common man and wiped out. Now elites lost their Republican party and are homeless.
1
"Now elites lost their Republican party and are homeless."
They're not homeless. They reside in Trump's cabinet. Did you get your $4,000 saving in tax cuts this year?
2
Well, Tom, a good overview of the problem of the perfect storm of 'climate changes', but a rather weak and overly optimistic solution of grassroots communalism. I suggest you are underestimating the chaos that is about to be unleashed and the inability of Western liberalism to contain the impact. Democracy with its core of creative chaos was sufficient during the industrial revolution, but not up to the level of disruption fast approaching.
Absent from this discussion is the rise of China and Asian socialist capitalism. Rapid responses to multiple disruptions require a focus of vision and effort sorely lacking in Western 'democratic' capitalism which is too diverse and self centered to meet the demands of such a tsunami of changes. Authoritarianism is undeniably on the rise and, sadly, it might be the shock solution to the overwhelming challenges before us all.
There is a book that covered economic theories from "total capitalism" - "total communism" and about 4 stops in between (sadly, I cannot remember the name of the book) but it does point out that a hybrid approach - maybe like the China and Asian socialist capitalism you mention might be the most successful
Why are so many political parties blowing up? Because they're foll of terminally self-involved, bloviating liars. You don't have to like the remedy (Trump & co) to recognize the disease.There were two classic examples of this in 2016. Clinton's theft of the Democratic nomination, and Trump's winning the Republican. At the Democartic national level, I see no recognitionof their peril; at the Republican, the ultimate consequence of Nixon's Southern Strategy.
Until the Democratic leadership recognize this, it'll be more of the same. The Republicans have no motivation to change; they're getting what they've wanted for decades.
2
Just another smoke screen avoiding the obvious. These parties are not "blowing up", no rather, they are suffering atrophy. The voting public he refers to are not "fractured" and "glued together" [sic] we're waking-up because the "water" is at our chest and we're tired of being miss-used (aka abused) by a class system carving up the globe for the benefit of the few at the expense (or in spite of) the many. Glad to see that Mr. Friedman's neighborhood now feels the water at their knees. Welcome aboard, we've been waiting and waiting for you to pickup a bucket. Do be sure to check your bucket though. There's folks walking around putting holes in them.
1
Trump is the leader of the Anti-Change Movement. Seal us up in our country, fortified with physical and virtual walls. Hire American. Buy American. No foreigners wanted. Make American Great -- like it was in the 1920s. With monopolies, stock market manipulation, cheap labor, an unregulated internal market. Russia has Putin. Italy has Conte. We have Trump -- and Twitter.
2
I like how you think the left is united against Trump. Made me laugh a lot.
1
Why?
1) No accountability It doesn’t matter how egregious the crime, theft or fraud, no leaders of large corporations or banks ever go to jail. The the current legal system is not structured to touch them.
2) Debt. The rich get richer, the middle class works harder & the poor gets poorer. The idea of social goods has been replaced by class birth The future is loaded with debt,not opportunity or mobility.
3) Diversity to the exclusion of all else. People sense social cohesion is falling apart, but to mention this is to automatically be called racist, sexist, something-ist. This leaves the issue vulnerable to right-wing extremists.
5) Identity politics without thought or reason regardless of merit or facts. Everything is cast as race or gender
6) Attempted manipulation by the media, not by obvious idiocies like Fox News, but by mainstream media like CNN. For example referring to illegal migrants just as migrants – sabotages and erodes sympathy.
7) Unlimited altruism. Without examination altruism is narcissism. The public understands this but the liberocracy do not.
8) The belief that all cultures are equal, except white culture which is bad. Try practicing the SJW system in China or the Arab world.
9) We need policies that see children as economic & social investments, not treat pregnant women costs to be made up for by mass migration.
10) No teaching of basic economics, philosophy,and obligation in schools – just rights that will magically be paid for by someone else.
4
What is missing here is perhaps the biggest problem, over population. This puts people on the move perhaps more than any other thing. It is what could completely blow up Africa and the Middle East. This is where thoughtful efforts need to be directed.
3
You are correct, we have complex problems driven by our refusal over decades to address. These complex problems have morphed into greater problems which have impacted our daily lives.
Congress has played a huge role in this dynamic, which is that tough Legislation was never written, so problems continued to fester beneath our feet. Our Representatives are perpetually running for the next election and fear any unfavorable sound byte, this also kills compromise. They also fear the raft of their "base", if they fail to follow the orthodoxy of the party line. In this scenario, we have the political party before country. The Republicans have also labeled the Democrats "traitors", how then can we achieve a dialogue?
The "loyal" base is driven by stupidity and continual lies from our President and his Administration along with Fox and Sinclair. This includes those three winning promises, Abortion, Guns, and Religion. Followed by the true winner, "those others" are causing all your problems, "don't look behind the curtain, to see the enemy is us.
The result, as you have written, is ignorance driven by the failure to address these difficult issues. The issues need to be addressed today not in some future tomorrow.
1
Good stuff as always from Freidman.
I've heard that about one quarter of the world's humans rely on the yearly cycle of melting permanent frost and ice of the Himalayan mountains for their drinking and other use water.
That's about 2 billion people.
Ooops! These mountains are losing their ice to a warming climate.
Good luck when 2 billion people are looking for water for survival.
They will take to the road.
And, their movement will destabilize the "world of order" (what's left of it polically, socially, governmentally) on a whole different order of magnitude.
Melting ice on Himalayan mountains is gonna be really bad.
That's why our military calls climate change the number one challenge to OUR national security.
(bet you didn't know that)
The logic is simple: Anything bad that happens over there… hits us over here. Our economy depends on the world around us.
Deal with that Donald Duck.
4
Interesting use of actual climate change and analogies. But the demise of parties is less complex. It's a product of one mentality - the Starbucks/video game culture started in the late 80s, early nineties.
By that I mean, why have one choice (coffee, or winning) when you can have myriad, interdependent choices/outcomes. There is a generation that doesn't know these things:
-- once upon a time, coffee shops sold coffee black (you put your own cream/sugar
-- once upon a time, you had three vendors (your mortgage company, your electric company and probably a auto loan
-- once upon a time, entertainment was binary, a book, tv, movie or if you lived in the right place, live theater, sports
-- once upon a time, your ballot during elections wasn't 64 pages (like CAs in Nov 2016)
-- once upon a time, news was available by paper, radio, tv and actually contained facts and nothing about Kardashians
While I dislike making 30,000 decisions a day now - just try to read a Starbucks menu early in the am - whole generations grew up on video games that had endless, loops, options, choices.
The resulting impact on the collective western psyche is that binary choices no longer fit, don't stimulate, and don't represent. So we have E-Bay, Etsy, Gap, Banana Republic, J. Crew, etc., all selling the same T-shirt.
The sad thing is it's not about substance any more; anything that is binary is rejected because it's not the right process.
Mr. Friedman,
If you think the Republican Party was a deficit hawk party, you are not looking at events closely. The party for many years has wanted to roll back the New Deal. The deficit was a screen to enable them to do that. In an era where environmental climate change and income inequality threaten to destroy our ‘social contract’, you spent years calling for ‘entitlement reform’ and a ‘grand bargain’ that Republicans were never going to agree to on a good faith basis. As you point out, people need more government support for lifelong learning and they need healthcare they can count on across life changes. That’s the entitlement reform we need!!!
2
I'm looking forward to next week's column about Lancaster, Pa. I wonder whether we can learn a thing or two from the Amish and ban the smartphone.
3
The Supreme Court decision on Citizens United seems to go unnoticed as major reason our party system is in shambles. Maybe I’m missing something but ever since our corporate citizens and their 501c4 license to bankroll political campaigns came along very little of the democratic process makes sense anymore.
Additionally, the disappearance of a ‘checks and balances system’ in the Supreme Court appointment process was a major blow to the country’s former democracy. No wonder the major parties are dead in the water.
6
Climate change, the real one, will be winner. We are handing it the win by refusing to acknowledge its existence. The rest will be moot. We will devolve into a new Dark Age and billions of us will starve to death.
2
Thank you for this excellent overview of the world political chaos we are suffering through now.
I feel like I am standing at the bottom of Niagara Falls being totally inundated by the pounding, deafening water wondering how long my pathetic resistance can survive any longer.
The rise of right-wing nationalist populism is just more proof that it's really easy to convince people that they deserve more than they have (even if they're doing fine), and that those "other" people are to blame.
In Today's column Friedman is worried about the big things the kind of things that there are no answers for, his mind and gaze set on all the problems afflicted this sad planet of ours.
My mind and thoughts are closer to home today, today is the funeral for a fellow New Yorker, a young boy named Lesandro-Guzman-Feliz. He was 15 years old and he was murdered by a Bronx street gang. A Dominican street gang : Trintarios have gained a foothold in the Bronx, they make their money selling drugs and human trafficking. A Bronx street gangs so brazen that they stabbed a young boy to death even though it was for certain that their faces would be caught on video camera. In the very same week that they killed a boy who only wish was to serve the city as a police officer, members of this same street gang, chased another teenager onto the Bronx River Parkway during rush hour, and beat him so bad he is still in the Hospital. Here in the Bronx we have the very same thing that people are fleeing the world of disorder to escape: murderous street gangs. Try and figure that out. Are the immigrants bring the world of disorder with them?
making it worse, after being stabbed Lesandro ran into a local bodega, the bodega owner told him to get out, while the boy was bleeding to death the Bodega owner ordered him out. Where is the sense of community? This is a harbinger of the future, a total breakdown of the 'World of order"
where will we run to?
3
Thank you Mr. Friedman for articulating a perspective that helps one see and understand the big picture.
2
How have the displaced coal miners done under Trump? That single, visible, understandable point needs to be highlighted. He gave the mine owners back their right to pollute our rivers. He did a coal miner photo op In the Oval Office. That’s all. That cynicism will work on voters - until it is exposed, repeatedly.
Friedman misses one point ... to the degree that the partys say that X is a problem and that they will solve it ... they don't. Have the Republicans ended abortion? Have the Democrats solved global warming?
This lack of success could be due to any of a number of reasons ... but that doesn't matter; what does matter is that regardless of the reason, there is no success. What the party-blowers-up have done is to appeal to the frustrations of the electorate (it's all the fault of those other people who are anti-American!) and offer hype and feelgoodism.
There is an inherent contradiction in this column. In the first half, Friedman argues that the post-WW II world order is fracturing -- "blowing up," in his words. Then, in the second half, he argues that there is a division between the World of Order & the World of Disorder, with Europe, the U.S., & Canada belonging to the World of Order.
But his World of Order is exactly where he claims the "big mainstream political parties across the industrialized world are all blowing up at once." Has he noticed the chaotic failure to adequately address immigration, both in Europe & the U.S.? Has he noticed Europe's abject failure to adequately address the Eurozone crisis? This is the World of Order? Really?
1
Interesting column. The Republican and Democratic parties have both outlived their usefulness and should go away. They both defend the interests of the increasingly wealthy, but present no path forward for the rest of us. Neither party acknowledges, nor has policies for addressing, the massive global social disruption caused by the related forces of climate change, conflict, wealth inequality, and migration. The Republicans want to wall out the world, and the Democrats wring their hands over Trump's cruelty to migrant children (who need to be reunited with their parents today). People here and abroad need a new generation of leaders who ignore the tired left/right dichotomies and present pragmatic solutions to problems that have no respect for old political boundaries.
3
A good analysis, Mr. Friedman. The old order is changing and my hopes are with the younger generations who have been living some of these changes most of their lives. Many of us who are older are caught in false paradigms.
2
"all to accommodate the instincts of Donald Trump and his base."
Thomas seems wedded to the assumption that the Republican Party was previously in sync with the desires of its base and not just its Washington based establishment,
The way I see it, is that both parties have not kept up with what is going on in the US. recessions cost people their homes, jobs, life savings. the immigration issue has not been dealt with, only causing fear and hatred. the middle class is virtually gone. both parties think that the "good" times will last forever. We are a forgotten society. why vote when the elected officials do what they want for their own benefit? education is out of reach for so many, jobs moved overseas. We can't fix what was 40 years in the making.
2
Thanks, thank you, thank you very much, Thomas Friedman, for this column. I hope it moves the editorial board and other columnists to give up and realize that there is but one party left that believes in voting, in the possibility of living life freely without six figures coming in every year (and without the steamed-up hope, buried in zero-sum cynicism, that others must fail in order for themselves to feel they're succeeding). We are going to have to join the rest of the world, and there's no reason to fear Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are outsiders who stand no chance to help the Democrats win back the Rooseveltian legacy the party's abandoned. Good luck to New York and California. Stay on the wave that's shaping up.
1
Outside WWII, US efforts at nation building haven't produced very good results for anyone. Even the Great War produced mixed results for most of Europe. I would be wary of envisioning some grand new refugee Marshall Plan on a global scale.
We should also mention the 68.5 million figure isn't actually talking about refugees anyway. The figure more accurately reflects forcibly displaced individuals. Roughly 55% of which come from three countries: Afghanistan, Syria, and South Sudan. US policy runs the complete gamut here. Full scale intervention and continued occupation is on one side. Partial intervention in the middle. Something approaching absolute neglect on the other side. Again, we're not very good at fixing countries whether we break them or not.
If you want to trade military spending for foreign aid, fine. However, I wouldn't expect any better return on the investment. The US is incapable of ending world humanitarian crises in way comparable to WWII. Even with the Western Alliance, we don't have the power. Our job until recently was simply to keep the crises from getting too big to manage. That's not going so well either.
3
Yes the world is flat, now what? In our perfect 1960 walled off world we invented the consumer economy. Today we can try to wall ourselves off but that won't work. The West had solved the problem of their world with the Industrial age organizing workers for a goods (trickle down), we now make trinkets for each other, not life improvements. in order to keep this paradigm going. GE failing,Facebook is rising. We demand cheaper trinkets from China, while our middle skilled workers are languishing.
You identify structural problems like automation, AI, interconnectedness and order vs chaos, being ignored by political leaders, and hint at hyper-local solutions. But big issues like human dignity and democracy, discussed before the fullness of the industrial age, remain. (if you wonder what a Trump really wants, it is cheap, compliant labor aka indentured servitude, for more profits).
An agenda for the future would have to include the question of what would be the ideal human existence in our interconnected world. Our old paradigm of working in a grimy steel mill to get a camper to take your children to a National Park for fresh air may be ending. Hyper-local satisfaction is already found in community, but those other pesky issues like human dignity and real democracy and how to pay can't be solved locally or ignored. Power and wealth still run the world, making profits on trinkets and politics on fear, so we are distracted from our true interests.
4
No, what you're seeing is the chaos that precedes World War III.
It will become clearer after the fact that this was where we were heading all along. It was just too crazy to see clearly at the time.
3
The emotion that you claim needs "gripping" has at its root basic drives that go back millions of years. We constantly seek patterns that reveal ways to satisfy them. If the new order you see does not supply these patterns it will produce another fad rather than a solution. Tell us please, Thomas, what components of the new order give it staying power?
I keep coming back to a line in some song from my generation: "I feel the Earth move under my feet, I feel the sky come tumbling down." Maybe by parents' generation, they of the Great Depression and World War II, fast on the heels of World War 1, felt the same. The times, they have always been changing. But there is a real existential threat now, a changing climate that we are a country think we don't have to acknowledge or do anything about it while the rest of the world at least is acknowledging and taking some steps to address. Even that bastion of conservatism, the Catholic Church in Rome, or at least this Pope, is sounding the alarm. Will it ever change its theological position on contraception to address overpopulation that stresses the Earth and leads to mass migrations when ecosystems fail? That would be a great gift to humanity.
8
The pope is a scientist, as well as a humanitarian.
1
Why so many political parties are blowing up has nothing to do with the supposed “reshaping ecosystems of work, learning, geopolitics, ethics and community.” It’s 100% predictable, largely generational, and the result of an innate human character trait: entitlement.
When times are good - no world wars, no revolutions, no plagues, we don’t realize how good we have it. The quality-of-life space each of us feels we deserve to occupy swells to a proportion the sum total of which could never possibly be accomodated by the world in which we live.
Post-enlightenment or pre-, the only possible result is conflict. Fasten your seat belts.
2
A biblical verse from Mark 10:45 reads "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”
Our elected officials have foregone their responsibilities of servant leadership. The were elected to serve the people . . . ALL the people. While the right wingers have served the fortunate few and the left wing feigns concerns for the lonely masses, while they all are most concerned about getting re-elected and where their next donation will come from.
Our political parties have failed us. It is time to start over. We must do it now as Mr. Friedman so rightfully states, "Today later is officially over. Later will now be too late, so whatever you’re going to save, save it now."
Excellent column, Mr. Friedman.
7
As Gore Vidal said, "There's only one political party in the U.S.: the Property Party, with right and left wings." It's been like that since our founding when only property owners were allowed to vote. The Supreme Court ratified the Property Party when they allowed unlimited money into our electoral process. Nothing can fundamentally change until we demand real election reform. And that won't happen until the electorate cares enough about this issue to stop electing the same old Property Party candidates.
14
Ahhh!! A real breath of reason in the typhon of emotion. Thank you for a well written opinion.
All I can say is,"... thus it has ever been so...".
I call this egalitarian social democracy. We already thought of it over there in Denmark, Holland et.al.
3
"we now need something similar to stem the spread of disorder coming from the south and help people stay at home"
I couldn't agree more, the solution is not keeping people out but getting them to stay where they are. People will always flee if they think they can live a better life elsewhere. Our money would be better spent helping these Central American countries, a difficult and most likely unpopular strategy but education, birth control, crime control will do more good than the money spent on a wall.
7
Spot on, always,Mr. Friedman. The two-party system is ossified and stymied by special interests, big money, and old ideas. We need fresh voices and innovative thinkers, but not of the racist nationalist-populist kind or the Silicon Valley arrogance sort, but rather, those who understand the pace of the world and how to meet it in interesting and creative ways that are inclusive, welcoming, and broad-based.
I think you are correct but...but...but where are these folks " ….those who understand the pace of the world and how to meet it in interesting and creative ways that are inclusive, welcoming, and broad-based...."
They seem to not be in Congress, or at political rallies or in the streets screaming at each other.
My refrain is that I am glad that I am old and will likely be dead before it all hits the wall.
As Friedman acknowledges at the start of his article, In an interdependent world there are no local problems. He refrains from drawing the obvious solution: there are no local, bottom-up solutions to globally produced problems.
The purpose of his "complex adaptive coalitions" - in plain English, local groups - is to provide coherence to society. Not only is it not going to solve any problems, it's going to contribute to the growth of global village idiocy: people's disinclination to grapple with understanding complex global problems and hammering out big political positions based ont hat understanding.
Local group movements have been endorsed by people on the right, such as Francis Fukuyama and by people on the left, such as Anthony Giddens, for decades. Let's move on. It's time to think globally and act nationally.
1
Regardless of origin, the observation, "you can fool some of the people some of the time, some the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" I think aptly describes the situation.
It's interesting to note that the revolt is being led by the rank and file who are beginning to realize that their political power has been usurped by leaders who, relying on blind adherence to party loyalty and rhetoric, have used it primarily to feather their personal, cultural and economic nests, and that a reckoning is due.
It's good to know that the mindset that drove the citizens of Boston, Lexington and Concord is still vital.
4
Since I was not there in Boston, etc... I can only guess but, I wonder...Do you think they would have been interested in giving up their personal firearms?
Just wondering???
