Mr Friedman laid out a ‘screed’ that Bob Dole or Bill Clinton could have delivered in 1996: free market capitalism will provide economic security and our military industrial complex will provide safety throughout the world.
No, Mr “retro’, you must have missed the 2016 ‘Election of Anger and Destruction’. America is a mess of angry white males, sexually liberating young people, minorities demanding the promise of equality and newly arriving refugees reading the words of Lady Liberty.
ALL advanced nations, except America, provide affordable and universal education, health care and economic opportunity.
It is time that either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren lead us on the path toward the dreams of our forefathers, and most importantly, our unknown and forgotten foremothers.
16
IMHO your major problems are the United Citizens USASC decision & the absence of a cap on electoral contributions and expenses.Best
9
Until we as Americans are willing to open our minds (pretty much the opposite of the extremists' echo chambers), and accept that extremes accomplish nothing but human misery, it won't matter how many political parties there are. Without critical, educated thinking, this country is doomed to the compost heap of history. (See Rosling's "Factfulness" for more enlightenment.)
6
Nixons' Southern Strategy tapped into the divisive racism that is part of our national heritage, and suckered poor and middle class whites into believing that the party of Big Business would take care of them, while holding back the flood of brown folks.
The result? We have a generation of kids growing up today that - for the first time in our history - can reasonably expect to be not as well off as their parents. This has been caused by the feed-the-rich policies underlying the racist dogma of the GOP. It is no accident that the poorest, least educated amongst us chronically vote against our best interests.
12
It is becoming a four-party system, only they haven't split yet. The current two parties are barely recognizable. The GOP which used to have some dignity is infested with holier than thou followers of Trump, who can't stoop low enough to kiss the feet of the thrice-married, philanderer who can't stop lying on a daily basis and could tweet us into a war. There have to be some GOP who are honorable but are afraid of Trump's wrath.
The Democrats are being taken over by a bunch of loud-mouth, first term congress-people who think that just because they are women they have a right to run for president, many on a socialist agenda. There have to be some intelligent centrists in the Democratic party.
If something drastic doesn't happen between now and 2020, it will be very hard to cast a ballot. This president, as Ann Coulters said, is an idiot. He could be re-elected if he isn't wearing an orange jumpsuit.
5
Despite the author's knee-jerk reaction, and despite regular pronouncements by the pompously pious on the right, the "Unwilling to work" constituency in this country is vanishingly small. The "unwilling to be worked to death for little reward and no healthcare," on the other hand, is vast and needs a voice. As for the author's other Conservative talking point, most progressives are in favor of both "grow the pie" and "redivide the pie." Because both are necessary. The lazy, welfare queen-image of the Democratic Party has always been a vicious Republican lie. It's time to let it go.
17
Seems we have those who are more concerned with being critical than being proactive to see change is here, today, and we must open or minds to the new world that will be left over when Trump is out. For two years we have been aghast at what Trump has done, and outright critical as well. We must now realize there are changes coming and it will be positive, and we will return to normalcy. It might smell different, look different, but it will not be run by a maniac like Trump, and the GOP party that is only interested in their wealth, not the good of our country.
1
The big divide in the Democratic Party is not between “redivide-the-pie Democrats” and “grow-the-pie Democrats.” The big divide is between identity Democrats and labor Democrats. Trump won the electoral college in 2016 in large part due to the defection of labor Democrats to Trump. I'm not sure how Friedman and many other journalists keep missing this.
14
"Trade insurance and surge protectors, free community college, portable health care coverage and pensions, and a very intentional strategy to more equitably spread the benefits of growth among bosses, workers and shareholders."
Sounds like Germany today. Do you think that some day we could catch up to them?
16
Friedman hasn't written such an erroneous column since his encomium for the Saudi crown prince. I am old enough to remember "moderate" Republicans, but they are gone. I also am old enough to understand and appreciate centrist Democrats, but the younger, well educated members of my family are not going to vote for centrists because they can't solve the big problems we face like climate change, income inequality, and health care.
14
Thomas Friedman is engaging in some major false equivalency here. Whether consciously or not (probably the former) he is making the case that the Progressive left (embodied by Representative Ocasio-Cortez) is just as extreme as the Trump GOP. This is nonsense.
Look carefully at the proposals put forward by the Progressives: that everyone should have access to health care, that no one should be denied a higher education simply because they can’t afford it, that billionaires pay higher taxes on the money above the 10 million dollars they already have, that we should all be able to breathe clean air and drink clean water. Compare this to the constant denigrating of immigrants and people of other faiths, the daily bashing of the free press, the rigging of elections by gerrymandering and voter suppression and on and on.
The mythical “political center” that Friedman adores so much hasn’t worked for the middle and working classes, and Trump tapped into that sense of injustice. So we are becoming more and more polarized, not so much politically but economically. The politics simply reflects that situation. If we don’t address the issue head-on, we may be for some very bad times indeed.
12
If we regard the homeless as unwilling rather than unable to work (which some are) then they are cared for by city and state action as well as private charity.
If people are unable to find jobs where they live and do not want to relocate, are they unwilling to work, unable to work, or a mixture of both? The idea that people are either unable to work or unwilling to work, and that we can easily tell which is which and help one but not the other, is a conservative abuse of common sense based on standard conservative all-or-nothing thinking (the sort of thing the NRA has perfected). It is deeply disappointing to find Tom Friedman adopting this pseudo common sense and using it to bash progressives, just as conservatives do.
Noting that this pseudo common sense often works and is often powerful enough to doom good ideas is vastly different from adopting and therefore validating it.
7
While I agree with much of Mr. Friedman's column (economic security for those "unwilling to work"? Yeah, NO.), he doesn't acknowledge, at least to my mind, that we've been in "grow the pie" mode for the last 40 years, and only a small percentage of people have seen the benefits. A growing pie hasn't given everyone a bigger slice; it's given a few people much bigger slices, while everyone else is about the same or even worse off.
That's the problem we need to fix. Higher taxes on the wealthy, the elimination of tax loopholes and investment in our country (education, infrastructure, etc.) is the solution. It is amazing to me how many people agree on those general ideas - a large majority of Democrats and a smaller, but still a majority of Republicans! So why aren't these policies implemented? Our politicians are bought and paid for by wealthy donors, lobbyists and corporations. Those politicians use the culture war to distract us while they implement policies that the vast majority of Americans don't want! Getting the money out of politics is the solution, though that will never happen in my lifetime (I'm 34).
12
Without altered processes, the emergence of "n-party politics" just means the further splintering of significant points of view. We need to radically revise our Winner Take All system to enable minority access to power and voice. Sure, the Brits hate their more accessible system because it can result in power-sharing to a fault, but our current system can't aptly reflect the many strains of political thought.
Face it: That New Constitutional Convention is already long overdue, and the longer we delay it, the more crippling beome our outmoded structures and processes of governance.
3
However many parties will be vying for the presidency in 2020, it will not be the first time that there has been a four "major' party election. In 1948, the Democratic and Republican Parties were challenged by the Dixiecrats, led by Strom Thurmond, the Progressive Party with Henry Wallace as its standard bearer.
2
Ok, Mr. Friedman, I just read on BBC News that 3 women members of the Tories have just resigned from Mrs.May’s Conservative Party to become members of the extremely recently formed “Independent Group”. It seems to have been started by a disaffected member of the Labour Party. Why should we have four political parties in the US? Let’s follow this development in the UK and get our own moderates on both sides of the aisle to start coalescing into our own “Independent Party”. It’s what we need and we need it now.
3
There is no split within the GOP. Not a meaningful one, anyhow. It's all the party of trump now. What have they done to justify that explanation?
3
The Republicans and Democrats no longer respect each other for their ideas, right to be here as co dependents in government, platforms, or show any willingness to rational discourse. There is rabid name calling, lack of any bi-partisanship or a sense of we are in this togetherness. Without any agreement to co-parent this nation, the political parties are dooming us to dissension, disagreement and destruction.
2
@DENOTE MORDANT -- You're right. I find it impossible to respect Trump or anyone who supports him.
I hear no rational discourse from Trump supporters either.
The claim "I don't like his behavior but I support his policies" is really saying "I support his criminal actions."
Trump appears to have no "policies" beyond personal aggrandizement and feeding his narcissism.
1
Thank you for your column. I am a "grow-the-pie" Democrat. My husband and I are in our mid-sixties and will retire in six years. I am terrified that the money we have put aside in our retirement fund will disappear if AOC, Bernie Sanders, etc. prevail. We are certainly not in the one per cent - my husband is a scientist at JPL and I was a substitute teacher. I also take care of my 97-year-old mother. I despise President Trump but very much appreciate the current economy that has helped out retirement fund to grow.
8
I resigned from the Democratic Party after years of watching the GOP trash our president (and now our democracy) without so much as a whimper from the chief Democrats (lookin’ at you, Nancy). So now I’m one of many millions of Independents watching from the sidelines…so where’s my party? Can’t some enterprising gazillionaire fund the creation of a National Independent Party that we can support and see our political outlook taken to the national level in time for the 2020 election? I don’t think it would stand much of a chance of winning at first, but controlling the popular votes of a many millions of votes would certainly make a difference in the platform of the Democrats. I suspect more than a few bright Democratic hopefuls and activists would welcome the chance to switch to the Independent Party and still stay in the national political spotlight. A three- (or even four?) party system would help shore up our battered democracy.
1
@redward
What you and I both want is happening right now in the UK. Three of Mrs. May’s Tories resigned today to join the newly formed “Independent Group” of MP’s. They are disgusted with the inability of the British Parliament to not only not get anything done, but to seemingly want to bring the nation to the brink of disaster. Here’s a quote from BBC News:
“...The departure of the three MPs - who all support the People's Vote campaign for another EU referendum - has reduced the government's working majority to nine MPs, and Ms Allen claimed there were "absolutely" other colleagues "keen" to join the group.
And the Independent Group now has more MPs in Parliament than the Democratic Unionist Party and equals the number of Liberal Democrats....”
I’m eagerly looking forward to not just being registered as an Independent, but to have The Independent Party of the US to be an actual mamber of.
1
I have worried about the party system in the US for some time.
The two party system has served us well and it seems that it is no longer working as well for us. I am old enough to remember the difficulty that European states had in securing majorities that enabled stable rule. Fragmented coalitions are not the answer if a nation wants to move ahead and accomplish anything.
Steinbeck relates the problem postwar France had in his novel "The Reign of King Pippin the IV" where the country was so desperate for a stable government that it sought an heir to the throne.
1
If our Government does not work with the two party system, how will it ever work with a four party system. It is not the system but the people we elect that makes the difference. We just need to be a lot more focused on who deserves to represent us and the issues that will be beneficial to all Americans, not just the chosen few.
4
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez: “Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work.”
In his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program, Karl Marx said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
He did not say: "From each according to their willingness to work, to each according to their willingness to work".
As a dialectical materialist myself, I am glad to see that AOC realizes that her position is a little to out in left field - even for Karl Marx - and has walked it back.
I chalk it down to a rookie mistake.
5
Rookie mistake for sure, likely induced by too little sleep, too much coffee and pizza. In the end though, I prefer that over “those who are lucky to be born in to it”.
While many, if not most, of us would like to work less, few I think don’t want to work at all, if we eliminate the social-economic malaise that has made so many feel “it’s just not with it”
1
@unreceivedogma.
LOL, correction:
He did not say: "From each according to their willingness to work, to each regardless of their willingness to work".
"Economic security for people 'unwilling to work'?...When some commentators called this out, Ocasio-Cortez’s team said the F.A.Q. was an unfinished draft.... I don’t buy it. It was...too late."
Journalists have to stop acting as if every misstep by a politician is revealing of some unconscious subliminal intention, step back and accept that sometimes people just screw up and that they have a right to take it back when they say it was a mistake. Otherwise, they are themselves the very enablers of the concept of "fake news" that they otherwise so roundly and rightly detest.
7
"Virginia got it right...Yes, it gave Amazon some $500 million in subsidies, but the state offered twice that amount in new investments in local transportation and schools..."
And where did the state get that money from? The taxpayer.
How exactly is this not allowing Amazon to "pit... their community in a race to the bottom with other communities over which could lavish more subsides on a tech behemoth that didn’t need them"? Someone explain that to me?
10
I agree completely that a certain consensus about shared problems and a pragmatic approach to solving them is a path forward.
But what is called "far left" in this country is garden variety left-of-center in Europe. Indeed, Biden would be considered squarely center-right in Europe.
After a generation of the far right moving this country ever rightwards, we need a bit more listing to port to even have a center-center in American politics.
And I look forward to the renaissance of Burkian (spelling?) conservatives.
5
As for the G.O.P., it’s divided between a “limited-government-grow-the-pie” right — but one that wants to just let capitalism rip — and a “hoard-the-pie, pull-up-the-drawbridge” Trump-led far right.
Correction: Far Right Trumpism/Russian Mob/Putin:
"It's STEAL the pie and destroy anyone who objects".
4
Why did you stop with four parties, did you not find it possible to find more distinctions? I guess this is the kind of article we should come to expect of Tom Friedman, focus on an inconsequential phenomenon and ignore the more interesting and illuminating discussion that could take place if you actually attended to the content of the interesting perspectives and proposals while casting away the obviously incoherent ones.
2
A great take on the buckets in politics today. How we have only at 2 party system at this point is hard to see, other than historical momentum. Why can’t we have a new party called “The Middle”, I suspect it would be the biggest one pretty quickly :)
2
In part because the “middle” today would be the far right of the Nixon era. The separation between Regan and JFK is less than Bush Sr and Trump.
This nothing new. When I grew up there were liberal Democrats and Republicans along with Southern Democrats and conservative Republicans. For the Democrats, the present situation is so fraught with danger that we must engrave one of sayings of Bernie Sanders when he was debating Hilary Clinton into our hearts, when he stated that she on her worst day is better than Trump on his best. Even he had no idea how true this would be. For the Dems this has to be a Popular Front election. No Sarandonistas carping about their losing candidate. When the ultra conservative Hindenburg was running for president of Germany against you know who, the left wing Social Democratic Party was all in for him. Anyone who opposes the current regime will have to exhibit this type of discipline.