Your question may be answered by the fact that revolution was in the air, and the battles at Lexington and Concord that touched off the fighting were triggered by General Thomas Gage, commander of British forces that had occupied and shut down the Port of Boston strangling the local economy and impoverishing the population, who sent a contingent of some 500-600 soldiers to search and destroy cashes of arms and munitions that had been hidden by militias in anticipation of hostilities, in Concord and surrounding environs.
Regardless of origin, the observation, "you can fool some of the people some of the time, some the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" I think aptly describes the situation.
It's interesting to note that the revolt is being led by the rank and file who are beginning to realize that their political power has been usurped by leaders who, relying on blind adherence to party loyalty and rhetoric, have used it primarily to feather their personal, cultural and economic nests, and that a reckoning is due.
It's good to know that the mindset that drove the citizens of Boston, Lexington and Concord still prevails.
1
Excellent article. This is a climate where either fascism or socialism is a popular option to solve the ills Friedman mentions. We have been down this road before in the thirties after seeing the world order
disrupted by the Depression and the rise of fascism. Whether the US democratic system can handle the takeover of the GOP by a neo-fascist with the Democratic party currently split wide open between socialists and progressives remains to be seen this November. My fear is fascism will win out if any national calamity strikes again. We now have a Supreme Court who gave a wink and nod to the dictatorial powers of of the neo-fascist in the White House. Nancy pelosi has to go. Bernie needs to retire and give up.
1
Why are the political parties failing the world?
Because they are owned by the global corporations with the sole objective - maximizing their short term profitability.
What is at the very end of such agenda?
An abyss!
If at the very end of the short term goal were a wide bright path forward that would be just a current segment of the long-term plan...
3
I think most of today's issues can be traced to Merkel's decisions back in 2015. She set the ball rolling for xenophobic fear-mongering to overtake common-sense compassion. Americans saw the stream of migrants entering Germany unabated and, rightly or wrongly, associated Merkel with then-candidate Clinton.
1
Somehow I feel I've read this before. The real truth is that we are living through a historical change-of-phase unlike anything seen since the dawn of the so-called modern era, or perhaps since the fall of Rome. Things are falling apart and technology is not going to save us. Collapse lies ahead and a new order, probably worse than the one we have now, is coming into being. Or perhaps all efforts to impose order on the world will fail, and we will live in an anarchic, dog-eat-dog world for decades or centuries to come. A dark age "made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of a perverted science."
3
A rhetorical question, Mr. Friedman, over-analyzed as usual…the parties are blowing up because they no longer represent THE PEOPLE they are supposed to represent. They no longer care about the Common Man, & are driven by wealth-seeking, power-hungry, corporate-controllers who represent the status quo. They are focused on securing large donations from their vested interests & making sure that the feathers of the banks, investment firms, business/military industrial complexes are smoothed & assuaged by cooing words & policies of self-aggrandizement. They can shield themselves from the Hoi Polloi by making rules that apply to everyone but themselves. The Duopoly of Right-Left-Republican-Democrat is a chimera that rules the roost. The names change but the party remains the same. Obama, Clinton, Bush, Trump - they were & are in it for themselves alone. Immigration take the front page news thanks to our foreign policy that has been interfering in the politics of South America for at least 40 years. We are destroying those countries that elect "gasp" socialists or progressives who make promises to their people, promises that we prevent from taking place. We fund dictators of our choosing, assassinate those we don't like, use the IMF & the global banking systems to devalue national currencies to the point of causing hyperinflation, with the end result that those same countries collapse into planned chaos. Americans are waking up to the failure of the ruling parties, and none to soon.
2
Articles were written back in the 70 's predicting the exact problems that are now facing the globe
Sometimes there are no good answers .
This country is now so polarized that I fear it has reached a point of no return , and what we are now witnessing is like watching the very beginning of an avalanche .
Watch the documentary which shows step by step the breakup of Yugoslavia after Tito 's death , and substitute the Serbs and the other faction - Albanians ? - , with the liberals and conservatives ,and it's not to hard to imagine that things could get very ugly before it all over .
My solution is , see if you can befriend one of those survivalist that's building an underground bunker .
3
"If I work at a steel mill and am a member of the steel union Monday through Friday — but on Saturday I drive for Uber and on Sunday I rent out my spare bedroom on Airbnb — are my interests with capital or labor..."
You don't get it, Tom. The passage above, coupled with your repeated assertions that we live in a world of "life-long learning" and re-training, don't point to a dynamic, exciting, hard-charging economy, as you're fond of asserting.
They point to a world where it is becoming harder and harder to make ends meet; where the goal is to keep up just enough to continue to be a functioning cog in the capitalist machinery.
And it's a futile goal, as your example above plainly shows: a traditional job, plus a gig economy job, plus renting your spare bedroom just to make ends meet. In Tom's privileged world, this is seen as thrilling proof of economic dynamism. In the real world, this is seem as killing yourself to make rent.
What you fail to see, Tom, is where this is really leading us to: one step closer to the pitchforks.
10
People are hopeless.
They (we) have absolutely nothing left to lose.
So why not blow up the existing order? Things could not get any worse.
Example: $850 / mo / adult of after-tax dollars for health insurance, and that's before the $3000 / person deductible.
6
There is one root to all these problems environmental and political. There are far too many people on the planet and we are making more and more all the time. Conflict - call it "disorder" if you wish emerges from scarcity. Unchecked population growth leads to scarcity which breeds the disorder. China put their population growth in check and are now reaping the results. Central America, Africa, South Asia (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) and the Middle East are busting at the seams and the resulting chaos is washing up on the shores of Europe and North America. There are two parts to this solution. 1) Population Control 2) Trade. Why trade? Because as we have seen if you do not improve conditions in those countries they will be coming to yours. Oh if you don't like the sound of that there's a third option -- its war. If we don't work with the chaotic countries to improve governance, education and living conditions and at the same time stand by while populations in those countries burst we are all in enormous trouble and the only solutions at that point will be very ugly.
8
Another well thought out opinion. I salute your thoughts.
Whether it's Trump/Putin or Comcast/ZTE, consolidation of power is pushing us toward feudalism... a handful of lords and millions of serfs. We've surrendered control to the oligarchs who believe that their position on top of the heap will sustain them even if the heap collapses.
7
Political parties need to be thrown off...not embraced. They are self-serving, anti-service-to-all, vengeful and generally an anathema to freedom.
President George Washington called it right as regards the dangers of allowing political parties in his farewell address/letter to the nation.
5
There is one root to all these problems environmental and political. There are far too many people on the planet and we are making more and more all the time. Conflict - call it "disorder" if you wish emerges from scarcity. Unchecked population growth leads to scarcity which breeds the disorder. China put their population growth in check and are now reaping the results. Central America, Africa, South Asia (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) and the Middle East are busting at the seams and the resulting chaos is washing up on the shores of Europe and North America. There are two parts to this solution. 1) Population Control 2) Trade. Why trade? Because as we have seen if you do not improve conditions in those countries they will be coming to yours. Oh if you don't like the sound of that there's a third option -- its war. If we don't work with the chaotic countries to improve governance, education and living conditions and at the same time stand by while populations in those countries burst we are all in enormous trouble and the only solutions at that point will be very ugly.
1
To the south of us, are the Americas. And They are on fire! The United States is the only lake in the Americas. Why does any one wonder why they all want to jump into the lake. The answer is not a wall, but to put the fire out, and as a second benefit we will have a richer market to sell too, and a more stable Americas. And not a bad idea to remove the tinhorn dictators of all the Americas. Can you imagine all the Americas, a vital economic power.
3
"If I work at a steel mill and am a member of the steel union Monday through Friday — but on Saturday I drive for Uber and on Sunday I rent out my spare bedroom on Airbnb — are my interests with capital or labor, with more government regulation or less?"
Your interest lies with competency, integrity, and equality. Just like it always has.
When solutions aren't obvious and tradeoffs are complex and often painful, the LAST thing you need is to buy into the easy answers of an authoritarian.
Throw in ignorance and racial / religious / ethnic scapegoating on top of base of easy lies, and you have the perfect, tried and true, recipe for disaster.
It's not obvious which countries will come out of this period of extreme change on top but it should be obvious that Trump and his ilk are not the right answer to any challenge worth solving. History is quite clear on this:
No country was ever made "great again" by an ignorant, dishonest, rage-filled authoritarian. America will not be an exception.
4
As for complex adaptive coalitions, this solution sounds like Yigal Levin's in the Fractured Republic and David Brooks has presented has presented various versions of this community level solution solving system.
As for diagnosing the problem in terms of "climate change", less convincing.
Look forward to Part 2
2
George Orwell, Alvin Toffler, Marshall Mcluhan, and Issac Asimov saw it coming. They predicted a dystopic, authoritarian world where robot replaced humans, and the medium is the message. It's time for a sea change. The two party system here is anachronistic. The Republicans are full of fossilized fools who are headed to the elephant burial ground. Their supreme leader, a Mad Hatter, is running a kleptocracy. The democrats are stuck in the sixties, age wise and mentally. It is time for a third or fourth party that truly represents the people and not business. They have to adapt more quickly to deal with the radical changes that technology is bringing. Congress is too slow and ineffective. That coupled with a polarizing, obtuse, power seeking president makes viable, egalitarian change very difficult and scary. Trump has no forward thinking vision. As a result we are in reverse and descending into a micro world where there will be chaos, hatred, and even anarchy. Getting rid of Trump or weakening his power won't be the magic bullet we desperately need. But it will certainly send a signal of hope and maybe some positive change.
3
If I were a NYT columnist, I would change Trump as a person within 6 months or quit my job.
If I were the president, I would never impose the travel ban on the people from several countries because such a ban is a strong indication of incompetence, personal inability to understand the issues and a lack of confidence.
The ban is a public admission that our President cannot change those nations or solve the problems between us.
We need the leader that can do it. Thus, if I were Trump, I would quit my job or change as a person.
It’s all about the faith.
The opposite of being faithful is unfaithful. Being atheist has nothing to do with being faithful. Nobody is asking you to believe in the Almighty but to adhere to the certain behavioral principles.
The faith is indeed the light that enables us to recognize our own mistakes.
You cannot defeat Trump by imitating him. You cannot change him by being confrontational just because he is. If you embrace his faults then he won by imposing his system of values upon you.
How do I know this? I had a quarter of century to think about it.
I came to the USA as a refugee. Why? Because in ex-Yugoslavia there was another bully called Slobodan Milosevic.
He introduced a certain type of nationalism that destroyed country’s cohesion, tolerance, internal connections and unity.
But, why did Milosevic win?
Because everybody else started imitating him by inflaming their own brand of local nationalism...
2
Everyone is afraid. Afraid of losing their jobs, afraid of their neighbors, their bosses, strangers, and especially other races/ethnicities/sexes. And now, within a given community, not only are women afraid of predatory men but men are afraid of retaliatory women. The NRA is a response to fear. Fear is a response to change that upsets our security. All the changes resisted by Trump's supporters are based on fear: fear of blacks, fear of immigrants, fear of GLBTQs, fear of women, fear of men, fear of climate change, fear of economic collapse.
The alt right is based on anger generated by fear. Much of the Evangelical Christian community is based on fear of change. White folks' feeling of security came from a position of power. If that's gone, their security is gone too. Trump projects only strength and determination: that reassures his supporters who will swallow anything to feel safe. All politics is not local or national or international: all politics is emotional.
5
Well said. Echoing FDR in his first inauguration speech, "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself...."
That global chaos you describe, Mr. Friedman, is the reason why one should NOT bomb, invade and dismantle a prosperous nation "just becase we can".
3
“How do we fund the kind of “perpetual education” that …”.
There is one glaring omission in Mr. Friedman’s approach. Why all the disorder?
The destruction of his so-called world of Order was brought about by the Neo-Liberal Ideology. That Corporate Welfare State has transferred massive amounts of resources to already bloated Plutocrats and their enablers.
When the financial sector imploded in 2008 it was rescued by taxpayers – the ordinary man and woman in the street. They now have to manage on miserly income whilst the Corporate Sector is mollycoddled with tax breaks and minimal regulatory control.
No wonder Mr. Friedman can see a response to the community shattering neoliberal ideology “emerging organically in certain towns and communities across America”.
It is ordinary people all across the world that are trying desperately to reconnect and repair – but with less and less resources, and more and more wars, courtesy of the Corporate Military Industrial complex.
2
The first thing let's do is get our passports renewed.
The second thing let's do is figure out where we can go to hide from Trump and all of this.
1
I read a story about a couple folks who were upset about all the political turmoil and chaos worldwide.. Sometime in the mid 1930's.
The place they chose to go was a paradisiacal island in the South Pacific called Guadalcanal.
The story may be apocryphal.
Okay Tom, lets solve one of the big problems affecting the World of disorder: Drugs. Lets legalize drugs, all drugs. You can't have drug gangs if drugs are legal. Nothing will bring in the money that drugs bring in, I mean you grow drugs in the ground for pennies and can sell them for a hundred here or a hundred there, to millions of people, all of it tax free, who wouldn't be tempted in a country where a week of hard work may make you 80 dollars American, who wouldn't be tempted to sell drugs. Drugs bring in so much money, and you don't need a college degree to sell them. Drugs are the new Gold, and just as Gold fever led to death , drugs lead to the same exact money fever that leads to death. The biggest consumer for drugs is the good ol USA, the same country ironically trying to keep out the people who don't want their kids to be volunteered into the drug trade. Strange world. Legalize drugs and you will solve a lot of problems, but we wont because some politician who lives in a gated community will put his arm over his heart and say illegal drugs are so bad, the same politician taking money from big Pharma, the ones who make all the opiods everyone is overdosing on. Strange country. Stop fueling the drug gangs. Legalize drugs. Problem solved.
5
Ummm, are you serious or are you an 'agent provocateur'? I think it is perfectly OK to legalize weed but other drugs not so much. On the other hand, helping the addicts instead of sending them to jail would be great. Treating addiction as an illness and not as a crime is the right thing to do. And following the trail of big pharma and their lobbies, when clearly they encourage addiction is certainly something I would support. Those guilty pharmaceutical companies need to pay for the treatment of their victims, preferably until they are thoroughly bankrupt. That would be a fair retribution.
"We can’t just wall ourselves off, and we can’t just take in all the tired and poor who now want to come. Just as we had a Marshall Plan to stem the spread of Communism in Europe after World War II, we now need something similar to stem the spread of disorder coming from the south and help people stay at home."
We can start by ending our support for corrupt dictators, like Juan Hernandez in Honduras, who make their countries unlivable for their citizens, who must then flee north to save their lives. This policy of supporting these criminals, often in the name of anti-communism, has been going on for well over 50 years and is chiefly responsible for our "immigration problems."
4
Actually the Democratic party started to fracture when they supported Bill Clinton against Monica Lewinsky (they just didn't know it yet). That was a big stumbling block for Hillary, and part of her loss.
1
you establish "learning" as one of the three "climate changes" yet you fail to treat it specifically...in brief, fix the dumbdown and there's a chance we can solve, ok approach, everything else...ignorance is as lethal as the stuff that's poisoning our air, ignorance is explosive, tantrums (what we have now in place of civil debate and concerted action) are blasts of ignorance.
1
Looking at the future through the same old tired structures. Inequality is the driver. People are desperate. Speak with Andrew Yang.
1
You are correct that the established parties' demise is in part due to their deafness to cries of too much immigration causing too much cultural change.
But omitted here is the huge impact of the American and world-wide Conservative Movement which has long sanctioned ideology over evidence-based analysis, shallowness and misleading propaganda over truth and reason.
The sad union of Christians and Catholics with this movement, choosing fetal rights and heterosexuality but ignoring all other policies saving lives and our very civilization while bizarrely blessing love of money and the rich becoming richer, has allowed it to flourish.
A reality-tv-based culture of celebrity and banality left a too-comfortable populace vulnerable to its deceits.
1
When finished in Lancaster PA. You might want to take a look at the Northwest Project in Springfield, MO.
Thanks to Tom for his characteristic analysis, insight, and solution spaces.
Here's an answer to a question he poses. We must somehow accommodate all refugees, even it means our own systems, and standards of living are slightly degraded. In calculus there are gradients, like mountain roads, and the disparity between high points and low points are clear, Tom's disorder and order. Like a can of soda and the key to the title of one of Tom's book, flat beer will come or a blow up. What we hear now is the hiss of the engine that demands flatness because it is fair and necessary for global human evolution.
"But how do Democrats think we’re going to manage the flow from the World of Disorder?"
One way would be to stop launching dumb wars like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which created refugees that streamed across the borders.
As for South America, we could take steps with the UN to improve security and the economy in those countries so that people don't feel compelled to leave them.
3
Two features about this need to be considered. The first is the "disordered" places in the world. Americans look at these places as Trump has portrayed them: as swamps full of vermin and threats. But what Americans need to do is look at these places from the residents' point of view. If you were in these folks shoes. what would you do? And the answer really is anything. Anything to get away from there, anything to survive, anything to try and have a better, safer life for you and your children. Americans refuse to do that. Along comes Trump with the silver bullet answer: build the wall. It changes nothing. In Trump's own words: "What have you got to lose?" And for these folks the answer is absolutely nothing. Think about it: people that will come even if their children are snatched away from them are only one thing: desperate. Not criminal. The second thing: the silver bullet. Trump told people what they wanted to hear: I have a quick solution to your problems: build a wall, impose a tariff, end family planning, threaten anyone who does not agree, and deny global warming to make another buck. But Americans will learn that complicated problems usually require multi faceted solutions, the willingness to look at the problem from many perspectives, and patience. And then they will realize what many of us already have: Trump will make these problems worse, not better. He will add to them, not make them better. You know what to do. Vote.
1
"[The] old knee-jerk positions won’t work anymore." No they won't. The 68.5 million migrants on the move are just the tip of the (rapidly melting) iceberg. The global problems afflicting us are gaining in severity and becoming increasingly unsolvable. I fear the political fracturing we are witnessing will only grow more severe as the reality of humanity's global dilemma becomes ever clearer. Buckle up.
2
I do not see any light at end of the tunnel. It is all frustrating. I do not know about other countries. But in America, our democracy is terminally sick. Our values and standard are no better than in the third world countries. Honesty is loosing proposition. Most of our politicians are crook. The country is so much polarized. Putin is our king maker. The congress job approval is in single digit. Nobody has any trust on the Supreme Court as the judges are acting like political hack. We are moving toward unknown frightening situation.
1
The simple answers are overpopulation, inertia, fear, and greed.
In my view, what has happened, is that the two major parties, beginning in the 90's, have essentially merged on economic issues, leaving the working class with nowhere to turn. The more socialistic democracies of Europe have also been tilted to the right economically, thus all the austerity programs. Couple with this that we entered a bad depression (because of these economic policies), along with a steady decline in the middle class already (because of the same polices), and you are in a kind of pre-WWII situation with populism. Everything is driven by economics. If people are doing well the xenophobic and racist tendencies remain, by comparison, tamped down. The Democrats having adopted the GOP principles (for example the DLC) have left people with nowhere to turn. In Europe more or less the same has happened. So it’s all economics and depression and the conflation of the liberal and conservative parties (Trump sounded even more radically left economically than Clinton...during the campaign). This is about to change though. In fact, when the progressives start to take over, if it happens sooner than later (it will happen because the current policies will continue to fail), watch Trump adapt and take a sharp turn left, because that will be a winner strategy. My prediction.
The question isn't, "Why is this happening?" The question is, "What took so long?"
Middle class living standards have been degrading in the USA since about 1070—especially access to healthcare and higher education. Europe's middle class did somewhat better until the Great Recession, but Europe and the UK have recovered from the Great Recession more slowly than the USA—which itself has recovered way too slowly.