4
“Find a common threat”? How about planetary survive!? Why bring in class and economics theory when the real need is boiling hot and right in front of us!
7
It was this kind of thinking that got Lani Guinier laughed out of Clinton appointment 25 years ago.
It just doesn't pay to be ahead of your time . . .
I suspect that Friedman is willfully misunderstanding the phrase "unwilling to work" in the Green New Deal. Badly said, this phrase probably refers to the horrendous and inhumane conditions that govern many jobs today - no time allowed to take a bathroom break, your time micromanaged by the computer you are working on, continual surveillance, continual speedups, time requirements that allow not a moment to breathe, etc. etc. No one would criticize someone unwilling to be a slave...OAC is trying to take a hit at the inhumane conditions that make some jobs today a version of modern slavery.
2
Steelworker in Pittsburgh? I see you haven't been to Pittsburgh in a while...
5
Amazon failed to nail down the Queens New York location for its new regional headquarters. The right thing happened for the wrong reasons.
America has a hard time wrapping its head around the problem of excessive concentration of high skilled human and financial capital in the larger metro areas of both coasts. While Boston, New York, Washington D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle prosper big time in the new digital and globalized economy, the rest of the country marks time waiting for something good to happen for them.
This nation must do the right things for Indianapolis, Columbus, St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland and San Antonio. We must especially do right by scores of rural cities across America where the folks who live there look up to the sky to watch the contrails of intercontinental jets and wonder when their chace will come.
Private companies are always going to move to places talented people live and where the physical infrastructure facilitates growth. The national government can't order them to places without those advantages. Still, maybe the federal government can find ways like tax incentives and partnerships with new economy companies to ease the way. The federal government can also set up dis-incentives for major metro areas in their efforts to attract the Amazons and the Googles. After all, how much unaffordable housing and failing transit systems do we need on the coasts?
3
Typically U.S. political parties have been formed around positions consistent with a basic umbrella of ideologies. Republican ideology was characterized by small government , free trade, strong national defense, laissez fare capital enterprise to name a few. These positions were internally consistent and congruent to a basic ideology. Democrats ideological umbrella was social justice, power to the working class , and human rights to different degrees, but also ideologically congruent .
Currently this consistency has broken down in both parties for different reasons.Republicans no longer have any consistent ideology, but are identified by retention of power, and loyalty to one man with no other ideology then benefitting himself . Democrats have splintered into multiple factions representing differences competing ideologies .
The Republican party now threatens our security, individual rights, and the rule of law, while Democrats cannot coalesce around a unified set of ideologies to oppose them. Ironically the party that should fracture has become more unified while the Party that should unify is more fragmented then ever. One or both of these conditions must change for the continued health of our Democracy.
The fracturing of parties that Friedman described isn't new, only more visible. Despite it, we will still have 2 major parties duking it out, with one candidate each. End of story.
As for grow the pie vs. divide the pie, it's clear that it's time to worry more about more equitably dividing it. For years, Friedman's writings have emphasized the continuing and widening inequality of incomes and wealth. Growing the pie inevitably yields greater benefits for those who have more (more education, income, and opportunity) than for those who have less, widening inequality.
Friedman has also emphasized our need to deal with climate change. Although he's too much of an optimist to put it in these terms, we are running up against the limits of growth. We need to learn to to make do with less, not just less CO2 output, but less manufacturing, less traveling, and less electricity use (at least until we go renewable). Efficiency and conversion to renewables are all fine, but a big part of generating less pollution (be it CO2 or anything else), is to create less, use less, and recycle a lot more.
Friedman has repeatedly noted that if the rest of the world adopts a US lifestyle, we'll fry and/or drown. The US, with 5% of the world's population, directly consumes 25% of the world's resources. If we cut our consumption and pollution by half, we'd still use more than twice our share, and we'd leave more for the world's poor, and be less resented.
More equitable division is the way to go.
3
"The 2020 U.S. election will be unlike any in my lifetime"- says Tom Friedman. and he might be correct.
however, until/ unless SOMETHING is done to over haul our broken election system ( the polls machinary, the access to voting, the gerrymandering, the various voting rights restrictions states have been imposing, etc, etc )- as was officially promissed after the " hanging chads" debacle in Fl. during the Gore- Bush race but never done - Tom Friedman's prediction is unlikely to be accomplished.
and THAT predicament, mind you, most probably than not will ensure a rehash of the Trump nightmare.
"So here’s my hunch: The 2020 U.S. election will be unlike any in my lifetime". Tom, the 2016 election was unlike any in MY lifetime.
2
Excuse me Mr. Friedman but Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez cannot be a candidate for president in 2020. The constitution sets an age limit of thirty-five for the presidency and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez simply will not be old enough. Perhaps your mistake resulted from the article being an unfinished draft that was not ready to be released. But I don’t buy it. It’s clear that you were trying to instill fear in potential donors and voters in a socialist takeover of the United States. Your fear mongering is not surprising for anyone who remembers your articles supporting the Iraq war.
1
That comes as a surprise to me. I thought he was trying to use Trump (who can actually run) to scare donations to the left out of me.
Wow, there is a lot to unpack in this article. Ultimately, I would love a system that allows for more parties. It has baffled me for years that we expect only two parties to represent 325 million people. Think about it: You can agree or disagree with Mr. Friedman’s premise, but, for me, it’s hard to argue with those numbers.
A real Democracy is fractured. Many voices and peoples with contrasting agendas and goals.
Fractured is the structure of democracy.
But in this the 21st century money is the life blood of politics and political parties.
Even if enough money is funneled into a new Conservative Party would steadfast Republicans migrate.
For the last 100 years the Democratic Party has consisted of various factions. Everyone knows the old Will Rogers quote about not belonging to an organized political party because he was a Democrat.
Democrat Party has always been the fractured political party and still was able to win elections.
It might be more likely for Democrats to maybe form Progressive Party (the Bull-moose Party?) But that would only give major elections to the GOP, because Republican voters would not migrate.
Good news bad news. Diversity in American political thought is alive and well. The polarity between voting blocks portends the Electoral College will choose future Presidents in the next 2-3 Presidential Election cycles not the voting public.
2
This binary way of thinking is at the root of so many social and economic problems here in the U.S.. Taking the false Left binary mentioned here as an example, one can grow the pie and redistribute it at the same time. Moreover, growing the pie does not have to be done via capitalistic orgy; there are myriad other ways we can increase what we have (though in truth we have so much already that redistributing is really the more urgent of these two things). This way of thinking is why we have two parties in the first place, why most Americans (including left-leaning ones) cringe at the thought that anyone other than "men" and "women" might exist, and so forth. One thing I appreciate about the young "far-left" politicians is that at least they are paying some lip service (for now) to thinking outside of the box.
2
It has been a while since the Two Party System served America well. I think a Parliamentary type system would serve us better.
62
@Bob Cook
In the past I would have agreed, but check out Great Britain and Brexit.
7
@JD Ripper - Yeah, the problem is not the system, it's the voters and the politicians.
1
@Bob Cook
Preferential voting might help the two party system to evolve.
3
All this pie talk is just pie in the sky.