In a nutshell, the mainstream political parties of the USA, Europe, and the UK ignored the blatantly obvious economic lessons of the New Deal. In the Great Recession they bailed out their banks, but not their ordinary people.
The urge to blame immigrants is misguided ignorance. But the economic grievance which drives that urge is quite well-founded. Immigrants didn't cause the problem, but there indeed is a very serious problem. People are reluctant to believe that their elected leaders and mainstream institutions have betrayed them—but that is exactly what has happened.
The question is why, until now, the ordinary people have put up with it.
1
1970, not 1070. Things actually have improved somewhat since the Middle Ages.
1
Such a hopeful ending to what seems to be overwhelming problems on the national and world stage.
One concern: with what's happening with local efforts is the knee-jerk reaction to take the approach we see in national politics -- vilifying those opposing your position. We're seeing some of that in Austin as we work through a major change to our approach to zoning. On the other hand, it's hard to characterize people with a different opinion on zoning as "the other" since they live just down the street.
One obstacle: a state legislature, ostensibly touting government closer to the people as better, simply overturning local efforts across the state aimed at improving their communities at the request of business or conservative policy groups.
3
Tom, it's all good news. All of these daily shocks to the system. Here and in Europe.
Here, Trump, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez - ultimately it's all about the same thing: voters disgusted with politics as usual in the U.S. That's the big picture.
And as much as I hate to say anything good about Trump, this is all good. This is ultimately about the renewal of U.S. politics. It is a phase we are going through. It will be painful (there are daily reminders of this from Trump) and occasionally joyful (as it was last night in the Bronx).
But in the end it's not about these people. It may not even be about the emerging themes: populism vs. liberal/socialist reform. These themes are just the expression of voters' rejection of politics as usual. New hybrid themes and leaders will ultimately emerge. And the result, in the end, will be restoration of the health and vibrancy of our stagnant, decaying political system.
And yes, lots of people accuse me of seeing a silver lining in everything.
4
I agree that many locales are becoming great places to live because of local engagement. However, there are limits. When a locale becomes a humane place for all its citizens to live, people move there from other places without a humane perspective. This is exactly what happened during the great migration of southern poor people (both Black and Whites such as Appalacian folks) to the great cities of the North like Chicago, Detroit, and New York. In the post WWII era, southern states did not dispense welfare, education, and jobs to the poor, mostly Black, citizens, based on racism and ideology. The poor moved in great numbers to places that did. This placed a huge burden on those forward tolerant communities, pushing many of their richer tax payers into isolated suburbs, many with restrictive housing covenants, where their taxes paid for good schools, roads, and things the middle class aspired to. Thus there are limits on what local communities can do. There is a secondary problem with gentrification, when the places that are humane and provide a good quality of life actually take over the lower, working class communities, pushing the occupants to the old, inner suburbs. This is exactly what is happeneing in Washington D.C. where the mayor is caught between the affluent who want good schools, day care for old and young, crime free neighborhoods, and parks, and the push on the poor and working class citizens to move out of gentrifying neighborhoods.
2
The real problem in the US is that the republicans have moved so far to the right and been so successful in raising money from the rich that the Democrats have shifted to the right. The Democrats have sold out, in many cases, to the rich. Not nearly to the extent of the republicans but too much. Politics is now dominated by money and those below the top 10% don't matter anymore.
8
There's nothing strange or mysterious going on here. The political parties weren't delivering, and the electorate wants that changed. Both are in the pockets of big business, fighting for competing corporate interests and not for you and me. The people know this, and will try to elect people to fix it.
8
This is very good. But I do think a missing piece is the lack of morality shown by CEOs and boards that insist on paying the heads of companies more than they can possibly need at the expense of those that that actually keep the company going. It is evident when the incompetent leaders of companies depart with a huge check for messing up.
This supports the insistence on extending class distinction. Because no matter how poorly you perform, we still want to be sure you don't ever have to interact with the lower classes.
Our irrational approach to business and the stock market is another piece of the puzzle. Companies no longer worry about long term performance. It is all about a quarterly assessment. Short term thinking never results in long term success.
12
Part of the problem is that the Dems and GOP are one and the same two-headed snake. If there is one diversity that is in dire need today in this country it is within political parties. We obviously can not move forward with what we've got going.
Can there be a Centrist Party? Tired of the opposite extremes. As it is, it's not working well for anyone.
5
I'm not following you because, indeed, the Democrats and the GOP have merged on economic issues over the past 30 years. This you seem to indicate as a problem, but the you say you want a centrist party. You already got it, my friend. See how well it has worked?
1
@James Smith Right because Trump's tax cut wasn't passed (by one vote) on purely partisan lines, and the Bernie Bros and Tea Party folk are totally aligned on free college for all while eliminating Obamacare...
This the "two parties are the same" is only true when we look at it as mirror images. Both are fractured parties paralyzed by extremely partisan ideologues. Both are increasingly succumbing to to outrage and emotion over logic and facts and neither is willing to compromise for the good of country.
Look at any major issue. On immigration, I think any reasonable person would argue that we cannot take in everyone who wants to come and some people who want to come here would not be assets. Therefore we need stronger border controls and deterrents to prevent illegal entry. However, we also need labor and many migrants have contributed a lot to their communities. Additionally many migrants have legitimate humanitarian claims to come here. But what do we hear from the two parties? The new rallying cry of the Left is "Abolish ICE," which is a de facto call for fully open borders as immigration laws that aren't enforced are no laws at all. Meanwhile the Right is increasingly moving towards de facto internment camps and draconian deterrents that may well violate our own Constitution as well as international treaties around refugees and asylum seekers.
So tell me again how the two parties have somehow merged and become one centrist party?
"Political parties are "blowing up" because the tension between their obligations to financial interests and their obligation to the public has become grotesque."
Martin, New York
Could not have said it better myself.
7
Excellent analysis, Mr. Friedman.
But I'm afraid I have little optimism about the situation, even if you are going to describe some good local solutions next.
Because a lot of this is being driven by the inability of large majorities of people to have much if any say in their fates and lives. First, there are just too many people for the available resources. Second, what resources there are are being swallowed up and hoarded by an oligarchic minority which obviously believes it can wall itself in and live luxuriously while the rest fight and often kill each other over the scraps. Third, the chances of an expansion in resources--a bigger pie--are being mitigated everyday by a broad unwillingness to deal with the uses to which advancing technology is being put and to plan to use it for greater good.
I think it's quite possible we're going to see a massive corrective in which large fractions of the planet's population disappear. It might be through toxicity, it might be through drought or starvation, it might be through war. But it's hard to imagine any of this ending in anything other than something at least mini-apocalyptic.
11
" The Camp Of The Saints ", French novel from the early 1970's. Quite controversial and thoroughly discussed at the time ... worth a look.
Thrilled to see this column which develops some observations I’ve had and ties them together. Especially I’m glad to see someone with a large audience point out that Republicans and Democrats are so blinded by their own historical orthodoxies that they cannot speak reasonably about the problem and how to deal with it.
Can’t wait to read about a community effectively developing solutions. I desperately need some positive news, some optimism, some news of cooperation rather than fighting.
8
The irony of course to these "climate changes" is while Trump and others of his persuasion have benefited from establishment confusion over how to deal with these "changes," Trump and his authoritarian companions are offering up 1950's solutions for these dramatic shifts in social, economic, and political world we now live in.
4
I love this piece. Three climate changes tied together in a brilliant and timely column.
People are frightened by what has been happening in the natural world, but even more frightened by the lack of action in their governments to address the crisis. It affects us all and no one, not even the very rich, can buy themselves immunity from the consequences of inaction on that front.
In this climate snake oil salesmen make a lot of hay in the short term. People are desperate for good news. But deep down they all know something is wrong and something fundamental has to change - in the way we do business, in the way we are governed, and in the way we govern ourselves.
Candidates for government will fall into three camps - snake oil salesmen, business as usual salesmen, and those who are willing to address the concerns of their real constituents. The first two have to go.
People who believe in the future of our tenancy on this planet are already living that dream without the benefit of leadership. How wonderful it would be if we had some help to make this happen on a macro scale. It's our next frontier, our biggest challenge. I know we can rise to meet that challenge, but the old way has to go. There's no wiggle room and no time to dither. We've all got work to do. Let's get on it.
24
Why don't we learn from countries that are doing well instead of countries that are self-destructing? Their common denominator is that their governments respond to the 100% instead of the 1%. We need to get the money out of politics with public financing and matching funds.
A parliamentary type election held in four or five weeks would be even better but that seems a step too far for the US.
"Enlightenment Now" by Pinker gives me some hope.
12
Which countries are doing well??!
Australia, Canada, Scandinavian countries. Even little old England is doing much better than a few years ago with far fewer resources and potential, but better government. We have so few excuses given our advantages.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings
In my opinion this new ‘pragmatism” is not available through Trump or Hilary. They are dinosaurs that fought one another to an empty victory with old empty promises. In a sense both sides are somewhat delusional. Trump may have gotten people to vote for him and he did tap into the fear of change but I do not think he and his administration can answer the urgent call for the right types of change to keep our way of life afloat. The list of real choices have changed, seemingly over night and most of us are not even choosing from the actual list of choices available. So if this is the case how do we get to a point where more of us are on the same page on the same menu and are able to be pragmatic together?
3
Somehow Friedman missed some of the biggest contributors to 'political parties blowing up', starting with income and wealth inequality, a situation that both parties have contributed to. As a result the middle class has been steadily shrinking, which by itself is a sign of decreasing stability for most countries. Related in the loss of solid middle class jobs, which again Friedman like many others claim is due primarily to automation, but they miss out on the larger impact of the loss of over 60,000 US factories since China was allowed in the WTO. The loss of factories represents a much larger loss of distributed income and wealth due to the many jobs in local communities that would support a factory.
Some estimates that are that just Walmart imports about 80% of goods, with much of 'made in the US' being food. Walmart reflects what is seen by most people when shopping in the US.
Keep undercutting the middle class and we'll have more problems than political parties blowing up.
20
Thank you. Well said. Well north of 20 million American jobs have been lost because of NAFTA and sending jobs to the Peoples Republic of China. Automation is a minor roll used by those who are paid to support the "free trade" agenda to make it sound like job loss would have happened anyway because of robots.
Free trade: a code word for easy corporate access to labor camps in third world countries.
1
The root cause of all these problems is the extraordinary complexity of the world order, economically, politically, militarily, technologically, and so on. This complexity is beyond the limits of most people to understand because it requires an enormous amount of effort to find the information and then that much more to make sense of it. Then there is a significant amount of classified information that may be necessary to unravel the puzzle.
In this environment, politicians do not hesitate to distort the circumstances to fit their needs and present a belief based and dogmatic explanation that will solidify the "good guys and the bad guys." Unfortunately, these explanations of the complex world are not generally footed in reality and much of it does not even make sense outside the dogmatic circles.
The answer to these must lie in finding ways to provide an honest, fact-based, rational explanations to the masses who have been fooled all these years. Until this is done, any party reshaping will only help split and splinter it further.
5
Looking forward to Part 2 of Friedman's discussion. The key word in his preferred approach to this 21st century development is "pragmatic." Our major political parties have doodled around for decades trying to force reality into an ideological mold. We need coalitions to define the problems, propose responses to the problems (short and long term), and enact policies to mitigate the problems.
For example: Is immigration the problem? In what way? Is health care a problem? Is it with insurance or treatment? Is it urban or rural? Is crime a problem? Are jobs a problem? If so can it be addressed by both public and private sectors? You get the picture. The strength of the USA has always been PRAGMATISM! We can do this!
11
"... trying to force reality into an ideological mold." That is priceless.
For about half-- of not just the American people, but Western democrats everywhere, demand to live in a society that has never existed. That, doesn't sound very pragmatic, to me.
For the first time in nearly a century, the democratic world is being economically influenced by other than such 'pragmatism'. Western democracy might very well be saved from itself; by China & Asia, Russia & E.E.. As they provide another platform from which reality can be lived, and projected.
Could the problem be with national parties, the very nature of national parties? I have felt as though I have been on the right track only when I was part of an international party (Socialist Workers when I was young and later the Green Party). Problems cross borders and solutions should also. Several of the facts outlined in this article beg for international cooperation and collaboration.
2
Friedman rightly points out that we live an unprecedented era of disruption. Bedrocks of Western societies, concepts like capitalism, two-party system politics, and democracy are now being called into question. The reason is that people are now awoken to the fact that these systems have been hacked and corrupted by the 1% for their own benefit and enrichment to the exclusion of everyone else. The disparity between rich and poor has never been greater. We have governments and legal systems that has been complicit in fueling these disparities creating a new Gilded Age. We the people are complicit as well for not paying more attention and voting.
28
I am a member of a local discussion group comprised of a broad range of retirees from diverse backgrounds, including business, professional (legal, medical), military, nat'l intelligence, etc. We also try to stay active politically.
We have been grappling, with much frustration, with the same phenomena, and are uneasy about the future of our country, as well as that of the world's.
Mr. Friedman's article addresses our key concerns brilliantly. Our group is fortunate to live in an area that is trying to deal with the rapid changes we see in our community (Raleigh, NC area) without the public rancor and hostility we now see nearly everywhere.
6
The overall logic and scope of this column provide good guidelines for thinking through our current conditions, from neighborhoods to international relations. A key issue that has been raised by Friedman and by people from a variety of political outlooks is how to build wider communities, up to and including national and international ones, from local sources of trust and innovation. Developing approaches to this issue could well begin with reflecting on the writings of Jefferson, Tocqueville, Arendt and other thinkers who based politics on local relations as the legitimate sources of power.
One objection to Friedman: The Republican Party since Reagan has not been concerned with deficits. Rather, they have cut taxes, primarily for the wealthy and corporations, and then used the subsequent deficits as a grounds to cut discretionary spending and social supports.
8
I think Friedman is spot on here - but the other piece of the puzzle that is missing is population control. Part of the problem with Syria in particular, and Africa in general is not just how climate is negatively impacting food production, but that human population growth is outpacing these resources. I don't know if a cultural adjustment to those cultures/religions who put a high value on large families can be made in time to save the planet. For all the pope's talk of climate change, I have to wonder why birth control is not part of the conversation.
17
Five hundred years after Copernicus described the solar system with the sun in the center, they finally formally acknowledged that Copernicus was correct. They will catch on eventually.
Religion is experiencing the same reorganization as political parties. The largest religion in this "Christian" country is none. The current occupant of the Papacy is trying to steer the ship in a different direction while the band is playing music on the top deck.
1
You hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. The Church has way too much sway in Africa, and is indirectly contributing to the misery caused by the high birthrate there.
I do quibble with your use of the term "save the planet" in the sentence that precedes your last. This is about saving the human race, the planet will get along just fine without us.
None other than the Dalai Lama has been speaking for decades of the urgent need for population control.
1
I agree with two of the three climate changes mentioned here, namely the change in our climate and the change from interconnected to interdependent. As for the third technological change, artificial intelligence is still, well, artificial. Donald Trump's brain is a prime example of artificial intelligence -- i.e. he thinks he's intelligent but that's purely artificial.
8
The liberal political world order and liberal economics are inextricably linked. The liberal economic plan promising to provide at the minimum a social safety net that prevents economic insecurity and at best economic opportunity for every citizen has been eroded, degraded and destroyed over the past five decades.
Over the past 50 years we have slipped further and further into a world wide conservative economic plan that benefits only the rich and powerful. That can be sustained for only so long before the poor stand up and fight back. We are nearing that point all over the world, including right here in America.
53
On the other hand, maybe the Republicans in office today are just venal idiots who endorsed a corrupt birther lunatic who is battier than King George III - and as a consequence have finally destroyed themselves.
"Local collective self-interest" or simply cooperation and compromise? Two very 'dirty' words in American politics today.
We're being manipulated every day to divide into the Trumpian order where it's either/or. But it's not is it? Most solutions for today's problems come from many sources which are neither all right or all left or all wrong.
Should we all be Centrists? Taking the best from each extreme? Depends on the issue is and what the goal is. I would argue the best solutions come from sourcing all ideas and working together.
That is something seen as evil in America today and will be to our detriment.
19
Why are the parties failing? Isn't the answer obvious? The short answer is obvious: Because they have failed the people they serve. Because they have forgotten that their power and privilege is NOT the objective of the voters. And that is the one common element I can identify between Trump worshippers and Progressive Democrats.
Like it or not, the Tea Party threw out many Republicans because they weren't listening to them--think Bob Bennett and Erik Cantor. Last night, Democrats threw out Joe Crowley and overwhelmingly rejected the DCCC's cookie-cutter pick Juanita Williams in favor of Dana Balter, a progressive who doesn't fit the "formula". Dems even threw a scare into incumbent Yvette Clarke who only won HER primary by 1,075 votes over her challenger.
The lesson's the same: entrenched, self-serving politicians are too complacent and too busy kicking the can down the road. The EU is a WONDERFUL concept and has kept the peace, but it's mgt sys was a poor concept when there were 6 or 9 in the Cold War and a disaster with 20+ members.
Spring '76 I was a student at the College of Europe, with the Cold War still very active. Yet prescient teachers there warned that a North/South confrontation would replace the East/West one in the future. That future had clearly arrived in less than 20 years, in 1993, with the first WTC bombing.
The last 2 times this happened we had WWI & WWII. WWIII may well come from a totally unanticipated direction, and it's on the horizon now.
6
At Least Mr. Friedman has realized that capitalism, and American republicanism, are not not saviours, but short term solutions to historical issues, that inevitably fail. Perhaps the columnist is witnessing the closing of the frontiers, the maturing of America. Americans starting to deal with reality. No longer able to access cheap land, resources, and space, Americans will finally be forced to live within their means. To leave adolescent fantasies about exceptialism, and accept the facts and realities of the world, as mature adults. As Churchill said, “one can always trust the Americans to do the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities”.
21
Even when they stick together, parties are going insane. I just read ( in AARP magazine of all things) that some Republicans in Congress proposed a balanced-budget amendment, only a few months after they passed huge tax cuts likely to produce huge deficits. Do the Republicans think there is a deficit problem or not? Or was this different branches of the Republican party, disagreeing on fundamental policy?
A couple of years ago a feminist urged the Democrats to kick out the moderates who voted against abortion funding in Obamacare. By the time I read that, Trump's Republicans were running all 3 branches of government and the Democrats needed all the Congressmen they had.
6
"...Do the Republicans think there is a deficit problem...?" Not when sights are set on cutting Medicare and Social Security. Just sayin'.
9
"...Do the Republicans think there is a deficit problem...?"
No, they think there is an attention span deficit among voters and the general public. And they may be right.
4
Mr. Friedman has struck a chord for me, a 73 year-old progressive, who is horrified by Trump's inhumanity at the border, and his rejection of our allies in favor of our enemies.
But, on the subject of immigration, I have been concerned by the unfettered tide of immigrants and refugees flowing through our southern border. While I admire their desires for a better life and a strong work ethc, it can, nevertheless, test my long-standing compassion and empathy.
In my native state of California, that rising population of immigrants has had both positive and negative impacts on the state as a whole. For example, over the past 30 years or so, highly qualified and talented teachers in public education have been kicked to the curb if they were not bilingual in Spanish and English. Yet you can find around 40 different cultures and languages on those same campuses. Whose culture and language should get priority?
From my own observations, a large percentage of those immigrants crossing our southern border have little if any education because their home countries provide little of it, if any, for the poor. This can make for a difficult transition for children needing to matriculate quickly.