There is a huge demographic shift coming. Millennials and Gen Zs are massive, much more socially liberal than older people, and they are getting screwed on all sides by the economy. They are going to demand and get some radical changes in this country. Maybe not in 2020, but by 2028 they'll get them for sure.
These changes are going to be aimed at providing stability. Healthcare that is not dependent on one's employer and that does not bankrupt people who face emergencies, income stability that provides everyone willing to work a livable wage, access to affordable (or free) education that actually allows them to get decent jobs, and a well-funded retirement system that allows people some assurance that they won't be homeless and eating cat food when they're 80. Oh, and a serious commitment to staving off environmental disaster.
There will be many debates about the best way to achieve these things over the next decade, but these will all happen when the two younger generations demand them and show up to vote (and more baby boomers die off). What we're seeing now in the Republican party are the death throes of outdated conservatives clinging to power by lying, cheating, and stealing (elections, supreme court seats, you name it). it is a party without popular support, and it is destined to collapse.
Republican's 2028 platform will look like the Biden platform today. Democrat's 2028 platform will be that of Sanders today.
2
"Grow-the-pie Democrats — think Mike Bloomberg — celebrate business, capitalism and start-ups that generate the tax base to create the resources for more infrastructure, schools, green spaces and safety nets, so more people have more opportunity and tools to capture a bigger slice of the pie."
Aww, Mister Friedman thinks that Mike Bloomberg is a ... Democrat!
I assume this is the same Mike Bloomberg, who delivered New York City as President Bush's 2004 Republican National Convention site.
Gee willickers, Mister Friedman, thanks for your insight!
1
"Grow-the-pie Democrats know that good jobs don’t come from government or grow on trees — they come from risk-takers who start companies."
Not everyone has the education nor general life opportunities nor the cushion "take chances." Some people are merely trying to survive, and taking a chance could mean living on the street.
3
@Kyle Knobel Yeah seriously I mean isn't this guy a parent? Or even someone who has a companion animal...Sometimes the choices you make financially don't just endanger you (or not), but could hurt others who rely on you...
1
It appears that Mr. Friedman slept through the 2016 election. Does he not realize that there were in fact four parties on the ballot in every state of the union.
Of course the common thread among the Libertarians and the Greens is recognition of the need to dial back our worldwide military empire. Since this is anathema to Mr. Friedman, he simply chooses to ignore the parties of peace.
It seems clear to me that the GOP has been playing identity politics for quite some time and their strategy is to divide and conquer. Bernie Sanders will expose the GOP for what it is and identity politics will be front and center in this election. Donald Trump is not a racist like George Wallace and to represent a growing faction of the GOP they need a candidate like George Wallace to represent them.
This is a an unusual article for you Tom. I am a big fan but I find this disturbing. At a time when we are in need of realistic compromise and less extreme division you are forecasting extreme division into four parties. This cannot be good. I think I would rather see you spend your intellect and time on building the middle ground that recognizes that business needs to be regulated so that it is more responsible to the community and country and that Government has a vital role to play in making sure that its citizens are safe, educated and healthy with adequate chances for jobs. I still think that most of the country would accept this definition of a good state. How this is carried out becomes the question.
28
@Sunny Garner Strange commentary. Tom Friedman is not advocating for fractures in the Republican and Democratic Parties, he's predicting that will happen. I'm not sure he's right, but he does have a point. We may be moving in that direction. A column on what he would like to see awaits for another day.
8
@Sunny Garner
What you want Tom to advocate is not the middle ground. The middle ground is that business should be regulated but not too much and that government's vital role should not cost too much or interfere with business. This middle ground is created by the clash between those who want a good state and those who will use any means necessary to block the spending and government it entails.
Mitch McConnell set the chief goal for Republicans in 2008 as making sure Obama was a one-term president. This removes realistic compromises from the table no matter how the other side responds, as Obama discovered; at best they are temporary truces in an ongoing war.
Both sides will paint themselves as willing and the other as unwilling to engage in realistic compromises. Any side that is lying about this must be marginalized, and to do this there must be no realistic compromise about who is lying and who is telling the truth. People who favor realistic compromises hate to abandon their procedure of choice by taking sides, even if one side is as honest as Trump or Mitch McConnell.
3
It's misleading to claim the current political landscape is all there ever was. The Democrats and Republicans are venerable parties now, but they have changed their positions and issues many times over their history. Never forget it was the southern "Dixiecrats" who seceded from the Union over Abraham Lincoln's election, the first Republican president who ended up signing the Emancipation Proclamation. A lot can change over the years.
There are parties of yore that most people today have never heard of. There are many small parties now, waiting in the wings to eat up disaffected votes from either of the big two parties (I myself have registered with and voted for some of these minor parties in the past), who might see this as their moment.
The Democrat-Republican axis has endured for so long partly out of inertia. They had entrenched themselves and grown complacent of their grip on the electorate, on the fear of change. Well people are getting sick of the status quo on all sides now.
Trump is one symptom of that, the far left surge in the Democrat party is another, and was already happening before Trump was elected, though his presidency has certainly accelerated it (which in itself was not a given, a smart strategy may have been to retreat further into centrist, establishment politics to be a "reasonable" counterweight to Trump, but instead the fringe elements won out in elections).
There's nothing sacred about the status quo of the last 100 years. It's time for change
“What works? Find it and share it, so we can get the best out of these accelerations in technology, globalization and climate change and cushion the worst for the most people in our community.” That really narrows it down.
A similar four-way split shaped the election of 1860. It ended with the election of Abraham Lincoln, and we all know where that led.
Yes, it ended with a man who held the Union together in the midst of horrifying civil war and also freed the nation of the scourge of slavery which bound us the “Four score and seven years” that Lincoln spoke of.
LOL.
I swear I can't remember the last time I read something from the NYT or any other MSM outlet that framed an issue fairly. Criticize Trump for being a liar, a buffoon, disgusting, amoral, etc.
But calling him "anti-immigration" b/c he wants to limit *ILLEGAL* immigration betrays any pretense of objectivity.
Again, regardless of whether you are for or against him—and there is plenty of reason to be foaming at the mouth against him—it is critical, especially for a platform as influential as the Times, to at least BEGIN the discussion fairly.
To fail to do so is (or should be) journalistic malpractice.
Sadly, we can no longer expect anything better from the biggest media outlets, which are far more infotainment than journalism, including the NYT.
4
Two words for Thomas Friedman - Duverger's Law - look it up!
Oh boy is this me.
For example, I don't care for the politics of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I don't like her stands on the issues, I don't like what i perceive as her lack of research and understanding before she leaps into stands, and i don't like the taunting of voters who don't agree with her.
Now just by writing that in the Times, i am no longer considered a Democrat by some Democrats. And I'm a lifelong Democrat who was boots on the grounds for Howard Dean, Obama, and Clinton (using my own vacation time) and gave financial support as well. There's no place for me or the millions like me.
9
@Southern Hope You make it sound like AOC is the face of the democratic party. I don't agree with some of her stands but what she brings is a good debate in the party. Then we'll see if the debate is modified or who wins the debate. I think she brings new energy but her ideas also need to face reality.