Europe and Scandinavia are also experiencing immigration crises, both in the numbers of immigrants, but also with differences in immigrant cultures and how they adapt upon arrival.
This is a "climate of change" due to war, famine, and poverty on a scale unseen before.
10
"Europe and Scandinavia are also experiencing immigration crises".
Now methought that Scandinavia is in Europe. My fault.
As to climate change due to war, quite a few of these wars were started by the US, e.g in the Middle East, or Near East as Europeans call it.
What is happening here the US of A makes Lady Liberty cry.
1
"Unfettered tide"? For some years now, immigrants to the United States face fettering like never before. "Tide" isn't correct, either, because that implies a flood of immigrants being allowed into this country, whereas it's barely a trickle.
I definitely like how this column ended - with the hope of communities coming together - but there’s already a word for it. What you all “complex adaptive coalitions” is really just communitarianism. That’s an idea I hope will supplant libertarianism and the everyone-for-himself mentality that has poisoned Americans’ minds to the point of hating their own public sector and having little regard for the common good.
23
I think you can talk a Republican or a businessman into joining a "complex adaptive coalition," but not into something that sounds like "commune." Friedman's concept has been around a long time, not only in communitarianism but also in several forms of community organizing. Read or re-read Saul Alinsky.
Thank you once again Thomas for putting some order into the disorder. I am always amazed as to how your able to distill complex events/problems for all of us to be able to understand better. I also appreciate you always find the positive way out of the problems, the possible solutions.
28
Please, let’s not refer to republicans as ‘deficit hawks.’ They never were and never will be. Thank you.
22
If only our country could have a president who is intelligent, thoughtful, analytic, compassionate and balanced.
Time to run for President, Thom Friedman!
“A nation turns its’ lonely eyes to you”.
8
A most intelligent and intriguing piece. Keep it up...
14
Russia is winning in this environment described by Friedman. They are arming the insurgents or the dictatorial governments across the globe in an effort to encourage the migration out of those lands and into the previously welcoming arms of the west. And, in the west, leaders either don't want them or can't accept any more.
That Russian strategy has become a perfect wedge dividing the west both on and inter and intra-national basis. The normal bulwark against those Russian efforts, the American president, instead admires the Russian leader. Talk about another climate change!
4
Agreed. For a fairly cheap investment in cyber warfare, Russia can effectively sow seeds of discord in Western countries including the U.S. via hacking and social media influence. They've continued to improve their game as the 2016 election upset proved. North Korea and China too have a hand in developing sophisticated cyber warfare assets. Much less expensive and more intelligent means of reducing U.S. effectiveness than a bloated military budget, now at $779 billion (per year). Of course, Trump as Putin's proxy has been brilliantly effective in reducing U.S. stature across the world and government effectiveness. Rock on!
1
The bottomup local coalitioal initiatives might be okay to nurture the grassroot democracy but not a substitute for the national political formations that badly require reinventing to be more in tune with the changing aspirations of the people.
13
That’s where “trickle up” comes in. The states were designed to be independent of the federal government to react to local conditions and culture. The states are doing all of the innovating now as our federal government is stalled out.
2
The bitter truth is that global leaders do not have answers, many haven't even recognized the seriousness of the questions, and essentially assumed that the masses would remain quiescent in the face of the massive changes you describe, while too many continued to feather their own nests at the expense of the commons. With overpopulation, climate change, not to mention "stupid stuff" as Obama described it, you have the ingredients for a zero-sum world, and the perfect conditions for the rise of cynical egomaniacs more than willing to take full advantage. But, as heartening as the feel-good local stories are, these are problems of global scale that will require global cooperation. Hardly the stuff of zero-sum thinking.
8
I think it is actually a negative-sum world; killing the golden goose, as it were, by a few who make out well while diminishing the overall health and wealth of society. You can always find people who will gladly take everything down if they get paid for it.
Why Are So Many Political Parties Blowing Up? Do we have the courage to really look and see? Let's see...a planet that is overheating at a rate more rapid than even the most dire predictions thirty years ago, too many people, too much work for too little pay and we're still bedeviled by the same human limits that have pocked every epoch...greed, selfishness, hate, and fear.
But now there are seven billion of us doing the math and realizing that all of our disparate crises are converging. It's why the issue of hating refugees and immigrants is spreading world wide (can never scrub from memory a comment on The Guardian when so many were taking to rafts to enter Europe that one poster wished they could have been there...to push the drowning under with a pole).It's why the desperation over trade, tariffs, goods, etc. Too many people are going to be/are vying for too few goods.
A smart species would unite to formulate concrete plans for the coming refugee crisis driven by climate change when millions have to relocate. A smart species would go full bore on green energy to mitigate the worst fallout. A smart species would realize that paying a living wage pumps more money into a system that now shuts out the majority, and that that infusion would curtail violence, desperation and despair. A smart party would unite around that agenda.
We aren't that species. Instead, parties are imploding as factions try anything but working together. It's why the future is looking very grim.
12
For me, it was George Bush blowing apart the Middle East and Afghanistan. The new Christian world order in the Middle East never happened and now we have millions fleeing the destruction. The deregulation and financial system failure of the bush era led to astronomical financial hardship and income inequality. The blind obstruction of Republican and their austerity regime of political gain led to trump.
8
Nice article. I'd love to see the US political system break apart from the ossified Democrat/Republican dynasty. We need more choices.
8
I've been saying for years that the traditional parties, left and right, were hangovers from the 19th century which make little sense today. That's why so many people don't see any point in voting, and Democrats can't develop a coherent short message for campaigns. Instead, people form social/interest/geographic groups which are in many ways more tribal in nature.
Far Right Republicans have offset these trends by reverting to dictatorship - rule by a strong White Man which excludes folks not like White People.
Young people just don't care about ethnicity. They are more interested in education, ability, financial earning capacity, ability to adapt in the face of global warming, scientists vs religionists. Democrats have to figure out how to make science sexy to take the place of religion - or at least to create religions which do not conflict with science.
Global warming has created a huge new crisis for people in degraded environmnts grouped closer to the Equator. The new order must figure out a way to lower births in those areas and protect the environment. They will have to get a lot stronger politically and militarily to enforce the new order until all people can be educated as scientists.
Otherwise, we will all kill each other. Thus far, we are just blundering around with 19th century economic theories which don't even properly value nature. Trump is not the answer. Neither is Nancy Pelosi.
5
A 'State of the World' as opposed to a 'State of the Union' gives us much to think about.
The underlying forces creating this disorder include the 'disruptive' demagogues like Trump, Putin, Murdoch, and others. Ignoring obvious dangers like climate change in favor of the oil and extraction industries (coal) shares some of the blame for the massive migrations of people fleeing famines, corruption, repression, and simple mismanagement.
On top of the analysis presented here I would add old time religions that have not evolved beyond what they were 2,000 years ago. Ignoring reason and science in favor of rigid outdated ideologies, both political and religious, restricts us to repeating the mistakes of the past, e.g fascism.
Coming though: Quantum Computing along with Evolutionary Computing both of which will cause even more disruption since we, as a species, choose to ignore such the possible impact of such forces. Evolutionary Computing programs are created to evolve to perfection. What does that mean? Perfection. To the Quantum computer, or to the coder. What if the coder is the computer only. Are we then obsolete?
Questions.
2
You really pulled it all together. I don’t have time to learn the underlying realities about what is going on in the rest of the world; there is so much at stake in our own country. So I thank you for your worldly knowledge and ability to bring the whole picture into focus.
3
Has Mr. Friedman known actual members of the United Steelworkers of America who are working full time but also driving cabs and renting out their bedrooms? If workers are holding down two jobs and renting out their homes it is because they are short of money, not because they "identify with the capitalists"! I sometimes think that upper middle class journalists who write about workers get their information from watching "The Simpsons."
Here is reality: The Democrats in the US & the Social Democrats in Europe turned their backs on the working class. They embraced pro-corporate neo liberal austerity policies that destroyed the social safety net and the US labor movement. Why should workers support the capitalist parties that betrayed them? Last night, Bronx voters elected a Socialist to Congress!
4
Similar theme to that presented in one of your best books, a book I thoroughly enjoyed. But I think you underestimate the significance of racism. Trump would not succeed without open animosity towards Blacks as well as Muslims and Latinos. Similar to American racism, the European right wing movement thrives on anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim sentiments. Trump isn't providing jobs for the lower and middle class work force. His voters are often not sophisticated enough to understand the impact of his tax, tariff and economic policies, all of which hurt them. They easily grasp his nativist attitude and programs which play to a massive white fear that America has become a nation where whites are no longer a majority and with all indications pointing to a declining white percentage in future generations.
15
" Trump isn't providing jobs for the lower and middle class work force. "
But he's seen to be trying, with protectionist legislation like tariffs. Which, of course, are only going to exacerbate problems of unemployment for the "unsophisticated " population that the late Joe Bageant wrote about a decade back.
His account of what was building up for America and for the Democratic Party was rejected then, as was Bernie Sanders.
i cannot speak about the political parties in western Europe for my knowledge of them is superficial compared to what knowledge I gave gained from being involved in politics for many decades.
After the cilvil rights acts of 1964 giving legal protection to minorities and women by Democrats Republicans seized both issues to not only be the party of the chamber of commerce but the party of reaction.
The Democratic party morphed from the party of civil rights, against foreign wars and regulation of big business of the 60s into the party of the big donors, friendly to deregulation and foreign military intervention. Thank you Bill and Hillary.
The Republican party tried to ride the tiger of racism and xenophobia for decades and is learning how dangerous it is to get off the tiger. The Democratic party is held together by Trump hate. What happens when Trump is gone?
Perhaps the future in America may be multiple parties as exists in most of Europe.
3
While your analysis may be correct, your solution cannot work as long as there is an Electoral College and a strong presidential system in the US. The only solution that supports your hope is the establishment of a Parliamentary system of government. I do not see that happening here anytime soon. Of course a breakup of the US into large states and regions with differing forms of government could do that, but I shutter at the political situation which could make that a reality.
2
America divided, the Republican Party was ailing under our Last President. After a few political blow-ups, it is out of convalescence, stronger than ever, with the enduring support that Trump has promised; in full swing again with cups of strong political rust tea.
Parties are taking place across the country and it is time for Republicans to render their gratitude to Trump and his loyal followers, who never wavered in the face of adversity.
A parade will take place with the military to honor the conqueror of defeatists; it is up to those who care about him and hold him high to toe the line and follow in his direction.
Hail to the first Emperor of America and his family, and you will be placed in the annals of history in the making, as we enter the new country order. Happiness and the reckoning of the best of times now awaits you.
Let the music begin. You made the right choice and it is a beautiful thing. Behold the triumphant and kneel.
1
It will also require people to listen to each other. We created the United Nations and the WTO among other things for people to meet. If we stop listening and only talk, we will March further toward chaos
2
The political parties are absolutely useless.
What is their utmost objective?
To be political - something that’s in best case absolutely irrelevant, and in the worst case extremely detrimental - capable of polarizing and antagonizing the entire society and pushing us into the civil wars...
The compounding problem is that the monotheistic religions are acting identically to the political parties. It is truly hard to separate them or recognize any significant distinctions.
That’s the best visible in my former country, Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is a strange sacrilegious marriage between the political parties and the monotheistic religions.
There is an inexplicable shared political identity between the three nationalistic parties and the corresponding clergy where the latter are always supportive the ethnic cleansing propagated by the favorite political parties in direct contradictions to the basic principles of true faith...
1
Again; thank you Tom for your insight! We do indeed need a new paradigm. We’re all still trying to fix new problems with old, worn out tools. In the Rodan papers found in The Urantia Book, they talk about how in the future we may have to change the way we think and react every generation. It’s happening right now. The Urantia Book was released October 12th, 1955 when everything was just sailing along smoothly. Your article is truly a wake-up for our planet. Maybe like you said, we should all put our so-called political ideology on a shelve and concentrate on community. Wouldn’t it be great if all of us could actually come together as a world wide community and openly discuss how we can make this world a better place to live in without ever having to mention politics? Now that’s a paradigm that could change the world instead of destroying it. What do we have to lose? How about our planet?
3
Mr. Friedman's list of issues raises the issue of whether our constitution can remain relevant in this age of change and disorder. Will local efforts be enough to reunite our country's diverse populations in this age of real problems v. fake news.
At this point it looks quite uncertain.
1
We can overthink what is happening, but it comes down to the 50 soccer mom's can incite any election with it's energy.
The 50 soccer mom theory was first used by Jimmy Carter and later by Bill Clinton. It means get an issue that can excite the hard working mom's that will get out the vote.
Women have always done the hard work in campaigns, the door knocking, the phone calling the envelope stuffing, but when they are able to excite their sisters, they are unstoppable.
I hope this fall they are more unstoppable for the Resist movement.
2
Yes, there are some interesting and compelling examples of local communities coming up with solutions that work. Sadly, in states like Texas, they get squashed by the GOP-dominated state legislature which purports to reject "big brotherism" from the federal government, but practices "big brotherism" by preventing local communities from doing things like banning plastic bags, stopping fracking in their communities, etc. You see the donor class, such as the Koch Brothers, can't profit from some of those new solutions, so they have to be stopped. The urban/rural divide, which tends to manifest as Democratic/Republican, is the most serious one facing our country. Rural votes have disproportionate influence thanks to gerrymandering and the very structure of our Congress. Urban voters - those coming from the very places where creative solutions to the problems you identify are generated - suffer from being underrepresented. How do we fix that?
3
68 million refugees world-wide. This is a demographic crisis the world has not witnessed in almost 2000 years. Rome was unable to stem the flood of refugees from its northern borders and I am afraid that the West will be unable to stem this tide of migrating peoples. Some forces cannot be effectively managed because it is an impossible task. All the local, national and international efforts to do so are tantamount to shoveling sand against the tide.
3
I’m interested in reading about what’s going on in Lancaster. Is it more than PR spin and a coalition of the powerful telling the struggling work force that they need to work harder to help themselves without funding or impetus for any real structural changes? The parties are failing because people are tired of being lied to and tired of the big corperate money that owns them making it impossible to govern in this rapidly changing world. How are local bandaids going to work in the new global economy you describe? Unaffordable healtcare, unaffordable housing, AI threatening to take most working class jobs, and climate change, are revolutionary societal threats that require revolutionary cchanges in governing.
3
Certainly, we can't ignore the catalyst for all this political explosion - the decade long recession we just went through. The public's tolerance for orderly social change, and especially for immigrants is mighty short when they're out of work, or working three jobs just to get by.
3
I think I have figured out a game plan that if a Politician embraces they absolutely cannot lose; Promise the voters Universal healthcare and free college, while at the same time taking a hardline against immigration, while talking tough to all other world leaders, whether they be friend or foe. Stick to this game plan and you will not lose. There are all kinds of psychological reason why people want these things at this particular moment, 5 years ago would have been different priorities, 5 years from now different again, the human being is never happy, but for the moment, this is what works.
2
Years and a few billion people ago, there was a Zero Population Growth movement. If you look at countries with the most unrest or the most emigrants, you find countries with very high birth rates. The top three refugee producing countries have 50 to 60% of their population under the age of 25. Their economies can't absorb all those people. The problem will continue until 20 years after the birth rate drops.
Climate change is driven by human activity; more humans means more climate change. Technology change means fewer people are needed to get work done.
We need to stop population growth.
23
Yes, and this is why mankind must shed itself of organized religion in order to survive.
The major "religions" of Christianity and Islam are *obsessed* with what adults do with their genitals.
If we simply provided free contraception we could maybe get out of the mess we're in in 50 - 100 years.
But this trajectory has no happy ending.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's victory last night may be equivalent to the victory of members of the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives, but I think we're stronger having liberal extremists to balance conservative extremists.
Her simple rich versus poor message is something more Democrats need to embrace.
We're in a battle for America's soul and can use some rhetorical snipers on the fringes.
3
I think the sad truth is that WWII is forgotten and we’re headed towards another catastrophic event that may or may not reset the minds of people.
No one ever sees it coming.
6
Right now, our only hope is getting control of the 2020 census.
The history of our nation since the Civil War has been to nurture, mold, massage and support industrial capitalism. Compare this to improvements we've made in our political system of governing (since giving women the vote in 1919). Citizen's United? Gerrymandering? Gutting the Voting Rights Act?
Now, industrial capitalism is less than a third of the economy and declining still, while finance is the engine, with technology rolling in as the new driver. But technology is job destroying, not building. At a time when we and the world are undergoing major historic economic shifts (along with the others mentioned), we have a system that is completely obsolete and broken. Worse, the broken-ness has been institutionalized and entrenched (with the corporate/religious takeover). And it is not just Congress and the WH -- SCOTUS is using its power to entrench the dysfunction even more, raise the hurdles, and perpetuate irreparable harm to citizens from which we may not recover for at least a generation or more, regardless of who is in office.
Most of this can be laid at the feet of GOP control of the census in 1990 and 2000, which armed them (with corporate money) for the rigging of our system so they can't be thrown out if political winds change. We are playing with a rigged system and if we do not control the census in 2020, we can say goodbye to America as we've known it and hello dystopia.
2
It started with with Regan and continues all the way through Trump. Both parties are responsible for the erosion of the industrialized sector and deregulation of the tech and finance sectors. Both have pay for play and cozy relationship with corruption. Not surprised at all.
1
He hits the nail on the head. Whether you like it or not, the days of relying on an old skill set are gone. He still is giving us hope for the future in this most disheartening time and I'm looking forward to part 2
3
This article gives too much weight to structural changes. That account doesn't ring true for me--too much has changed too quickly for this to be a function global-political changes. What seems more likely to me is that our expectations have changed dramatically. In our consumer lives we live in a bespoke world where our individualized tastes are algorithmically satisfied. We've gotten used to that feeling, and now we're demanding that in politics. The result is what we're seeing today in the decline of the political equivalent of the "big label."
5
I believe that Mr. Friedman misses the point entirely. The traditional parties are blowing up because they don't represent real people. Not even a little. The parties are mostly owned by a tiny number of mega donors--call them oligarchs and multinationals if you want. The parties first represent the interests of these few, and then they fish around for some mix of marketing, sloganeering and photo ops that paint over the corroding core of everything. The parties represent the few and they try to look like they are representing the many and it simply isn't working.
71
This.
USPIRG did a study called “The Wealth Primary,” which showed that in a congressional primary the highest spending candidate wins. (98.5% of the time, which is enough) 3/4 of the money was donated in big chunks by millionaires and billionaires.
Ergo, any candidate with opinions that would offend millionaires has no chance. In the general election two carefully selected wealth-friendly candidates face off.
Another recent study showed that the opinion of millionaires indicates the chance of success for any bill in congress.
Trump won and consolidated his racist/tribalist base mostly because 42% of the electorate, fed up and disillusioned, stayed home. Elsewhere in the world the tribalists and the disillusioned have stopped accepting the lies of the millionaires.
Internet enabled mass movements, campaigns, and fund raising are starting to cut into this.
If the Democrats want to stay ahead of this they need to plan and publicize a path to small money politics.
Clue: Bernie Sanders is 1) the most popular politician in the US, and 2) compared to his peers, gets the highest % of his money in small donations.
Lifelong learning won’t help most people keep a job, any job. The Dems are center right. Interdependence based on what’s best for multinational companies will foment revolution in countries (remember them?).
6
Fabulous article. Nails so much of what is happening.
5
Wonderful editorial. Great writing and superb details.