Excellent. Can't have too many parties. If we get bored with one party we can go to another one.
With all respect Tom much of what you advocate here is Pie-in-the-Sky and undefined as the Green New Deal or Bernie Sanders 2016 platform. Along with your column today is the report on Wall Street and Hedge Funds plotting to mine the public trough of tax incentives in poor neighborhoods. Are they doing this as either Grow -the-pie or Redivide-the-Pie advocates, not from my reading of their plans. It is just cut the Remainder-of-the-Pie and redistribute those tax benefits upward to the investor class. We need to both redivide the pie and grow the pie simultaneously.
As to four parties we already have the tea party-freedom caucus arm of the GOP but despite their tongue wagging they vote in lockstep in congress with the traditional Republicans. I suspect much the same will happen with the Democrats.
1
If the Democratic Party disbands now, there is just enough time to start a new party that could beat Trump in 2020. But we only have about 2 or 3 weeks left to do this or the window of opportunity will close forever. I am completely serious, and you are not.
Trump and what he represents is certainly the 'common threat' part of the equation.
Just because someone in a D.C. think tank says Virginia got it right doesn't make it so.
After all, we're talking about Amazon not Doctors without Borders. Amazon cut bait on NY because it would not tolerate neutrality on unionization.
Time will tell. Let's see what northern VA, under Amazon's thumb, looks like in five to ten years.
The odds are pretty good that Mr. Friedman, if he's still in the column dodge, will be writing about the low-wage, traffic-ridden hairball that is northern VA.
A blatant show of ignorance of what "government" is -- please consider that the constitution is government "of the people, by the people, and for the poeple" -- so to have "limited government" means to control the growth of the number of outsiders coming into our country. If you thought limited government had anything at all to do with laws or spending or regulations, clearly you need to go back to elementary school and relearn basic american english, and maybe take a history class or two? -- I am specifically referring to the following quote: "But Trump’s decision to declare a 'national emergency' on the Mexico border has violated the party’s most core principle of limited government."
Who is unwilling to work in America?
Only the capital!
I would suggest that this is a no-party state. Otherwise, how do you explain that both parties put up candidates who lacked the support of their mainstream members and were utterly unsuited to the job of President?
Populism in this country has happened because the primary system and the campaign finance laws have taken from the party leaders any power over who runs for office. In that situation, how can you be said to have any political parties at all?
3
Tom Friedman misses out on another split, one which started with Reagan Democrats but has morphed since - the growth of social conservative-economic progressives who are at odds with the Democrats' emphasis on identity politics and like Trump's economic protectionism.
This group is offset by what I think are Friedman's grow the pie liberals - economic moderates who are socially liberal, and are therefore uncomfortable with Bermie/AOC economics and the social intolerance of Republicans.
Both groups are politically homeless.
3
To characterize the left Democrats with the phrase "unwilling to work"--recanted, repudiated, endorsed by no one of consequence in the party--is to deliberately skew the argument. Democrats, even the neo-lib faction the Clintons represented, are by and large social democrats, to varying degrees--and deeply unified in their horror of Trump.
We'll have to see if the phrase "national security"--not a bogus edit from someone's notes but a serious policy, heading into effect with real consequences for our Constitutional system--divides the Republicans, or if, most likely, they follow their Leader over the cliff and into authoritarian waters. In any case, your cheap symmetry greatly distorts the state of the two parties.
Mr. Friedman has never seen a problem that did not require participation by government to be solved. He has a dirigiste mentality.
Government should get smaller, not bigger, less involved , not more involved.
Government does very few things right, or better than a private system would have. For example, we want government managed healthcare for 330 million people, but the very same government can't even manage the VA for 23 million veterans.
Where is the logic that calls for giving more of such responsibility to government?
3:10 PM Wed
3
I love how there's no politician cited as an example of "the old G.O.P center right". That's because they don't exist anymore. It's the party of Trump - if you're not aboard, you're a democrat.
Is it fair at all that some people are unwilling to work for their living but demand to be paid for?
No!
That’s why we call them the politicians!
2
Isn’t it strange that some fellow Americans have the problem with the progressive taxes needed to pay for the basic necessities for our countrymen while simultaneously fiercely demanding the defense budgets worth several hundred billion dollars so we could take care of the people living at the opposite end of the globe?
How is it possible that those people consider self to be the good Christians?
Don’t they know Lord’s words: “Love your neighbors!”
If we don’t put our money where our mouths are, then in His eyes we are going to look like the worst hypocrites.
Jesus directed us to love the people, not to fight them all over the world.
The main trait of the true believers is ability to find the common language and willingness to help those in need.
Isn’t giving through the taxes the most generous and hidden way of loving and protecting our neighbors?
The essence of faith is not an empty speech but the practical implementation.
In your hearts there can be either the faith or the greed.
Choose wisely!
America became a one-party state a while ago, when campaign financing limits (McCain - Feingold, for instance) were eliminated, and then more recently when the Citizens United ruling came down. What is this one party? Wealth. The political process is owned by and for the propertied class. Those who do not own much are excluded. To imply that two parties are becoming four is to miss the whole picture staring at us in the eyes.
What? It's hard to take any of this seriously, starting with, " Grow-the-pie Democrats know that good jobs don’t come from government or grow on trees — they come from risk-takers who start companies." No, Democrats listen to real economists and know good jobs come from aggregate demand.
But the big issue with this column is this, if there are two factions of Republicans, who is candidate of the not Trump faction?
Let's see some evidence that there is a coalition of Republicans willing to go against whatever Trumpism is, rather than ride it to election, before we start fantasizing about some sort of party split.
In drawing his distinction between the two ideological groupings emerging in the Democratic Party, Mr. Friedman explains that centrist Democrats "know that good jobs don't come from government". He then attempts to illustrate his point by referencing the conflict in New York over the Amazon headquarters, in which centrist Democrats were fighting to give Amazon nearly 3 billion dollars in tax breaks and subsidies. People that need help aren't getting it, all so we can subsidize large corporations and wealthy individuals with tax loopholes and lower tax rates. We wouldn't need to raise any hardworking person's taxes if we went even halfway back in the direction of the tax brackets of the post WW2 era when the top bracket was taxed at or around 90%. Friedman and his ilk are happy to enjoy the financial rewards of the massive investments in our society made by the generation before his, but unwilling to share those rewards with future generations and a wider swath of the American people, specifically those who stand to benefit from government programs designed to provide a social safety net and a pathway out of poverty.
America isn't a four party state and it isn't going to become one anytime soon. The basic structure of the government is an impedance to diversity of position and political discussion. The US really needs to consider IRV or proportional voting to break the stranglehold Dems and the GOP have on the country - in addition to getting money out of politics, fundraising should be a thing of the past.
Then we can have a conservation about diverse view points, right now this is just a discussion of establishment parties losing ground because they hold unpopular centrist positions and the remainder of the centrist population feeling as disenfranchised as progressives (and whatever is happening on the right) have felt for decades.
The platform I'm looking for is "willing to work but not willing to go to meetings."
It would be much easier for these community improvement groups to succeed without Fox news constantly ratcheting up the anger and the us versus them. Moderates do this too, but Saturday Night Live's message is not hate thy neighbor.
1
These are all fair and logical points made by Mr. Friedman, and maybe a 4-party system would work. But all 4 parties would first need to swear off special-interest PAC money and commit to public funding. Otherwise, there's no chance the 2 smaller parties would stand a chance of playing anything but a spoiler role. The current 2-party system clearly doesn't work anymore. The idea that a Repub or Dem presidential candidate could win in a landslide these days in quaint. The overwhelming majority of voters have already decided which party's candidate they will support 2020, no matter who it is. For many, voting for "the enemy" (aka, a Republican or Democrat) is simply unthinkable. We're dug in, and we often believe things about the "enemy" that simply aren't even remotely true. So each presidential election now comes down to fighting over the sliver of the electorate who aren't party loyalists--which is a dwindling number--but who also may be low-information voters who aren't voting so much on policy, but rather on a "gut feeling" of who they identify more with. What I would like is for a future column to include details from a round table of psychologists who can tell us the best way to puncture the mindset of the staunch tribalists, on both the right and the left; or if it's even worth trying.
Multi-party states often have parliamentary systems. Not sure if it's a must but would be happy to read a debate. As for the USA, it may be OK to have a four-party system but everybody understands that the split of the GOP and Dems won't be synchronous and the party that splits first is doomed in the next election. So my hunch is this won't happen in observable future.
1
Two other four-way elections: 1860, which resulted in the election of Abraham Lincoln; 1912, which resulted in the election of Woodrow Wilson.
1
How can you present so many objective facts and STILL arrive at conclusions that are simply wrong for reasons of time, institutions and resources that BOTH parties are currently amassing on their respective hills that they have chosen to die in?
The US has always been a multi-political party republic. Some "minor" parties have been more influential than others. Some just reflected the current political/social mood. Some morphed into other parties.
Mr. Friedman needs to (re-?) his American history...
2
@HapinOregon
I think Friedman is playing into the media or the Republicans who say that there is an extreme left splitting the Democratic party. Keep it up and, by the way where is the Grand Old Party--it is gone, but keep up the critical litany--Bernie too old and a socialist, Biden too, Beto too young, Harris not black enough--she married a "white" guy and was a prosecutor, Klobuchar mean to her underlings, and so forth. I am much older then Friedman and far from a political expert , but I did learn in High School that divisions had always existed, and I certainly remember the McCarthy days. When were people with different positions nice to each other?
1
@HapinOregon
Fat finger error alert:
"Mr. Friedman needs to (re-?) his American history..." should have been "Mr. Friedman needs to (re-?) read his American history...
Hmmm....is Tom Friedman beginning to sound a lot like David Brooks? The last few paragraphs could easily come from your fellow op-ed columnist, Tom!
1
The American political system was not designed to function with more than two parties, despite the fact that the need for an ideological realignment between (and among) our two parties has reached such a critical point.
The biggest obstacle to a substantive, national conversation regarding this sort of political reshuffling has everything to do with the nature of our capitalist system itself.
“Old-money” interests are incredibly powerful forces of social division, and have very little incentive for people to unite over anything except their mutual loathing.
"Recently, 2020 candidate Amy Klobuchar revealed her proposal to address our healthcare crisis: expanded tax credits for health savings accounts. Does anyone think this is seriously going to address our crisis?"
Health savings accounts? How this survived the first ten seconds after whomever voiced it is the question that should be asked.
If half the country can't handle a four hundred dollar emergency, or a one month lay off how the H are they going to grow a health medical account?
3
According to Friedman's assessment, Churchill must have been
"leftist" Democrat. After all, he was for universal healthcare.
So I'm assuming that - in accordance with Friedman's standards, that also made him a divisive candidate.
2
I would prefer a four party debate rather than the two party debate that has existed too long. The center of the two party debate barely distinguishes the Republican Party from the Democratic Party which prefer supporting the existing economic inequitable distribution of wealth, rights, protection and opportunities that the investor class and corporate class prefer.
It’s the debate at the “margins” that have won the minds and hearts of Americans and speaks for the them in the body politic. The decision to fall back where manipulated supporters are easily exploited by the rich and powerful or move forward with the energy of the people taking all the people into an age of equal opportunity, economic and environmental justice and equity are clear choices for the people. So let’s stay focused on the margins that have the unexpected and sustained energy to decide the future of America.
I have been a republican all of my adult life, I have always felt that we need more than the traditional 2 parties. "losing" an election just doesnt matter; the party out of power simply sulks and blocks and waits for their turn again. nothing gets done. the party in the minority still wields power and authority and gathers support and campaign funds to fight back. With more than two parties there would be the real possibility that one of them could truly be out in the cold, with no clout or influence if they misstep too badly. It would force the politicians to really think about their positions and fear the electorate if they fail to produce.
3
The local factory or refinery owned by an international corporation must be a part of any local coalition, which means that it will no longer be run by the corporation with the goal of adding to the corporation's worldwide bottom line, but rather have this control shared somehow with the coalition. Two problems arise: first, we do not know how to organize such an arrangement, and second, many large corporations will resist and move the factory or refinery to some location where they preserve their control.
Governments are paralyzed by partisanship largely because large businesses fight to preserve their freedom using intimidation, threats to move their operations, campaign contributions and other bribes, and disinformation campaigns such as the ones against global warming and government. Part of this disinformation is Friedman's ignoring these facts in his article, as if the Koch brothers are willing to yield a large part of the autonomy they have fought for and the financial elite are willing to abandon their so-far-successful quest to get an ever bigger piece of the world's economic pie and work instead for the survival of losers as well as winners.
To be blunt, Tom Friedman has written enough best-sellers to be able to afford a piece of whatever portion of our planet remains habitable. On the individual level, he has solved the problem and can afford to advocate for general solutions that will be blocked by the powerful forces he does not name.
In 2020 if the majority of voters in the U.S. see things as they truly are, i.e. 20-20, the GOP, as it sorrily and stupidly exists, will cease to exist. That's a start. The policies in this nation have swung so far to the extreme Right, bordering on authoritarianism, due to a soft coup by the the Koches, Mercers, and their blinkered supporters, that anything from the Left would be an instant improvement.
@james33 Get real. It's the Democrats who are the true authoritarians. The Dems want to police everyone's language, their facial expressions, their associations, even their thoughts, if they could find a way to do that. The Democrats would bring back "re-education camps" if they could.
"What if I am a steelworker in Pittsburgh and in the union, but on weekends I drive for Uber and rent out my kid’s spare bedroom on Airbnb"?
HOW IS THIS ACCEPTABLE IN THE WEALTHIEST COUNTRY ON EARTH!? If you are Pittsburgh steelworker, then you have a full time job, and a hard one. You shouldn't have to work another job and rent out your spare bedroom!
But this is today's America: "In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. Last year, CEO pay at an S&P 500 Index firm soared to an average of 361 times more than the average rank-and-file worker." (Forbes: https://is.gd/xe3biO)
When the GOP talks about "wealth redistribution" this is what they mean: MORE FOR ME, NONE FOR YOU, BECAUSE I'M WORTH IT AND YOU'RE NOT.