Somewhere there within is a strong center movement that no longer peddles the same political truisms or dialectic, that understands now the need to adapt and blend up new hybrid responses to these same seemingly immortal situations.
Just how resilient your "world of order" will be within this wild whirlpool of conflicting values waits to be seen.
But the essence of these observations is almost psychic.
6
A big start toward better solutions would be a bipartisan move away from "wall/no wall" to "Smart Wall". Resources and policies could be laser focused to solve problems: close the gangs, harbor the displaced, humanize immigration policy, work with local communities to reduce migration and where appropriate, beef up physical barriers. It would be an "Americas wide" approach.
6
Friedman lists three possible approaches to the convergence of climate changes that he identifies as responsible for the collapse of major political parties. The first is represented by Trump. The second by Clinton. The third is something he calls "complex adaptive coalitions" that has no obvious referent because he just made it up to avoid talking about the real alternative represented by Bernie Sanders or today by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -- the alternative of socialism. We see a similar evasion when Friedman lists the various major European parties that have collapsed and simply says of the British Labour Party that it has become "quasi-Marxist" without mentioning that in the process it has also grown its membership dramatically, won big in the most recent elections, and seems poised to become the governing party in the next elections.
Each of the three forms of climate change Friedman refers to is a product of global capitalism. As an apologist for that system Friedman can't say that, can't even really think it. And therefore can't see that it is precisely what large numbers of voters are thinking.
The major political parties ARE in crisis. But there is a humane and decent path forward. It is the path that the New York Times and other capitalist media sought to block in sandbagging Bernie Sanders socialist challenge to Clinton's bankrupt neo-liberalism. The result was the triumph of Trump's quasi-fascism. The choice before us is clear: socialism or barbarism.
23
You hit the nail on the head with Bernie Sanders. I will vote for anyone who promises an attempt to fix the real, underlying economic woes of this country.
1
We could also work more closely with countries like El Salvador to help improve their economies and law enforcement. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to Central America under Reagan and Bush 43 under the guise of "fighting Communism," but have spent diddley since then. The collapse of order in these countries has had a much greater effect on America than Marxism ever did. A humane approach to problems on our border requires dealing with the forces that lead parents and kids to risk their lives to come here.
17
... but rather than help those in "need", a 1.4 trillion tax giveaway was approved. It would seem even a 1/3 of the tax cut redirected to helping families stay together in their homelands would be most humane use of our tax dollars.
The topic of overpopulation has been taboo now for quite a while. It remains the elephant in the room, when it should be a key part of the author's discussion here. We will make little to no progress in facing our problems as a planet as long as we do not address - verbally and logistically - this underlying factor.
25
By 2050, the UN estimates that Africa will hold a little more than half the world’s population. Populations in the Middle East and across Central and South America have similarly grown well beyond their societies’ capacity to govern, employ, and care for these people.
This is what drives the world of disorder. This is what’s driving the mass migration. These people are using the low hanging fruits of Western Civilization - the medicines, the food aid, the planes, trains, autos, and boats, and mobile phones to grow and then move. But the deeper and harder to inculcate values and factors - like trust, hereditary dispositions towards high intelligence, accumulation of wealth and social capital, and Enlightenment values that transcend tribalism haven’t been adopted, and so their world continues to experience a population explosion that it just can’t handle.
The appropriate response to this challenge won’t be found in any of Mr. Friedman’s solutions. The first two are band-aids, and the third makes no sense, because try as these self-organizing communities might to exercise acts of kindness, this just isn’t sustainable in the face of being replaced by migrants from the global south. Case in point - can someone identify a stronger show of tolerance and caring than that displayed by Bavarians in 2015? Can someone identify a stronger case of rejecting migrants than what Bavarians are displaying today?
The answer is to open our borders, and go quietly into the night. We’re done.
6
You forgot to include illegal drug importing into the drug hungry US and the role that business plays in central and South America violence.
6
A very perspicacious column, but the solution(s) lack umph.
Unfortunately, what may be needed is benevolent imperialism! Western imperial democracies may need to impose order and therefore prosperity with a new Marshall Plan in the areas of the world where disorder prevails, preferably with the consent of the populations. In our time, individuals should be at least able to survive in their country of birth and not be forced to emigrate. Then immigrants will be only those who seek to be in the culture of their chosen country, who should be welcomed.
Back when I was teaching comparative politics I would lecture on the functions of political parties. Two important ones: interest aggregation and interest articulation.
Current parties are failing at both, and a lot is up for grabs, for reasons Friedman explains. We will all be riding the tiger.
3
Mr. Friedman is correct in establishing that left and right, as political directions, have disappeared. He is correct in insinuating that the cause-effect relationships in politics -- both macro and micro -- have burgeoned in exponential proportions. Our world has become on one hand a source of many problems, and on the other hand, a source of many future problems which we are trying to fathom and correct.
However, like with climate change corrections, we only create more and more problems, for both the short-term and the long-term; solutions may multiply problems more than appease them.
I can only liken today's world in its economic, political and environmental woes to that of the political-spiritual upheaval in Jerusalem of Jesus' time; both are dynamic, uncontrollable, and potentially fatally dangerous.
We might end up with a world-dictatorial regime, like the Holy Roman Catholic church, or else we might end up with constantly warring factions. We might even end up with a peaceful and prosperous solution out of his quagmire. Our pontifications now are -- I feel -- useless; all we can know for sure is that the dynamics are larger and more complex than what the human mind, even in collaboration with computers, can control.
Kudos to Mr. Friedman for the courage to tackle this issue mankind faces.
3
We live in a time of great change. Change is complicated. Who knew?
Nation states may be anachronistic. Global economies, weather and even politics demand something else. The problem is that we are stuck in the paradigm of nation states.
If humans were wise and flexible, we would be exploring rather than trying to undermine experiments for broader bases of governance. Yes, that would involve a Marshall-like plan to address global problems. It would also involve curbs on international business interests to minimize various kinds of pollution and corruption.
Instead, we see ruthless people, and they aren't necessarily politicians, taking advantage of the situation. They focus on the fears of migration rather than possible ways to ameliorate suffering. They divert attention from systemic causes of problems by touting individual responsibility. Maybe some communities can band together to make lives better, but the suggestion that will address the global problems seems naive.
5
Yes. So many people. Everyone suddenly able to compete for the pot of goodies, which hasn't gotten bigger, and the new people just keep coming. We cannot have a serious discussion about the world's problems without confronting runaway population growth. I'm so glad to see someone actually mentioning this.
13
The rate of change is accelerating at such a rate, that our political and social organizations are unable to adapt, this can only worsen. There is no single philosophy able to formulate answers. Sometime the conservative, or the liberal, or the radical solution, will be the most effective means to cope and we can't abide that. More importantly our economy will implode with debt before we can begin to figure it out.
6
A glaring ommission in Friedman's essay is the continued growth of income inequality. As more and more economic benefits accrue to fewer and fewer people, and the cost of basic life essentials of education, housing, and medical care keep rising for everyone else, it isn't difficult to see how fear and resentment, mistrust and tribalism, displace rational political thought. When this fear and resentment is played upon, and preyed upon, common ground on anything becomes all but impossible.
21
Spot on. This is driving everything...to ruin.
A system that just rewarded billionaires by giving them billions in tax refunds, millionaires, millions and the middle class seventeen dollars while the poor pay more is NOT a sustainable system.
This is going to end in a bloody revolution if we don't have the courage to fix it now.
When I was a younger woman, I believed myself to be a liberal. My positions haven't changed, but the world around me has. Both poles have been pulled so far to the extreme in the modern era that I seem more like a conservative nowadays.
5
If you truly want to change Trump, you have to be diametrically opposite to him, not biased and confrontational like the incumbent.
How can you stop him?
By loving him!
First you have to be able to recognize all his qualities and strength.
Only then you can isolate his weaknesses and start working on changing them...
4
"many of which make a lot of sense but lack any emotional grip on voters"
They lack emotional grip because voters don't believe they'll work, or even be done. It is more of the same.
It "makes sense" only in an insider way. You've got to be part of The Blob already to think that will produce something other than what we've got now.
The real concern of voters is not the immigrants from the South, it is the problems in the North that don't have answers from our leaders. The immigrants are blamed, and are talked about, but they are not the real motive just the symptom.
If we were doing well, incomes rising, individual futures bright, then nobody would be any more concerned now than we were back when we really didn't care that much.
The voters are reacting to the problems here being blamed on the immigrants, not to the immigrants themselves.
Sure, fix the South. But fix the North, or the smokescreen will disperse and voters will see clearly that it was never the immigrants at all. It is the "leaders" right here.
10
Thomas, I could not agree more. I am CEO of a long-standing collaborative of 19 of the world’s largest foundations and financial institutions that is working to close the racial gaps in income and wealth in America. We have been supporting and growing what Friedman calls “complex adaptive coalitions” for almost a decade, all across the country. I recently wrote a book published by Brookings Press, http://www.ReclaimingTheDream.org, that captures the impact of these efforts (and others) from transforming education (StriveTogether’s cradle to career work now in 75 regions) to civic leaders re-knitting our civic fabric to create a long term commitment to the greater good (such as Itasca in Minneapolis//St Paul and the Boston Fed-led Working Cities Challenge in multiple New England towns). These community-led efforts have been building and spreading virally over that time. Every ‘proven solution’ to increasing college graduation, growing income and wealth and more that I highlight has landed in dozens of places. They are not ‘one offs that only work in large, blue coastal communities; nor do they require any change in law or regulation’. They simply require local leadership from these ‘complex adaptive coalitions’. I’ve seen what he is now seeing for more than a decade.
8
By taking a different slant, I'd like to build on what the author has presented.
Natural environment: through greed and ignorance the human race has poisoned the land, sea and air. The atmosphere, which drives our weather and climate, has been turned into a massive, heat retaining greenhouse. Nature will have its revenge.
Economic environment: globalisation created a "Global Village" of unequal neighbours (economies). Those who had previously been dependents retained that status, while the rest evolved into an entangled conglomerate of interdependent partners.
Human environment: the livelihoods of people became insecure as land and sea resources were destroyed; urban workers began to be replaced by machines; populations were driven from their homes, land, and culture by the poverty and the oppression of war - they became immigrants.
Military environment: the military industrial economy has thrived.
In Western nations, the ordinary folk have become disillusioned with democracy, mistrustful of the political parties and the government, resentful of capitalism, inward looking, dissatisfied with the status quo. Fearful of the future, frustrated by helplessness, angry and resentful at political parties and politicians who can't deliver security , safety and a fair go.
5
I agree the Republican Party is dead. I disagree about what it was, but that is just words on the tombstone now.
The Democratic establishment party is also dead. That was shown by the victory in New York over its Number 4, Speaker in Waiting, by a 28-year old newcomer whose promise was to bury it.
The Democrats did not get the message when Hillary lost. Maybe now they will. Or they'll lose again.
What message? It was clear in Italy, where Friedman says, "a coalition of far-left, far-right populists" won. Notice it isn't the left vs right that made the win, it was what Friedman calls "populist."
Now "populist" is an interesting term. It is derogatory among establishment Democrats. That is why they lost and may lose again.
It does not mean "right wing." Italy shows that. It means anti-establishment, anti-corporate donor, anti-big money, anti-neo-liberal, anti-Washington Consensus. It is anti-what both parties were, their very cores.
It is possible to be either right or left populist. It is possible to be incoherent populist, which is Trump.
Democrats can beat Trump by being populist, offering better than his incoherence. They cannot beat Trump by being anti-populist altogether. They can't beat Trump by being more Hillary. We've already seen that proven. Don't do it again.
84
There's apparently something called a "centrist Democrat" although no one knows who they are or what they stand for. They claim to be willing to compromise, and I guess that's true--none of their beliefs seem to be so firmly held that they won't give them up for corporate donations.
Their primary strategy is to point out how bad Republicans are. They're right about that, but the long term consequence of that agenda seems only to be making Republicans worse.
They nominated Hillary, by subterfuge, even though the voters had rejected her 8 years earlier in favor of a relatively young and unknown senator. And we dutifully supported her, because the option was so much worse.
Hillary would have qualified as a mainstream Republicans as recently as the 1970s.
In summary, centrist Democrats are a benign tumor; Republicans are malignant.
1
A Marshall Plan for Central America sounds promising and may well work, provided we can overcome the corruption that drives people to flee that part of the world. Otherwise all that foreign aid may wind up in the pockets of the current ruling class governing the nations that make up Central America
13
A Marshall like Plan for Central America sounds good, but simplistic. After WWII the Allies for a time had some governing control of places like Germany to manage some of the process. The corruption and endemic violence in Central America makes the process for more complex. Wish I had some answers.
4
You wrote this column before last night NY primaries results and you are right on target. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents that new wave that is blowing up so many political parties. She is that third approach with the passion that moves voter's emotions that Macron and Clinton do not produce. She teaches the Democratic party how to take Trump out of office.
2
Let's first see if Ocasio-Cortez is not just a shiny, shooting star that flames out.
The Democratic party started to fracture when Clinton was named the candidate before the primaries even began.
Obama was the President who promised change--but smart, believable, hopeful change
as opposed to the destructive chaos of Trump.
Clinton campaigned as a candidate of continuity--and aside from being a woman, she was the antithesis of the change Obama offered.
Sanders did offer real change and many people responded. But establishment Democrats went as far as accusing him of "splitting the vote" in the frigging PRIMARIES, when the whole point was offering voters a choice, not a mandate.
And that's what's going in now, across the spectrum. People are rejecting "mandates" driven by big money donors, corporate interests, and party hacks. The question about where we will end up is still very much an open one.
23
The Democratic party started to fracture in the 1970s when it failed to respond to deindustrialization in a way supportive of the working classes.
I have been reading Friedman for years now. He always has an interesting take on current social phenomenon. But I have found that his predictions about the future are almost always wrong. He never puts actual numbers into his arguments. Highly perceptive at any given moment, struggles valiantly to understand what is happening around him, sees reality as it is happening. But, like everyone else, he can't predict the future.
6
I'm glad to see this truly global analysis, relating what we are seeing here in the USA to what's going on elsewhere in the world. But I suspect that when historians look back for a deeper explanation, they'll find that actual climate change--leading to disruption of agriculture and trade, among other things--has a lot to do with it. That plus a growing scarcity of sustainable commodities like energy. I think we already know that these things are causing increasing inequality, not to mention conflict and immigration. As always, those already in power are best placed to manipulate the situation to their advantage, as is happening from Russia and China to the US. And, as always, greater democracy and justice are the only means toward solutions. Your CACs (complex adaptive coalitions) are one way in which people are fighting for this. You seem, however, to be reminding us that all politics is local; could CACs be behind some of yesterday's primary results?
4
This is all the same carping that just about every generation has seen. This story appears time and time again through history. Upheavals very seldom truly happen. There are waves of it but nothing that earth shattering. Life goes on and so does the ceaseless carping. Democracy is messy that’s the only story here.
You must have slept through the industrial revolution, the first and second world wars, the corresponding end of empire and the old order, the rip tides of the sixties, the AIDS epidemic. Upheaval happens all the time.
You forgot one element of a holistic climate change perspective, the econopolitcal. Capitalism, especially the focus on strictly market driven capitalism, is no longer meeting the needs of people given the world society’s level of interconnection. This too will require a continuous educational support system, but one that is independently driven by students instead of political forces which are way too inflexible to be uniformly effective.
2
Excellent article pointing out some of the changes around us.
Unfortunately Politicians are only human. Worse they are are all wedded to power and their own ideas. Very few Politicians of either party or of any country are very good at outcome anaysis. They grew up with certain ideas, they got elected then re elcected and their conclusion is I am right the rest are wrong. Most Humans are self serving and become less self critical the more successful and/or richer they become.
The post war era is over, is over it worked for USA for about 30-40 years; it is long gone. The post colononial era with all its hopes is also long gone as Mr. Friedman points out.
The old politicians did what they thought was good for the country. New problems have arisen that neither party offers solution for. Both parties now just point out the failings of the other and neither offer a vision of a better future to the 99%.. Both parties failed the country with their trickle down economics. There was the Regan 1980s trickle down economic followed by the 2008 left wing Keynsian trickle down economic. In both economic plans 1% of the population did great.
You forgot to mention the role of the multi-national corporation amid all this "climate change". Many big corporations are much larger, economically, than countries and control (or at least greatly influence) the political choices of many nation-states. The disenfranchised masses of the world don't have a voice in what corporations do, and increasingly, they don't have a voice in what their governments do. The feel alone, unrepresented and threatened. The whims of the market shackle what politicians can do and when there is no more money to protect the populace from the vagaries of global convulsions, all that's left for the politicians to do is to play to the electorate's sense of victimhood. It doesn't cost anything to fan the flames of resentment. Hate is cheap and effective. It also wins elections.
10
Good article as is evident to many of us, but having no acknowledgement in the swamp people ignore the so called Democratic and Republican party. Trump never was an insider the GOP establishment but all his opponents in the primary were sent packing. Point being many crossover voters elected him. Clinton was akin to a sphinx so convinced by the DNC all she had to do was promise to keep the Obama ship afloat. On a Macro level The post WW 2 Social Democratic Welfare Model, in the hands of bureaucrats has failed. So much was promised that realistically could never be delivered. Pack elites major efforts of so called Globalization on top and a recipe for disaster is unfolding. As Patrick Deneen Book concluded named Why Liberalism Failed, he sights, Fascisms failed, Communism failed,now Liberalism is failing. No suggestion what is next.
Why Are So Many Political Parties Blowing Up?
Because it's becoming obvious to all of us (on both sides of the political spectrum) that the two incumbent parties don't really represent us.
The Republican Party has been shifting to embrace their TEA Party / Trump Party far-right members but the Democratic Party is strongly resisting any change and is quite likely to die as a result.
10
I believe that Mr. Friedman has identified the root causes of current political dislocation well. It is also important that the issue is global and not local. It spans countries with both high and low economic disparity. Therefore, economic disparity is a factor but it does not explain the current global trend. I would also suggest the reconfiguration of political parties are minor vs the overall rightward, authoritarian drift in most countries and the increasing polarization in countries that still have a counter to this authoritarian drift. The relative global peace that we have enjoyed since WW2 cannot be taken for granted.
2
These climate changes are certainly real but maybe too abstract. People are unsettled mostly because of their lack of power. The loss of wealth by the majority, the loss of security by the majority (jobs and otherwise), and the accelerating gains in wealth and power by a very small minority, all around the world, are huge factors in the dissatisfaction felt today. The standard political parties play lip service to these concerns (I'll bring back jobs!) but when elected they do the bidding of the corporations. That's why voters around the world will grasp at anything that looks to upset the status quo - leading to disasters like Trump.
26
Why are so many political parties blowing up? In this country anyway, it's not rocket science. When the parties put the interests of their party and donors before the interests of the people they expect to elect them, it's can't really be a shock when they ultimately blow up. More Americans (40+%) are registered Independent than either Democratic or Republican. Neither party has the numbers anymore to call the shots and expect their voters to jump.
55
This column is neither persuasive nor provocative. Political parties have a life cycle. The life cycle tends to be shorter and more apparent in parliamentary countries with proportional representation. It is much longer here in the United States with our winner take all elections.
2
Thank you for this analysis and framing of the issue. Well done and necessary questions.
5
This, Tom Friedman, is to me one of your most insightful articles. For me it articulates how I feel the world around me having changed, particularly in my growing sense of alienation from both political parties, the image of American as leader of something called "The Free World", from organized religion, and from respect for the US traditional political system -- which I reared to revere, but have come to see as a fraud, a mockery of democratic principle.