They don't want to pay their fair share. They want US to pay it. Sounds hysterical? Tell that to the Pittsburgh steel worker with his rented out room and his Uber side hustle.
I would support a candidate who wants to Make America Fair Again. We have lost our way when it comes to the lives of regular folks. Most people have been continually forced to accept less reward for more work, while the earnings at the very top exceed the wildest fantasies of medieval kings. They will call this idea "socialism" because that is how they tar any idea that runs counter to their greed. Don't believe it. We need more FAIRNESS.
2
In the middle of the road there's nothing but dead armadillos.
-- Jim Hightower
1
Sad that someone who supports universal health care, parental leave, and green energy (AOC) is considered "far left".
3
The two-party system is broken. I much prefer the European model of many parties. Keeps everyone honest. No one party can hold the process hostage the way McConnell did when there was an open seat on the Supreme Court in the final year of Obama's last term.
1
As a long time member of America’s fastest growing party (registered independents) I think your vision of four parties is two narrow.
What if we junk the whole long expensive two party focused primary election system.
Instead we go to a two cycle election:
Round one: general election with a relative low bar to entry and hence lot’s of candidates to choose from.
Round two: run off between the top three candidates from round one.
This would certainly be far less agonizing than the two year hoopla we now face (Super Tuesday etc)
and would open up all sorts of choices for voters.
The “organized parties” could still decide on a candidate using any process they like (not paid for by the taxpayer).
This process would be fairer, simpler and I can’t imagine would cost more than then endless primaries..
God forbid we face a binary choose between Donald and a really far left Democrat.
2
The union steelworker in Pittsburgh does not need to spend weekends driving for pittance from Uber because he makes a decent living due, in large part, to his union's collective power. If the current two party system, corrupted as it is by money, cannot come close to satisfying the needs of ordinary people perhaps it has outlived its usefulness. If so its demise may be a good thing, as long as it also means ending the national nightmare, also known as Donald Trump.
2
However the existing "parties" sort themselves out in the coming months will be fodder for many Op-Ed columnists. What I long for is a party that is based upon rational forward thinking. A party that is unafraid to use the best evidence available to map a course that can take people forward and put them on a path that will survive more than a few generations. Is that asking too much?
1
Without ranked choice voting, a four-party election is ripe for suboptimal outcomes.
2
Once again Friedman misses the point. On the right and the left we’re witnessing a culmination of the Thirty Years Culture War. There will be the far right Marie LePen/AfD type party, the centrist can’t we all get along party focused on the continued support of the financialization and centralization of the economy, and the far left Antifa crowd. Parties 1 and 3 will be driven by young fresh faces and party 2 will age out and consist of BoomerCons and civic nationalist types dreaming of 1985.
People seeking an office should be able to post their resume, along with a video, on a government created websites. People can give a thumbs up or down, and also make comments, as also the candidate can. No ads or contributions of any kind.
3
No, America is not becoming a 4 party state. The divisions you describe between the two parts of both parties have been there for longer than I've been alive.
For instance, for the Democrats, every election political journalists act surprised that there is: 2016, a Bernie wing and a Hillary wing of the party; in 2008 an Obama wing and a Hillary wing of the party, in 2004 a Howard Dean wing and a John Kerry wing, in 1992, a Clinton wing and a Jerry Brown wing...etc. etc ad infinitum.
I could do the same thing for the Republicans...remember 1992 when Pat Buchanan primaried George HW Bush? Remember 1976 when Reagan primaried Ford?
I'm not sure why journalists forget or whether they think they're writing for a public that forgets, but it's very strange. The divisions have always been there and will always be there. It's part of the identities of those parties.
In conclusion, the Democratic pa
2
I propose a fifth party - a party whose ideals are grounded in facts. Clearly, Friedman's "Grow-the pie" party is as fact-free as Trump's party. Witness the following statement:
"Grow-the-pie Democrats know that good jobs don’t come from government or grow on trees — they come from risk-takers who start companies. "
Risk takers owe their risk-taking ability to government-created entities called corporations. Fundamental technologies aren't grown by corporations, as the needed R&D spending doesn't contribute immediately to the bottom line. Here's a sampling of important technologies that have emerged from government programs: wireless telecommunications, GPS, Internet, satellites, jet propulsion, lasers, imaging devices, and human genome mapping. Government-protected risk takers hire individuals who take these government-funded technologies and monetize them.
1
As a #nevertrump Republican-in-exile I wouldn't mind a political realignment at all. A small-government, socially libertarian party would sure be nice. I feel sidelined, with socialists to the left of me and the knuckle-dragging wing of the GOP to the right of me. Help!
71
@Roger
I agree-with perhaps some caveats on the small government part- and I’m a centrist Democrat.
It’s not that I don’t believe in a social safety net; I truly do. But, I see public/private partnerships as a far more efficient way of providing these services. For example, I’d rather see a Swiss style medical system- which keeps the profit motive in place while covering every citizen thoroughly- than Medicare for all. Green energy? A carbon tax plus zero income taxes and write offs for every carbon free automobile or energy unit produced.
Economic growth, free trade, social liberalism, and medium government.
13
@Roger
It's unfortunate the right's extremism has muscled you out but... don't try and drag a necessary progressive agenda needed to address the critical threat of climate change to the right. The earth is in trouble and we need to fight for it - but do feel free to try and talk some sense into the sane level-headed republicans still out there who are... Oh I'm confused now, I think everyone sane that's fiscally conservative long ago jumped ship to the Dem, it's just the crazies left in the GOP.
5
@Roger
A small-government, socially libertarian party already exists. Not coincidentally, it's called the Libertarian Party.
4
A. Isn't it more likely that a center-left party will form in the middle with moderate Republicans and centrist Democrats? With two fringe groups on the wings pulling in opposite directions?
B. Friedman should have linked this column to the one yesterday by David Brooks: A Nation of Weavers. As in an old tree that's seen better days, new shoots are growing from the roots of the American experience to replace it.
Sure you have four groups:
1. The haves.
2. The have nots.
3. The uneducated.
4. The educated.
Groups 1, 2, and 3 are all in for Trump.
4
@Daniel
So what you're claiming is that at least 2/3rds of country's voting population consists of well-educated people.
Trump's categories are even more limited:
1. Conned.
2. Not Conned.
1
So many of the NYT Picks in comments make assumptions that just are not in the article. One commenter accuses Friedman of saying that a union steel worker who rents out his spare bedroom is acceptable. Friedman never says that. He just says it exists. The commenter also assumes that this hypothetical person HAS TO do these things. That may be the case, but they also might be doing it to save more or to have more. Another commenter assumes that Friedman has placed this person in the Democratic Party. He never says that. I think we're learning more about what readers think by how they misread the article.
1
Sorry, Tom, but you lost me at steelworker from Pittsburgh. They don't do steel in Pittsburgh anymore.
I wish Ocasio-Cortez would learn her job before she starts drafting policy. She is not doing the Democrats--or herself--any favors by acting like a brainless cheerleader on issues that require serious discussion and thought.
6
Americans need to be re-educated on manners and decency.
And I'm not talking about eating with knife and fork at the same time.
Solidarity with people born with few talents, disablities or in an environment where nurture failed is the only right thing to do. Without social recognition or thank you, or subsidized by the government, as in charity.