We long for group identity and groups of some kind to which we can attach with a sense of group loyalty, but they are just no longer there. Can they be replaced? I simply don't know. I do know that that I feel repelled when I drive through certain neighborhoods and see many in Muslim attire -- which to me feels hostile -- and when I see clusters of people from other lands and cultural identity who claim the right to colonize my country having entered it in defiance of its immigration laws, which feels the same as denying its continued right to exist as a sovereign land. I hear the accusations of those who claim that it is wrong to feel that way, but it is difficult to argue with feelings.
4
One reads in many places that although Putin may have favored Trump over Hillary, his real aim in both American and European elections was to sow chaos.
All well informed persons understand that in Russia, there are only thin boundaries between the government, big business run by oligarchs and organized crime. Government opponents and critics are routinely murdered.
Those who are well informed also know that there are links between Trump and Russia. The New Yorker recently said that any serious investigation of Trumps business affairs would uncover "rampant criminality".
Over the past decades, very high-ranking members of the Mexican government were arrested because they were in fact working for the drug cartels. In Italy, a former prime minister, Andreotti, although ultimately acquitted, is widely suspected of major involvement with the Mafia. In Spain, the government recently fell after two prominent members of the ruling party received very long jail terms for massive corruption.
In many countries major banks have paid heavy fines for knowingly laundering billions in underworld money.
The French economist Jacques Attali recently rang an alarm similar to Tom Friedman's: the world is now run by very large capital interests in cooperation with organized crime, he says. Governments play a decreasing role and, in any case, are mostly bought and paid for by big money, be it legitimate or criminal, or increasingly, somewhere in between. The result: chaos.
Heaven help us.
145
Some here would argue there is only a thin boundary between government and businesses (see recent actions of the EPA for example). We like to think we are better than Russia, but I am beginning to think, evidence is to the contrary. Chaos indeed.
1
Let me clue you in on a little something that I learned a long time ago, all people are fundamentally the same, and have been since the first people. What we are experiencing now is a more difficult task of survival, procuring a comfortable lifestyle. As income inequality grows greater more people are struggling for that comfortable life. In indignant villages people willingly shared whatever they had with others, no matter how little they had. Greed, and lack of caring for others comes with affluence. There is no secret to humane interactions, they are the same today as at any time in the past. When life gets hard people come together, when life is easy they grow apart. Greed, the idea that anyone can have as much wealth as they can earn or steal, is the core problem of humanity. The central idea in the movie "A Beautiful Mind" was the "discovery" that actions taken that benefit the individual and the rest provide better results than actions taken that only benefit the individual. I am still not sure why it took mathematical proof to confirm it, logical, objective reasoning should have been sufficient.
6
As usual, found Friedman's column interesting and thought provoking.
Many Sander's supporters regard themselves as the progressive wing of the Democratic party following in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt's
anti-trust, anti-monopoly, and anti- robber baron path. Friedman clearly does not agree with Sanders. Using the epithet 'quasi-socialist wing' seems to me rather mean spirited.
Calling the other wing of the Democratic party 'center-left' seems to me a stretch: to me it is left or center-left on identity issues and cultural issues, but center right on economic issues, more like Rockefeller Repubs, and willing to accept major financial support from and cozy up to the financial sector.
In the last 10 years the financial sector has grabbed as much as 40% of all corporate profits (while providing 20% or much less of all corporate jobs), this aberration having multiple significant consequences for the economy and society. Some would regard this as a 4th problem on a par, in its consequences with Tom's 3. Would love to see him address this problem.
I don't believe the Republicans have gone 'overnite' from deficit hawk to deficit dove. It goes at least back to Reagan when David Stockman pointed out how deliberate tolerance of deficits was used to justify cutbacks/elimination of programs they dislike. And a large part of the annual expenditures of the last 17 years on Iraq/Afghanistan have been off-budget 'emergency funding' and not counted toward the annual budget deficit.
24
There is one un-mentioned factor that is the root of all of these problems: over-population. The world has too many people, and there is no world-wide (or even national) program to deal with this. You hear mention of what climate change will do to the world in the next 100 years, but you rarely hear about population growth and possible population collapse as the world can no longer support such large numbers of people.
204
In Dan Brown's book , the Inferno Virus renders a third of humanity sterile. The movie avoids that. What would happen if all pregnancies were voluntary?
I would like to strongly support this point. Overpopulation is making any humane solution impossible. But "décroissance" is, surprise, an extreme-left wing point, already made a century ago by anarchists (anarchists are people who say the right thing 50 years before everybody else...).
Absolutely!
People perceive, correctly, that political parties are bought and sold by the Davos class. We're effectively ruled by fascistic corporations rather than elected governments. And we're angry about it. If there were an honest center, rather than corruption on all sides, it could hold.
But there's another issue: without vision, the people perish. But technological and social changes occur so quickly now that coherent visions for the future are practically impossible. Even science fiction writers have given up; the future technologies they imagine become real before they finish writing about them.
The job of a leader is to provide a vision. We have very few capable of envisioning anything other than the past.
71
"The job of a leader is to provide a vision." The job of the follower is to accept, embrace, and act upon that vision.
When we, the followers, the voters, the readers have a different prophet on a soapbox every direction we look, we can go vision-shopping, and we do that.
I'm sixty-four; my grandson is a Trump supporter, my granddaughter carries one-gesture-man Bernie Sander's picture on her phone, with his fist in the air, my daughter is involved in local politics, and my son-in-law runs a dry cleaner's, too busy to do politics.
Me? I am satisfied with successfully eating a meal and not choking on my dentures.
James and Deborah Fallows articulated the very positive things happening in local communities in their latest book entitled:
Our Towns: A 100,000 Mile Journey into the Heart of America.
However, these positive efforts are very localized and not really supported by either of our two national political parties. The national parties here in the US and elsewhere are serving their big donors at the expense of all other working people. Friedman's description of parties falling apart is simply the natural result of the natives getting quite restless when they see that neither party cares one bit about their real needs and concerns.
59
Cultural changes relating to group dynamics need to be acknowledged and factored in. There is great suspicion today of large organizations of any kind--corporations, institutional charities, governmental agencies and, as Mr. Friedman points out, political parties. The Ayn Randian belief in the purity and power of the individual has risen, together with suspicions about groups making decisions.
This has manifested itself in many ways. Trump's entire campaign was about himself against everybody and every group--not just the Democrats, but also his own party and everyone in it. He railed against the "elites", the DC "swamp", Wall Street, NATO, the WTO, the UN and other international organizations. His rhetoric was and is rife with conspiracy theories and his administration is laden with conspiracy theorists. He exploited the mood he perceived in the country.
And this is not limited to rural white Trump voters. Bernie Sanders played the same hand as Trump, portraying his own campaign as him against his own party, which was rigging the game for a candidate (Hillary) rather than listening to what he claimed to be the will of Democratic voters.
It is easy to romanticize the concept of a single person fighting the machine. But rejection of collective action, such as through political parties, will ultimately result in a marginalization of the individual. Because belief is not enough. You need a group to get things done. Otherwise you're just another guy with an opinion.
8
Thank you for a top-notch analysis of the quandary.
Your solution, however, fails to address a major cause of failed policy-making. Money has effectively disenfranchised a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
138
In an age of accelerating change, complexity and interdependence we need more AND and less OR. We need complex adaptive coalitions at local AND national AND international levels. We need an adaptive mix of conservative AND liberal principles. We need Mr Friedman’s solutions AND some of Hillary Clinton’s pragmatic policies AND some healthy tribalism of looking after our own AND passing on our learning and support to other countries in much more desperate situations.
May my and Mr Friedman’s generation challenge, inspire and support the younger generations in taking on these incredible challenges.
6
European political parties have long history of being a collection of special interests. Consider Italy that has has 41 governments since the end of WWII.
However in the U.S the GOP seems to be pretty cohesive, and those who disagree with the current platform are too cowardly to speak up. There may be some that know right from wrong but will be attacked by the GOP king makers.
There are hard core troglodytes, and the ideologists whose mantra is "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge," that are the favorites of the religions sects.
But they do stick together when the party needs them.
As for the Democrats, it is like herding cats. The far left has their ideologues that will not vote for a moderate, and on the right, those who will not vote for a socialist. Maybe we can all unite behind exiling tRump aides from society. But even there some on the left wan to be civil, sort of like being civil to Billy the Kid.
May people seem to think it has a lot to do with immigrants, particularly in Europe. Islamic society does behave a bit different than Christian society. In Islam they behead you for certain violations, as opposed to Georgia and Alabama, where they hang you for being black, or in Kansas they shoot you for performing abortions, all in the name of some god.
10
"The third approach is the one that you can see emerging organically in certain towns and communities across America. It is highly pragmatic in its approach to problem-solving but fosters solidarity not by conjuring old party loyalties or a new tribalism. It generates its idealism and solidarity instead through the trust and bonds of friendship that come from doing big hard things together in the community."
All very nice, but compared with the scale of the problems you catalogued, it is like fleas on the back of an elephant. Wholly inadequate to address the larger issues. And these community-based solutions only have a chance to work in communities that already have resources and some margin for error. They do not have a chance in the places where they are needed most, what you call the World of Disorder.
7
Mr. Friedman, you say that from WWII up until recently political parties were aligned around binary choices between interests of capital vs. the interests of labor. But you're overlooking a very profound change that occurred in the U.S. under Bill Clinton. This binary alignment was altered to include Clinton's Third Way, which in essence changed the direction of the Democrats rightward, and chasing after the interests of the donor class, and abandoning the working and middle class that had been its base. And it was this abandonment - and similar turns in politics in the West - that fueled the frustration and anger that finally led to the upheavals you mention.
Trump was elected because the Democrats no longer delivered for the working and middle class, and of course the Republicans never would, so many voters turned to the "outsider" who promised to "drain the swamp" and upend the status quo, because clearly the status quo wasn't working for many. This was the massive failure of the DNC in pushing forth the Queen of the Status Quo, and the wife of the the man who sold out the middle and working class. And what's astonishing is that so many of the Democratic leadership still don't get it! But just look at the results of today's primary defeat of Joseph Crowley who was in line to replace Pelosi as Dem leader in the House. If that doesn't wake them up, they deserve to be driven from office. "It don't take a weather vane to know which way the wind blows".
67
Kingfish is so right. Why can't Clinton Democrats understand what happened, and what is happening?
1
You may be partially right, but the working and middle class existed mainly in jobs and industries that were undergoing massive change. Many of them don't exist anymore. I'm sure Clinton made political choices based on what he thought would work. I don't doubt that at all. But the economy has changed dramatically, and the corporate elites are running the country, so Unions, which were already on the downside due to fewer jobs being available in those industries, are now being killed by the Far Right, who see no middle way, only their way.
"World of order vs. world of disorder" is a good phrase. But why imply it's a "North-South" dynamic? Nigeria is an oil superpower making billions of dollars a year yet its desperate citizens drown in the Med trying to reach a Europe that has no jobs for them. Meanwhile Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea have created advanced technological societies with very limited natural resources. And of course there are plenty of basket-case economies in the "North." I once naively believed a well-educated citizenry insures progress. But we've seen how a toxic political class can stymie all initiatives. So what's left? Enlightened despotism?
5
When a right-wing theocrat like Angela Merkel can suddenly become the new leader of the Left and the civilized world, it's clear that the quaint old notions of progressivism and social democracy are permanently dead. No wonder Bernie gets called a "marxist". Imagine if Ronald Reagan were running for office in the US or anywhere in Europe today. They'd call him a Bolshevik and run him out of town with pitchforks. The decline of post-medieval civilization and our steady collapse into pre-industrial feudalism has one driving force behind it: money. Corporations annihilated the Affordable Care Act, ignited Brexit, forged Citizens United and paved the road for money to buy elections outright, resulting in the end of the American Presidency and our current state of leaderless anarchy. The right-wing drive to dismantle our nations and governments and replace society with barbarism cannot be blamed on climate change, automation, or mass migration. The developed world is being willfully destroyed through the deliberate actions of a handful of mega-wealthy individuals who see the potential to squeeze just a few more drops of profit out of us by lowering the standard of living around the world. The Left now represents the last vestiges of humanity's drive towards civilization, organization, law, order and cooperation. The Right is bought and paid for, and their goal is to take us back to the stone age.
190
"The Right is bought and paid for, and their goal is to take us back to the stone age." So right on point, it's scary. What those oligarchs forget is the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and Orange Revolution, and the Velvet Revolution. As much as they try to drag back into a feudal society, the vast majority of us around the world will render their filthy lucre and ill-gotten gains by rising up and saying NO, loudly, just like the storming of the Bastille and Versailles, their time is limited if they keep trying to squeeze every last penny out of us 99%.
Not sure about the Stone Age, but at least to the age of Dickens.
Looking for whom the crime profits is certainly a wise approach.
Unfortunately, it is often human nature to give in to the temptation and sacrifice decency to greed. I would definitely not blame a particular race, religion or political affiliation for this weakness. But to say that a small privileged fraction is not promoting that greed and selling their soul for it, would not be totally untrue...
I can't speak for the right, but I can speak from my own experience on the left. I consider myself a liberal: not just in American terms [which is code for what the rest of the world would consider mainstream politics] but genuinely so. I've been a socialist, but I'm not any more. I still try to live my life by socialist principles, which isn't code for Communism, but fairness and equality. Who can I vote for?
Certainly not mainstream Democrats, and never Hilary Clinton, whom I consider to squarely represent the interests of corporate America, and a muscular hawk to boot. The resurgence of the American left provides a voice for me, and there are plenty more like me. It isn't about revolt against the establishment, but about constituencies. I'm in the liberal constituency, and increasingly, now I have someone to vote for.
Bring it on. Strategists might argue that center-left candidates can't win on the national stage. We'll see. Democracy has the capacity to surprise, when you give the people a real choice, as Donald Trump showed on the right. The difference is, the left is presenting serious alternatives, who want to govern, not disrupt government.
48
OK, I'll bite -- WHO are the serious alternatives on the left? I can't think of even one.
1
Old political parties are collapsing because Chancellor Merkel's 2015 decision to open the gates and invite in the Third World showed what elites are capable of inflicting upon the citizens they are supposed to represent.
If elites want to regain the trust of the people, they need to do one thing above all else: get immigration under control both in the short term and the long term, establishing enduring defenses against inundation from the Global South.
Most importantly, they must condemn all who say we have no right to defend ourselves.
6
Some good meat in this column. How about this? Maybe it's time to do away with political parties and primaries. Let candidates make their case in publicly-financed campaigns and assemble their own grassroots volunteer force. If no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, hold a run-off with the top three voter-getters and the one with the most votes wins. Then operate Congress as an assembly of independent representatives beholden only to their home constituents and the Constitution. Then, consensus can be reached on specific issues and laws enacted without pressure from party leaders to toe the party line or else be punished. The result would be more responsive government and a government that actually works.
19
Its not a Bernie Sanders quasi-socialist wing and a center-left wing" mainstream. Its progressive humans and a right wing Democratic Party apparatus.
The Democratic Party has been loosing elections more and more over the last 30+ years because it is completely under the control of corporate and Bankster interests. If Obama had actually acted in the interest of the 99% Humans instead of just putting the Banksters back in power in the first days of his presidency, we would have a much better world right now.
Its time for the old guard to fade into the sunset and allow a progressive majority take over and lead the country out of the current darkness.
20
The New Left who were profoundly anti-New Deal old left took over the Democratic Party and essentially moved it way to the right of Nixon in economic and foreign policy. Bill Clinton rightly said that his policy was Eisenhower. This thoroughly de-democratized America. and the rich suburbanites who took over the party of the left are hysterical with the re-democratlzation of Trump and the middle income
The same happened in Europe where, in addition. the undemocratic bankers followed the German policy of taking power from the voters of the poorer country and then imported huge numbers of refugees to keep wages down.
2
Whenever I read your columns Mr. Friedman, I always look out for the inserted (usually in the middle or near the end) comment that disparages the left. You didn't disappoint with your usual (Marxist quip). Well done Sir. Well done.
Anyways, it is easy to see how political parties (especially on the right) are disintegrating. I think it is because of 2 major reasons.
Starting in the late 70's/early 80's there was a massive change from union based markets to supposedly ''free markets''. ( that meant that the costs of government and infrastructures were downloaded onto the poor and middle class while the profits were socialized at the top) Since then the income gap has been getting more and more pronounced. (to the point of obscene)
The political parties were all essentially the same up to that point where tax policy might have been different here and there, but the real difference was over social policy. (one essentially demanded equal rights for all and one used those wedge issues to achieve political success)
Then the wars started. One after another, and now the world seems to be in a constant state of war. Out of that has come massive, massive displacement and global destabilization. Europe and North America have taken in many, but in the process there has been reactionary nationalist backlashes. Essentially, the right wing parties cannot withstand being pulled so extreme right and even attempt to hold the center anymore.
Democrats/Liberals hold it now.
4
Whenever I read your columns Mr. Friedman, I always look out for the inserted (usually in the middle or near the end) comment that disparages the left. You didn't disappoint with your usual (Marxist quip). Well done Sir. Well done.
Anyways, it is easy to see how political parties (especially on the right) are disintegrating. I think it is because of 2 major reasons.
Starting in the late 70's/early 80's there was a massive change from union based markets to supposedly ''free markets''. ( that meant that the costs of government and infrastructures were downloaded onto the poor and middle class while the profits were socialized at the top) Since then the income gap has been getting more and more pronounced. (to the point of obscene)
The political parties were all essentially the same up to that point where tax policy might have been different here and there, but the real difference was over social policy. (one essentially demanded equal rights for all and one used those wedge issues to achieve political success)
Then the wars started. One after another, and now the world seems to be in a constant state of war. Out of that has come massive, massive displacement and global destabilization. Europe and North America have taken in many, but in the process there has been reactionary nationalist backlashes. Essentially, the right wing parties cannot withstand being pulled so extreme right and even attempt to hold the center anymore.
Democrats/Liberals hold it now.
2
As we see with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez victory tonight some of the people are waking up....finally, finally, finally.....that the main political parties in America (and elsewhere) are run by one group of rich white men and another group of rich white men who pretend to have differences when really they all went to the same prep schools and then Harvard or Yale. Funny how over the last 38 years or so more and more of the money has gone to the rich while the rest of the people's wages have been stagnant.
As Jefferson warned, we need to have an educated electorate that pays attention. Make sure your elected officials don't just give lip service to the tectonic changes that Friedman outlines.
I applaud him for acknowledging that we can't just open the borders and that we need to promote the rule of law everywhere. Empowerment and education of women and family planning must be part of the long term solution for the planet.
100
I have mixed feelings about the primary election of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Obviously Crowley took voters for granted and arrogantly assumed victory. A mistake the Republican Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, made in 2014.
The district Ms. Ocasio-Cortez won is heavily Democratic and virtually guarantees her a place in Congress next November.
She comes down on the right side of every "blue-sky" progressive policy and touts her women and minority accolades.
But big picture wisdom and the ability to see the other side of issues and compromise? I don't see it.
She once said in response to a question from Crowley, that if he won and she lost she would not support him in the coming election.
He on the other hand has immediately sent out a twitter congratulating her and vowed his support for her and all other democrats in November.
The November elections are about the survival of democracy both here and abroad. The Democrats MUST be UNIFIED to win. This is not the time for gender wars, identity politics, or Party infighting. Progressives who cannot compromise and support other Democrats ( as they did in the 2016 election) are just as much enemies of the Republic as Trump voters are in my opinion.
15
It is interesting to note that the two N Y Times editorials that covered the remarkable Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez victory did not provide the opportunity for readers' responses. The paper concludes that "many voters are ready for something different. Politicians across the country should take note." I suggest the the Times, since it endorsed Ms Clinton, the Democratic Establishment's chosen candidate, long before she declared she was running and them proceeded to ignore Sanders' candidacy, should also take note and think long and hard about the implications of the victory of a virtually unknown progressive.
Tom the UN tells us that there are a record number of displaced persons currently with no place to go. Surely this is a crisis and one that could become exponentially worse. Most people entering the US illegally do so over our boarder with Mexico. While the commonly stated wisdom is that a wall across the southern border will not prevent people crossing over our border where is the proof? It’s an opinion and one backed by a political agenda but no objective evidence. If the world economy experiences a severe decline the number of refugees will increase dramatically. Many will want to come to the US and obviously our vulnerable southern border is their obvious choice. Don’t you think it might be prudent to have a substantial barrier along this border before we have to face an onslaught of despite people?
3
People will stop coming here, and will leave, if they cannot find work. If we enforce laws against hiring them, the problem will grow much smaller. But this would make their would-be employers unhappy, and these would-be employers vote, donate to campaigns, and are often influential in their communities and also employ people who are here legally (whose jobs might disappear if the employer could not also hire people who worked off the books).
6
The republicans are a free trade party. There leader is not for 3% tariffs on German cars and 20% tariffs on US cars.
1
Whenever I read your columns Mr. Friedman, I always look out for the inserted (usually in the middle or near the end) comment that disparages the left. You didn't disappoint with your usual (Marxist snap). Well done Sir. Well done.
Anyways, it is easy to see how political parties (especially on the right) are disintegrating. I think it is because of 2 major reasons.
Starting in the late 70's/early 80's there was a massive change from union based markets to supposedly ''free markets''. ( that meant that the costs of government and infrastructures were downloaded onto the poor and middle class while the profits were socialized at the top) Since then the income gap has been getting more and more pronounced. (to the point of obscene)
The political parties were all essentially the same up to that point where tax policy might have been different here and there, but the real difference was over social policy. (one essentially demanded equal rights for all and one used those wedge issues to achieve political success)
Then the wars started. One after another, and now the world seems to be in a constant state of war. Out of that has come massive, massive displacement and global destabilization. Europe and North America have taken in many, but in the process there has been reactionary nationalist backlashes.
Essentially, the right wing parties cannot withstand being pulled so extreme right and even attempt to hold the center anymore.
Democrats/Liberals hold it now.
3
Whenever I read your columns Mr. Friedman, I always look out for the inserted (usually in the middle or near the end) comment that disparages the left. You didn't disappoint with your usual (Marxist snap). Well done Sir. Well done.
Anyways, it is easy to see how political parties (especially on the right) are disintegrating. I think it is because of 2 major reasons.
Starting in the late 70's/early 80's there was a massive change from union based markets to supposedly ''free markets''. ( that meant that the costs of government and infrastructures were downloaded onto the poor and middle class while the profits were socialized at the top) Since then the income gap has been getting more and more pronounced. (to the point of obscene)
The political parties were all essentially the same up to that point where tax policy might have been different here and there, but the real difference was over social policy. (one essentially demanded equal rights for all and one used those wedge issues to achieve political success)
Then the wars started. One after another, and now the world seems to be in a constant state of war. Out of that has come massive, massive displacement and global destabilization. Europe and North America have taken in many, but in the process there has been reactionary nationalist backlashes.
Essentially, the right wing parties cannot withstand being pulled so extreme right and even attempt to hold the center anymore.
Democrats/Liberals hold it now.
12
I think the thing I'm worried about most is the change in the climate of truth. Whether it was the lies about Iraq, which led to a lot of the destabilization of the middle east which led to refugees and displaced immigrants, or the lies that led to Brexit with no repercussions for the liars, or the, now hourly, lies of our own Commander in Grief. This assault on the truth will have dire affects for the planet and it's inhabitants. When it's easier to lie about global warming, immigration, globalization and automation than to deal with them truthfully, it doesn't matter which political party is winning, we all lose.
110
Thank you for expressing what I've been feeling, thinking and saying since (at least) Nixon was President. But no one likes to discuss what is truth; it's too dishonest to do so.
1
It's about time. The two party stranglehold on American politics led the country to 2016. Most of the United States is now in race for less. Today I saw immigrant students attacking an immigrant government official on the Georgetown campus even though we've been treating illegal immigrants like dirt at the border for decades. Voter participation hovering between 35-55%, procedural road blocks restrict candidates from having debate, and insane amounts of lobby money influences the very people we elect to vote against the public good. Strike the match. It's time for more choices.
6
I see three major changes. First one is Trump forging ahead with his friendship with Russia, the answer is clear on why.
Second change, alienating our allies and giving up on world policies that would help us economically.
The last change is the worst, trump has shown us all that he is a totalitarian leader.
The world sees us as weak, they see us ruthless, unjust, uncaring, our president UnAmerican.
If we dont appear to be the country that promotes freedom for all, well, we are in big trouble. If we dont pull ourselves out of this...say good bye to what we have always loved about our country.
66
This "Un-American" adjective... something rings hollow with it. Could it be the hundreds of armed interventions in developing nations carried out by the US, that led to the dystopia Friedman describes? Could it be slavery? Or seggregation? If half of America rises up and dethrones Trump, maybe we could say that the rudiments of an American exceptionalism are forming this century, and maybe in a few hundred years we could call the commitment to justice, peace and respect for all an "American" thing.
People are tired of waiting for someone to deliver some kind of positive change. Stagnant or dwindling incomes and the top percentile becoming richer and richer has come home to roost all around the planet. Unregulated capitalism is ruining us. Unfair supreme court decisions that allow corporations to rule the planet is ticking everyone off. If the giant is awakened and people begin to vote for liberal progressive agendas we might stand a chance of turning this disaster around. If not I'm afraid to imagine what we will become.
6
We need good political leaders to get us through these challenges. But our highest national figure makes new problems of his own and gratuitously alienates allies. Trump is a leader only in the sense of driving everyone off a cliff.
The Democrats, as a minority party, can't put much muscle into policy. So many resources have to go towards resisting their counterparts' far right agenda that they can't get momentum for a platform of their own.
President Obama has put in a few appearances since leaving the White House. He has earned his peace; but how I wish that he would reemerge to rally and guide us. We need him more than ever.
6
You must accept the fact that after two terms, a President is DONE -- retired -- out of the mainstream. Would you have wanted Reagan or Bush to continually meddle in politics AFTER they finished their last term? I doubt that. There is a very excellent reason we only permit Presidents to serve two terms.
2
When was the Republican Party internationalist, Tom? How do you define "free trade"? We’ve had “fair trade” but we actually don’t practice “free trade” at all. Maybe we should. Republicans may talk about reducing deficits but they have yet to deliver...I think we have to go back to Coolidge for that.
Why are political parties blowing up? They have made too many promises to too many groups, and they can't make good on all those promises without hurting some other parts of the population either politically or economically. Still, the driving force for any political party is simple: acquire and maintain power, no matter the cost.
“We’re going through a change in the climate of globalization: We’re going from an interconnected world to an interdependent world.”
Where have you been, Tom? We’ve been in the interdependent phase since the 70s - remember the Arab Oil Embargo of ’73? That was a major turning point for us and the world economically and politically. With Nixon’s visit to China, all three superpowers realized that cooperation was more beneficial than confrontation.
We should not control what goes on in other countries; that has gotten us into more trouble than anything else since Wilson asked Congress to involve us in World War I. These countries have to figure out for themselves how best to utilize their own resources. We don’t need another Marshall Plan, Tom. We do need to control our borders or we won’t have a country left.
1
Big community projects can be extremely exclusionary to anyone who does not kowtow to the cliques running the project.
3
When manufacturing declined in the 80s, conventional wisdom said the burgeoning service economy would provide for displaced steel and auto workers. It did; many of them served fries with that. Retraining was a failed promise. Retraining a blue collar worker as a data entry clerk (high tech!) put him in a job at half the pay. High school educated fifty year olds couldn't compete for software engineering or accounting or auditing jobs that were going to college graduates. Robotics will have the same effect. Engineering and software jobs will not go to the poor saps who are displaced. And guess what? Services are being roboticised, too. How many humans does a McDonald’s really need? Workers already follow a carefully defined set of motions. Ultimately there just won’t be that much for humans to work on, unless they are qualified (graduate degree) in a highly specialised field. How many actuaries or airline pilots are needed? (Remember when you talked to a human to make a plane reservation? How quaint.) Robots will build robots. Displaced workers will do menial work or no work at all. Meanwhile, with fewer jobs and more people looking, wage rates will fall. This is the market speaking, and the prevailing policy direction is all in for unfettered libertarian Koch-style market forces, which will mean government can't help, either.
Or do you still believe the long-promised leisure economy is right around the corner?
3
The economy may not need workers, but it does need consumers. Very wealthy people do not consume very much of what is made by robots; they prefer one-of-a-kind, handmade items, and have servants rather than robots to manage their consumption. If most people are too poor to consume much of the robot-made stuff, we will not need that many robots and the robotowners (today's slaveowners) will be in trouble.
6
Not only does Tom apparently believe that .... but he STILL thinks the future is "a steel worker who drives for Uber on the weekend and rents out his spare bedroom on AirBnB". Essentially....jitney cabs and boarding houses! future forward into the ... past.
Also those steel jobs are not exactly thriving, with so much manufacturing off shored to China and Mexico .... and how could a guy earn driving for Uber one day a week? after the costs of your gas, maintenance, lease payments, mileage depreciation? and of course....we all know how fun it is to have to work on the weekend after a 45-60 hour work week! but generally...billionaires with cushy desk jobs don't know that.
2
It's always refreshing to hear intelligent analyses of our issues like the ones addressed in this column. There's depth, vision and knowledge in it even if you don't agree with all of it. Too bad that few, if any, of our politicians are this smart.
What's dismaying is that few politicians see past the next election cycle. That's as far as their vision goes. Their donors tell them what's good for America and the politicians are not burdened with having to think at all. That requires no depth or knowledge either..
There are those scattered places that are taking things into their own hands and building working communities. But it's not enough. This government of Republicans and Trump administration is tearing the country apart faster than any local group can rebuild their own piece of it.
37
Some good points made, particularly about conflicting self interests.
I was going more in the direction of a more diverse information highway that develops alternative views and/or reinforces your own point of view. Thus we realize the two mainstream parties have been playing us for decades. That they are just the same party of big money, and we no longer want to support mainstream parties in politics, nor mainstream media outlets.
I’d also throw out there, somewhat of a result of the above, is that truth is dead. Facts don’t matter. Logic is a weakness.
Eventually it will be sorted out.
3
If we actually focused on solutions for climate change the new technology would create jobs both here and abroad. Diplomacy is always cheaper than war and much more profitable if done right.
The Erie canal, Panama canal, the continental railroad, indoor plumbing, electricity, the interstate highway system, the telephone, and the internet all were new technologies that improved lives while increasing the flow of trade and information. China gets it. While we've been at war for the last two decades China has been building the new silk road by investing in new technology and infrastructure both at home and abroad. This is going to be a China century because they looking at the big picture while we still see the world as it was instead of adapting.
Trump signals our changing world and the fear that goes with it. In the next election we need a visionary who thinks more like leaders of the past who recognized that only through innovation and reinvention will the US retain power in a changing world. Someone who can communicate the benefits of a marshall plan both here and abroad as an opportunity not a handout.
People want the dignity of a job and they are more supportive of programs that create jobs than any poverty program we've tried. Whichever party figures that out will win for the foreseeable future.
123
Excellent comment. Wars are always economic disasters. And you do not want to go to war with your trading partners. Trump wants a trade war - but he is an idiot.
You are so right, people want the dignity of a job and job creation would be a poverty program.
1
A problem that has long bothered me is structural but treated as if the policy is the problem. As a example, limited government by Republicans best described as starving the beast, cuts in spending except for defense. Democrats tend to believe taming the beast will work, higher taxes and leveling cuts. Layered across all of this waste and fraud which seldom gains attention.
The real waste in government involves duplicating functions in all 50 states. States have welfare, health, education, agriculture, and housing programs. Legislatures have committees and subcommittees just like Congress. A lot of folks watching how farmers grow corn.
A true Federal system would shift the delivery of those services and rebate taxes to the states pro rata with a reserve held federally. Congressional oversight scaled back but a buffer against budget shifting of dollars to other programs, etc. The demand for services is local, the delivery local and elections local. Lobbyist no longer able to go to Congress to lobby now forced to cover all 50 states. Shrinking the Federal Government structurally will work. The other options will not.
1
Much of the real waste is not in government. We spend way more on health care as a portion of GNP than any other country. This means that health care industries are much more successful than in other countries. They could achieve the same results with perhaps 2/3 the cost, which means that 1/3 is unnecessary, i.e., waste. Private sector waste does not look like government waste, but it is there.
One industry makes more money if it also creates a problem. Another industry makes money cleaning up the problem. So one industry pollutes and increases business for the medical industry and sellers of paint etc. Stopping the pollution so that painted surfaces and our lungs last longer avoids private waste, while not stopping it is wasteful.
3
The real waste in the government is a $700B defense budget that is incapable of beating a few hundred rag tag guerillas over and over again
You rightly highlight the enormous changes occurring globally. But too quickly you dismiss Hilary's platform. From renewable energy to lifelong learning, it addressed many of these challenges head on! We must find a way to implement this kind of vision. If liberals voted, that would be a great start.
269
Nuanced policy positions don't resonate with the electorate: sound bites do. So the goal is to have BOTH! Unfortunately, Hilary never was able to get charismatic slogans out to overcome the innate dislike even good liberals had for her, thanks to the Republican propaganda machine. We need another Obama but one with more fight than he had, as Hilary did.
3
Hillary's platform and candidacy won by 3 million votes, but what difference? The joint curses of our "electoral" college, a gerrymandered House, and our strange Senate, which allows only two votes per state regardless of population, cancelled that out. Will the entrenched interests (in either party) permit revision of that warped system? I very much doubt it!
4
I disagree that Friedman dismissed the ideas in Hilary's / Dem platform. Those ideas, and needs were not 'sexy' enough to capture voters attention against the megaphone shouts coming from Trump side; not sexy enough to counter the pull of Dem alternate choices and all from Bernie from the Green Party. Thus we got stuck (and are being gouged and bled dry by #45).
My question.. and I will have to wait for next week's part 2 -- how to scale up Lancaster Pa's approach on a national scale? How to sell it?
May have something to do with the fact that parties form and operate to address issues and interests that are meaningful to historical eras. So long as the general fabric of reality remains largely unchanged, parties may shift their emphasis on this or that issue, this or that interest may gain or lose ground, but the motivations that animate them on a general left-right axis remain largely unchanged.
But we ain’t in Kansas anymore, Dorothy. It’s a VERY different world than it was when our major parties formed around their traditional major characteristics and the realities they were formed to address. Tom’s “three climate changes” argument is compelling, and they couldn’t be more different from the realities that confronted us on March 20, 1854, when the Republican Party was formed from the ashes of the Whig Party that was no longer relevant to slavery and national coherence in America. But Tom’s argument seems to suggest that global salvation – certainly American salvation -- lies in NO parties but a coming together of benign and collegial interests wisely led by the highly educated as well as the moneyed, and peopled by those willing to be wisely led by these cohorts; and I’m not convinced that this is likely to happen.
I’ve seen little natural correlation between moneyed interests and wisdom, or actually even necessarily between advanced degrees of formal education and wisdom. And, in the end, what drives political struggle are interests.
What we see today, …
18
… largely reflecting the consequences of those “three climate changes”, is a vastly more complex stew of interests. To me that suggests either more political parties in America each focused on related interests, on a European model where we see this tendency dramatically strengthened recently and that has introduced significant political instability; or more uneasy coalitions within existing parties. Frankly, I don’t see the demise of the Republican or Democratic parties anytime soon – the inertia that exists today is vastly more cloying than that which existed when our country was much younger and more willing to experiment politically.
The inflection point determining which of these potential future political realities forms in America – two major parties with far more need for compromise within them, or multiple distinct parties that form their coalitions in legislatures as Europeans do, as opposed to a primary process, will to my mind depend on how successful Republicans are in finding wearable internal compromises between the stridently religious and the largely secular. If they can do that, Democrats will be forced to their own process of aligning far-left and center-left components … just to maintain a credible purchase on political power.
I look forward to Tom’s second piece on Lancaster, PA, which nevertheless suggests to me a localized laboratory on serving SOME interests well because they HAPPEN to have access to compliant citizens and a measure of wisdom.
4
I very rarely include a “Part III” comment component, but it occurred to me that Tom may be arguing that parties are blowing up because the very notion of political parties is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the realties we face in this very challenging world today.
If so, then I’m afraid that I reject THAT notion completely. Somehow reduce the world’s population by 95% -- and the “how” of that would need to be anything BUT “egalitarian” -- and we probably could manage with no political parties, and come to largely wise choices about how to confront the OTHER two “climate changes” (other than population pressures). If we can’t do that, and not only can we NOT do that but all the trendlines are running in opposite directions, then large masses of people always will need SOME ideological reference points to express their specific interests. What’s more, we’d better learn HOW to make parties work, because as we move out into the solar system and perhaps someday to the stars, the number and variety of our interests will not diminish but increase, as will our populations. And, somehow, we still will need to move forward productively as a species.
1
Richard,
'A measure of wisdom' is always useful. Unfortunately, it requires long term vision, something most politicians are loathe to acquire as it clashes most vehemently with their political agendas which rarely venture beyond the parameters that are now blowing up their own parties.
Let's hope they learn something from this opportunity of crisis, spring forth with their new found wisdom, and join us in this new frontier.
Sorry, I don't see where compliance comes in. It seems to be not only irrelevant, but an impediment to imagining our future. Boldly go where no man has gone before. That's the world I want to live in.
This is an excellent column that provides an overview of the issues facing governments in this era. I believe that the tendency towards more nationalistic, right leaning parties is in response to rising immigration levels and an unhealthy nostalgia for the past, away from globalism. Obviously, it's too late, the world is a global and independent entity. The only sane way forward is for every country on the face of the earth to make a binding treaty that there shall be no more war and then a way to decrease weapons stockpiles. With less resources being spent on militaries, more money would be available to solve the many pressing problems facing the world. If you think this is some naive dream, think again. Already the world is moving in this direction. We need big solutions, and peaceful coexistence. I'm not sure how we get there, but the world must figure this out. Or we may all perish.
26
I'm sure I won't be the only one to object that the Republicans did not change "overnight" from an "internationalist" party or a "deficit hawk" party." Whatever they might have said, the Republicans have been concerned about the deficit only when Democrats were in power; they have used their own power, when they had it, to increase the deficit, apparently as part of a strategy to starve public problems they can't kill with legitimate politics, while shifting the tax burden downward to the people who benefit from those programs. This has been true since the Reagan administration.
Mr. Friedman might have overlooked this since he was determined to address the maladies of political parties without addressing the maladies of politics. Political parties are "blowing up" because the tension between their obligations to financial interests and their obligation to the public has become grotesque. For the moment Mr. Trump & the right wing media are able to distract their supporters from this tension with their demagoguery & conspiracy theories. But neither they nor the Democrats are doing anything to address the underlying corruption.
436
A plague on both their houses, but unfortunately those are the only houses -- perhaps "houses" in the more vulgar sense of the term as well.
"But neither they nor the Democrats are doing anything to address the underlying corruption."
Republican politicians almost exclusively operate to funnel money to themselves via their wealthy donors. Democrats are still the better alternative; they at least try to make the country better by helping all of their constituents.
So what do Democrats have to lose by trash talking and mud wrestling the way Trump does? Their only problem is that they're late to the party, so they have some catching up to do. But the first step for Democrats is to acknowledge that they have this problem; they can't work on the solution until they do that.
As always, it's about the swing/purple-state voters (assuming we can trust the integrity of our elections, that is, that our ballots are being counted properly). So what do these voters want? I suspect that when many of them saw the results of the last election, they decided at that time how they would vote this November. I sincerely doubt that Democrats worrying excessively about decorum will be helpful at this point; they need to get down in the dirt and fight for their lives (and ours).
I will end with my usual refrain: you can't enact your policies if you don't get elected. So show up and tell it like it is, Democrats, with verve, persuasion, and charisma. Don't let Trump and his cronies get away with it anymore.
Very well said. What's happening in the United States is the culmination of decades of pro-corporate policy, not an overnight transformation. Both parties are complicit, as they both take exorbitant amounts of money from corporations in campaign finance and lobbying. We're simply at the point now where too many are gaming the system for too much, and are bringing it down.
I totally agree with your analysis of massive global changes happening at the speed of light and the worlds lack of ability to cope.
I disagree that local community's trying to adapt in healthy ways from the bottom up will ultimately have much effect on these complicated global problems.
Take one problem: the World of Disorder vs the World of Order and the explosion of refugees in the world.
I have expressed your view in comments on the many recent articles on immigration issues. They rarely get published. People would rather focus on the morality and prejudices of a single event: separation of children from parents, then recognizing the big picture problem of the millions of refugees in the world, not all of whom the countries in the World of Order can accommodate - even if they wanted to. You also can't blame the refugees for risking their lives to escape from the horrific violence and chaos in the countries of The World of Disorder.
Decisions about how to deal with this issue must be made cooperatively at a national level by wise leaders who have the power to implement and enforce policies.
It's not a Republican vs Democrat issue. It's a global issue and needs to be addressed as such.
214
I agree. It seems like all issues get reduced to their most polarizing symptoms and the larger problem is never addressed in any detail either in the media or legislatively. Considering we are part of a new global order, in a rational world it might be something like the International Court of Justice or some other body of the UN that would provide a forum for countries to work together to fairly establish some combination of refugee disbursement, intervention, containment, or humanitarian aid.
Yes, the current immigration issues are only the latest symptom of a world more and more stressed and destabilized by increasing inequalities and shrinking resources. The problem will not disappear by erecting walls. It will take hard work and good will by all.
The problem might also disappear unwittingly with the next global conflict or global pandemics, but I suggest a reasoned approach might be preferable.
I think you can explain this blowing up of governments, and shock after shock to liberals when conservative government win, in one word: immigration. Its an issue who's time has come for better or worse, and liberals might choose to ignore it, but its moving mountains of voters to the polls, and galvanizing conservativism.
I also think though, economics do matter more to most people, and even the die hard anti immigrationalist will demure if their income and standard of living is threatened. I guess we shall see in November if this is true.
6
Nah, immigration is a symptom, not a problem. Overpopulation and overconsumption is the problem. Just too many peeps eating too much beef.
Overpopulation + overconsumption = Dystopia.
Hunker down, 'cause "Everybody's gonna' get wet." Jackson Browne
Read Vonnegut's Player Piano. 99.9% of all jobs have been automated, so 99.9% have workfare jobs digging holes and filling them up or are in the military fighting useless wars. Then watch the Jetsons, where all the jobs are automated, but every owner must hire an employee to push the 'On' button every morning and the 'Off' button every afternoon, so everyone has a job that pays enough for a fancy flat (with a robot maid), and a flying car. If people elect one kind of government, we get Player Piano. If they elect the other kind, we get the Jetsons. And we keep electing Player Piano governments (not much choice, really: both parties are offering Player Piano, and Jetsons types can't win primaries).
42
Michael: "Player Piano" is a short story published in 1952 (the era of the super post-WWII boom) and "The Jetsons" was a CARTOON series from 1962 -- 10 years later -- also an era of prosperity (but also the Bay of Pigs and Cuban missile crisis). You have to be careful about examples that you pluck from history, without fully understanding that history.
"Automation" -- in both fictions -- was nothing new even by the 50s, so it is fascinating (and very wrong) that the left likes to blame massive job loss today on it. I've literally never met any unemployed person who told me they lost their job to "automation", and I live in the RUSTBELT. But I know dozens who lost jobs when their companies relocated overseas, something not even on the radar in the 50s or 60s.
In both fictions...there is NOT massive unemployment due to "automation", it is just that the jobs have gotten so much easier -- they simply are dumbed down to a level that a first grader could do them. And yet, paid well enough to support a first world lifestyle! That's probably the biggest fantasy of all -- that in a world where your "job" is pushing an on and off button once daily, that job could not be done by your robot maid just as easily (and for 1/100th the salary) -- or by an illegal alien.
So they are not at all different future scenarios. They are THE SAME future scenario, just one with a working class job (digging holes over and over) and the other with an upper class job (pushing a button).
1
Mao said that power comes out of the barrel of a gun ; Trump and Bezos and Bloomberg say that money talks and talkers walk .
Tom Friedman says power resides in a community like Lancaster Pa. I’m sticking with Bezos . The parties Friedman is talking about have always been fronts for the monied interests . Still that way . Whatever the 1% want ,they get . The fly in the ointment is the other 99% . They need a piece of the action , if not , inequality takes the ship of state down .
151
This is a smorgasbord of a column- the dish I'm reaching for is the historically plummeting number of industrial jobs. This is tied to the main course, which is the shifting wealth from workers to the investment class- the owners of the new technologies that replace those jobs.
The needs of the investment class - at least the lusts they attend to, don't seem well aligned to the needs of humanity right now- perhaps because currently there is no true community of plutocrats or a house of lords, with long term planning as a shared agenda and a sense of responsibility to civil society.
Instead, we are experiencing a global free for all of every corporation and privately owned company fighting for themselves to achieve short term profits. The chaos seems to be building.
One hopes this is just the recurring cycle of fear that periodically infects civilization like a virus and passes in time like a bad cold.
Colds can also lead to pneumonia.
293
Alan, i agree with you that there is a "global free for all of every corporation and privately owned company" for individual profit. Except in rare cases, I don't see any sense of responsibility to civil society for their success. They've used their influence (money) to push off responsibility on the poor and middle class through declining services and self serving tax cuts. However, as governments become less able to deal with Tom's "climate changes", business may well find that they have to step up to support civil society or lose their markets. We will see what Amazon/Berkshire Hathaway/JP Morgan makes of their healthcare plan. At some point the capital controlled by the investment class will do them no good if the society around them collapses (or is dismantled by an incompetent, short-sighted leader leading to chaos).
It's a strange new world.
2
True, Alan, but how does one cope other than to focus on acquiring shares in those same global companies that dominate the S&P 500. What else is there? What else still feels viable and to have a future?
3
It may seem like chasing windmills, but if the plutocrats are primarily using their power to manipulate our governments to further enrich themselves and those policies are destroying the environment and the basic meritocracy of our society (success being determined increasingly by the momentum of investment capital instead of creating useful products) we at least have to try to rally the troops of middle class voters to support campaign finance reform in our own country. We are the leaders in promoting this corporate disease of chaotic, shortsighted policy for short term profits at the expense of sustainability either environmentally or economically.
When the have nots have no hope of ever having any and the haves keep rigging the game, people get angry. Both parties have spent decades lining their pockets instead of representing the rest of us. They get elected through rigged districts (both parties) and once in office they focus solely on staying in office and bypass that part about representing the rest of us. Quite frankly most of us have had it with both parties. They will not answer questions directly put to them, squirm and take no responsibility for the mess they created because getting re-elected matters more than actual integrity or ethics. They yell about government spending but not a single one of them will give up a dime, a day off, not one single benefit they have voted for themselves that we all pay for! I, for one, have tried to have faith in so many of the politicians and watched as one after another capitulates to the money game. Adam Putnam is just the latest one for me. Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, so many others that I believed in and over and over by their actions they let me know that I do not count, I don't have enough zeroes in my bank account to matter. I know I only mentioned republicans but quite frankly for most of my life I have voted more republican than democrat. Now, I go in to vote with a vomit bag.
128
You appear to be fixated on the money directly paid to politicians for their elected positions. That's chump change! Meanwhile we have an EPA which appears to be focussed on destroying our environment. Which greatly pleases certain business owners because they get to make more money.
The ACA helped tens of millions obtain health insurance, even if they had a pre-existing condition. Those people, who don't have a lot of zeros in their bank accounts, counted, to Democrats, not to Republicans. Take a look.
1
right you are...take a look at warren beatty's "bulworth" a film that features some powerful telling like it is.
1
You have eloquently summarized the issue Thank you you speak for all of us
I believe we need to go back to the old truth, charity begins at home. In our case I would call home for the big picture the US, Canada, Central and South America while in the personal picture the town or city where you live. The US and Canada should direct the majority of their foreign aid and activity here and be heavily involved here. Forget about Gaza while our neighbors in Venezuela are dying and we still are boycotting that tiny Island 90 miles away. As for our own cities and towns, forget about party loyalty, elect official's that address the unique needs of your town.
92
Overall this is exactly the right message. We need to focus on helping our neighbors escape the very problems Mr. Friedman correctly points out here. We can't feed all of these people, but we CAN help them take their own countries back from the corrupt.
What we are all feeling is a lack of empowerment. The elites have gobbled up all of the resources and access, and the rest of us are feeling like we have no power to influence this world around us, even to help one another. Even as much as we all feel this way in America, imagine how our neighbors to the south must feel.
The key for all of us, is to find a way to restore the empowerment of the individual. This can't be accomplished through direct conflict with the elite class, but it also can't happen while the elites view the average person as either a resource to exploit, or a threat to manage. It must be based on mutual dignity and respectthat flows in both directions, both from those at the very bottom who strongly feel that the system has abused or neglected them, and from those at the very top who (whether intentionally or not) have done the abusing.
There is no other answer. This dichotomy between labor and capital caused by ineptitude and a lack of patience needs to be reversed through nothing less than the restoration of basic human dignity. The powerful need to give us our power back, and we need to understand that our leadership is as human and fallible as we are, and trust that good can prevail.
1
There's one small problem with considering Central and South America home. We're talking about sovereign countries here and the US has a very long history of imperialism throughout Latin America. Many governments and their citizens don't love the idea of US intervention even when well intended. There's a pretty big trust gap. Not surprisingly the gap is largest in the areas most adversely impacted by US policy over the years. Needless to say, Trump is widening the gap throughout all the Americas.
3
Thomas R, a recommendation of emphasis worth considering, in part because US still has immense soft power in the Americas, despite all of its missteps there. Still in this nascent interdependent world, as Thomas Friedman describes it, we should remain in active relation to Europe, South and East Asia, and Africa, where so many of us have family and cultural ties. and where it will be to our economic advantage, Trump’s call to set back the clock a full century notwithstanding.
A great article, and a conversation that truly needs to be had. I’m old enough to remember the pre-Internet world. Today things are vastly different and changing at a lightning pace. Unprecedented access to information, ability of all to travel anywhere and in effect a true shrinking of our planet. Political parties just aren’t keeping up. Hard to entirely blame them as everyone else is having trouble too - but to lead they need to keep up and in fact get ahead so they are actually in a position to lead. They’re not!
One other thing - both sides in power for all of this century have had a, “don’t worry we’ll look after it - just be happy” message. But throughout this entire century we have had lackluster economic growth. Try saving for retirement with that.
People are slowly waking up to the disasters $20 Trillion in debts plus Social Security Trust Fund total depletion in 2034 (that’s in 16 years!) are about to cause. They know there needs to be a solution, but no one leading talks about it in terms of fixing the problem - just in terms of blaming the other guy. People want more & better.
People are looking to others (so called “extremes”) because what’s being offered, the same old - same old, has developed a stench and is no longer paletable.
37
The "stench" you point out is the nearly complete consolidation of the political and economic power of the individual society into the hands of the elite. People just don't have enough control over the paths of their own lives to feel empowered, satisfied and safe in the world.
The problem is, the problem can only be solved by the elites themselves, through their own willing abdication of much of the vast power they have accumulated back to the individual. They hold it too strongly through their control of the media and our politics for any action of the general populace to produce anything but self-defeating chaos at this point. Every grass roots movement from civil rights, to the Tea Party on the right and Occupy on the left, has easily been co-opted and folded into the partisan dumpster fire, and the elites have used the smoke from that fire as cover for their continued manipulations. They have all the control, and all the will and coordination they need to maintain that control by helping the general populace mired in chaos, too distracted over the argument about who gets to use which bathrooms to stand together to defend themselves from the real problem.
Either the elites will realize the error of their ways quickly, and usher in new Renaissance by restoring the political and economic power of the individual in society, or they won't, and we will spend the next thousand years in the political equivalent of the dark ages with better air conditioning.
I am 80 years old and have been a Democrat since I became citizen in 1976. (yes, I am a South Asian immigrant who came legally in 1959 and it was Jonhnson's changed immigration policy that allowed me to have green card). I find that my children in 50s think different;y that I do and I cannot socially relate to my teenage and older grandchindren. I have a Ph.D. in Engineering and have been a computer user and teecom expert all my life. But I cannot deal with todays technology. Our Democratic leaders are like me. Have OLD experience but cannlt relate to the younger genration and their problems and the dreams. We need to retire and let the younger generatin pursue their dreams. My chidren and grandchildren still love me and care for me. So will the new generation Democrats. Pelosis and Shumers need to hand over their reins to the new generation. You enjoyed power. Now enjoy the success of the new generation.
Republicans are mired in their lost white previlege and post-WWII worl superiority and dream of recovering it. May be we need to modiify our constitution and make the presidnet one of us with no extreme powers. We need to elect the president not with the 18th century electoral college systembut with the new technology popular vote. And we should be able to recall the president when there is enough call for it.
369
I am not so sure that the younger generation that you speak of is actually capable of driving this bus. Since you arrived, the technology and capitalism/consumerism has indoctrinated society into extremely short-sighted, self-focused thinkers that do not seem to be able to keep up with even the Kardashians.
We need deep analysis and long term strategy, both of which are essentially non-existent at all levels today.
58
The right is not lost in the delusion that the US will (or even should) be the only world economic superpower. We have little problem exporting the virtues of Capitalism to the world.
The problem - and sadly the new generation in politics suffers from this as much as the old - is that Capitalism is supposed to be about empowering the individual through informed consumer choice and market competition, but our politicians allow themselves to be so manipulated by moneyed special interests that they routinely abdicate their essential role as rulemakers and referees protecting that choice and enforcing competition.
Almost every major industry on the planet is now an oligopoly. Auto companies are almost literally in direct partnership with the governments of the nations they operate in, and so many other industries are plagued with regulations that make already staggering barriers to entry completely insurmountable. Our government should be finding ways to reduce barriers to entry for new and innovative business models to empower the individual and restore the entrepreneurial spirit that drives the best virtues of Capitalist markets, but that concept has become so alien to our government now that it's considered naive to bring it up as more than lip service to the masses. Republicans defend corporate fascism while Democrats push to transfer all the power to an unlimited government.
You succeeded in your time on your merits. My generation needs the chance to do the same.
The younger generation always starts off with more passion than wisdom. Give them time.
The stink of it is, the young generation of the 60's had too little patience, and they took their power by force when what they needed was the wisdom to understand how to advance society without breaking it in the process.
Now we have a broken society, and that same generation who broke our society apart with their culture wars is expecting this generation to know how to fix the mess they made.
That generation latched onto every problem in society, and screamed about it until their self-righteous indignation at their fellow citizens over every bad thing that ever happened, ensured that our entire society was forced to take one side or the other on the issue of only to protect their own ability to influence public policy against an enemy that was openly hostile towards their own subculture.
What we need now is leadership that can restore mutual respect and human dignity, to focus on the good within all people to find a path forward, Instead of constantly highlighting the worst things that come from individuals on the fringes of society to generate political momentum based on manufactured outrage.
The old generation ran on division and hate. Now they want us to fix what they broke, when we have no examples in our mass media, our pop culture, or our politics to give us a blueprint for how to do it. It's like asking an abused child to grow up to be a family therapist.
Running the world used to be about finding ways to keep the populace too divided and distracted to stand together against the consolidation of their individual economic and political power into the hands of the elites.
Now that the elites have accomplished that goal, as the masses squabble over the last scraps of individual empowerment they are thrown, the elites need a way to keep the conflicts small enough to prevent the entire system collapsing on its self, while preserving their ability to use the smoke from the dumpster fire of our civil discourse to conceal their manipulation of our society.
Sooner or later, they will remember that The Renaissance sprung from the dark ages, and understand that the ability to control things requires the discipline and humility to relinquish that control when it is necessary to preserve the balance of power between individuals their leadership, whether that leadership is economic or political in nature. They will realize that no tyrant thinks they are a tyrant at the time of their tyranny, and eventually, the power of the individual will be restored.
Whether it happens in ten years or a thousand is anyone's guess.
Either way, we are at their mercy at this point. They control the media, the economy and our politics. We can only affect the outcomes as far as that leadership is willing to listen to the reasonable and wise among us to restore individual sovereignty in society.
44
Political parties worldwide are being blown up because they represent different economic interests. The Republicans in America represent the corporations and their investors and the Democrats represent, essentially, the workers and lower middle class.
The chink in the armor is that compromise will never be possible as long as a large percentage of the income and wealth goes to a small percentage of the people.
This is called income inequality and has turned the world as we know it upside down.
A democracy cannot exist when a small percentage of people own a large amount of the income and wealth. The income inequality had been sown into the political process by Citizens United.
124
I would disagree that the Dems represent the workers and lower middle class. They represent big business and international trade. Trump took over representing the workers and lower middle class (at least rhetorically).
1
Craig02, then why did they exclusively vote for Dodd-Frank, create the Consumer Financial Bureau, quadruple Medicaid eligibility, impose environmental regulations on power companies, etc. under Obama. You have to ignore reality to arrive at your conclusion.
1
As appalled as I am by the Republicans, the Democrats are just as beholden to the oligarchy which runs our national and world economy. They might be more likely than Republicans to throw a Band-Aid at the middle class at it hemorrhages, but they are not raising hundreds of millions of dollars for campaigns by holding bake sales.
This is why we see the rise of the "Bernie Sanders quasi-socialist wing" of the Democratic Party, and why Elizabeth Warren and other economic lefties are getting traction. And, if we were listening past the din of Trump's racist campaign rhetoric, we would have heard an anti-oligarchy promises to his supporters, as well. (Regardless of the fact that he immediately brought in policies for the wealthy, he did run against the gutting of the middle class in the name of "free markets," which was an historic turn away from Reaganomics.)
Point is, just because the Democratic establishment is better than the Republicans' doesn't mean we shouldn't push for massive change inside our preferred party.
1
Why are so many political parties blowing up? Because political parties have become irrelevant. Today there are far more voters registered as independents. It is perplexing to see journalists and news organizations stick their collective heads in the sand and pretend that partisans represent the majority. So, there is some truth to Trump's drumbeat of fake news but obviously not as he describes it. But Trump has done us all an unlikely favor by blowing up one party. Who will step up and the same with the other major party? Only then can we begin to think of ourselves collectively as opposed to Us v. Them as a matter of normalcy.