1
Those unwilling to work should not have the privilege of food and shelter. I'm sorry. EVERYONE should have to work. And I agree that those who do should be entitled to healthcare, and at the very least to retire with dignity regardless of income. But people should have to work. Society should not be forced to care for those who choose not to.
1
"Grow-the-pie Democrats know that good jobs don’t come from government or grow on trees — they come from risk-takers who start companies. They come from free markets regulated by and cushioned by smart government."
Nonsense. Some good jobs come from risk-takers who start companies, but my no mean all. There are many excellent jobs in publicly funded research and education. And these jobs pay tremendous dividends to the long-term economy as they are the crucible of real innovation driven by a genuine desire to create knowledge rather than boost next quarter's stock price. Want to see a real economic boom? How about increasing public funding for research and education 10x? And its relatively cheap. The entire budget of the National Science Foundation is less than the cost of 10 F-35 jet fighters.
3
When, not if, Trump implodes so will the contemporary Republican party. The Democrats will then simply need to provide a flexible-minded candidate not wedded to ideology in order to pick up all the pieces.
1
@Chuck Burton Not sure about that. If Trump implodes well before the election, it may well rid the party of an albatross around its neck.
The unable or unwilling to work is for the homeless people. We have a lot of homeless people here in LA. I drive Lyft most days and I see them just about everywhere. Mr. Friedman - what about the homeless? What about the people begging on the off ramps of our freeways? I'm glad somebody is including them on basic income provisions.
I agree with Ken Grossman regarding the cheap shot on AOC. I also noticed you didn't lob a cheap shot at the other "three parties".
2
Also, what about parents who choose not to work in order to raise children? That, of course, IS work, but not salaried, and really not appreciated by society.
Anything that HINDERS the motivation of the entrepreneur to build, add or expand something that serves a market, creates jobs, and brings revenues is NO good. Healthy growing businesses pay more in taxes, and directly and indirectly contribute to society.
Better to have X% of a growing pie, than 100% of NO pie.
On point analysis, Mr. Friedman.
2
@Gian Piero
This is a fictional as a "free market" which is an impossible thing unless one desires anarchy and even then the market would not be free.
No business especially a wealthy corporation ever does anything helpful to or for society unless forced to by the government. That is almost the first thing you learn as a child when you go into the world and spend you pennies.
Mr. Friedman truly doesn't understand the nature of how the real power works. It's aways platitudes and categories which is convenient for softball but not the GOT den of death that has overrun everything. How does one of the most celebrated journalists seriously not understand what's really afoot? Therein lies the disconnect. Ivory Towers no longer constitute credibility.
1
Anybody who thinks Trump is "far right" doesn't understand politics in the US. He's a centrist Republican with a bumptious personality. I am a Reagan Republican. Policy-wise, Trump is as close to Reagan as you can be. I noticed it in his inaugural address, which was in tone and content very similar to Reagan's. Democrats forget, but they portrayed Reagan as a far right Republican racist hate-monger also until the portrayal just became just too ludicrous. His landslide re-election victory against Mondale in 84 disabused that notion convincingly.
Reagan made one mistake while president and no, it was not Iran/Contra in which history has shown him to be prescient. He dealt with Democrats in good faith on the issue of immigration and they betrayed him. Trump will not make that mistake. He's intent on re-establishing an orderly LEGAL system of immigration and has shown that he will fight for it to what we must hope will not be the bitter end. There has been an national emergency at the border for half a century and it needs to be resolved in the best interests of all involved. Open borders is not an option. It's a crime against the American people.
5
@Dougal E
Reagan also committed treason with Iran?Contra debacle. Should have been impeached--but the stars didn't align.
Trump is the common threat and remaking America great again is the common project - RAGA?
Worst corruption happens at the intersection of the private sector and government. Both are inherently corrupt when they meet. We need a separation of church and state and private interests. Oh, and a well run and balanced social democratic system.
Fact is a social democratic system fosters risk taking by individuals by cushioning the failure. In a capitalistic-monopolistic system like we have, if you fail you become destitute, and if you succeed, a giant monopoly will buy you out for peanuts or put you out of business. Today's American economic system benefits the established tax dodging class - the wealthy and giant corporations that have rigged our government in their favor. Yet it's the tax evading class that owes its wealth to the largest socialistic benefits - the nation's infrastructure, government led public research and public education, defense.
If the wealthy continue to evade taxes, the only solution is increasing the wages of everyone that has no choice but to pay taxes thru payroll deduction. Wealth inequality, where the nation's wealth is amassed by tax dodgers at the top and away from the tax payers who earn less and therefore pay less in taxes, is unsustainable. It leads to $22 Trillion+ in deficits. It doesn't take an genius to figure that out. We have gutted the tax paying class' wealth by lowering incomes to subsistence levels that can no longer sustain being taxed
1
All of the media, right, left, and center continue to fan the flames of division. Yes, Democrats have differences but they are mainly about methods, not goals. There is more that unites the party than divides it, but that is rarely the focus of the story. Just look at universal health care for an example, all Democrats agree on the goal but there is a healthy debate over how to get there. However, the news would have you think it’s tearing the party apart. It isn’t.
2
Don’t be so sure that the Democratic differences are so slight. Recent events indicate that many on the far left won’t be happy until capitalism is usurped and the rich join the poor in penury.
2
@randomxyz
We do not have a capitalist economy we have a colonial economy. We used to have a capitalist economy but the republicans destroyed it with dereugulation.
Government by the people uses capitalism to make life good for the most people possible. That has been under concerted attack by republicons for more than 50 years.
Separating the political from the economic, I believe that deregulation and free trade have been, on balance, hugely beneficial to the US and its citizens, not to mention to other countries. We can have a discussion about the optimal marginal tax rate. That is much different from claiming that the whole system is corrupt and we must soak the “rich” to pay for child care or universal basic income.
2
It's bad enough that the Democrats already have twelve presidential candidates to choose from not to mention the possibility of another ten throwing in their hats before the voting begins. Too many choices are often times overwhelming when a person has to choose just one. In which case many people will choose not to vote. Throwing additional political parties into the mix will have the same chilling effect.
Ranked choice voting, where a voter chooses the candidates in order of their preference on a ballot, has been shown to surface a nominee which is a true representative of the majority's will. That's what we're really after, isn't it?
Coalitions are formed by political parties with political parties and are not truly representative of the people. They are conducive to back room deals being made between the parties that many would find repugnant and lead to even greater political divides and more coalitions.
2
Does the "old G.O.P. center right" even exist anymore? I see no evidence of it. The entire party seems to have shifted to the lunatic fringe with the Trump cult.
3
The collapse of the Amazon deal here in NYC revealed the far lefts true colors. AOCs comments afterward, that we can now spend the 3B on schools, housing, etc, revealed she is completely ignorant of the facts. There is, of course no 3B sitting around, just like now, thanks to her and her lacky pols Sen. Gianaris and Councilman Van Bremmer, the 27B in future tax revenues. I left the Democratic party that day. It seems ignorance and pandering is a characteristic of the far left and the far right. Find me a "grow the pie" candidate that believes in science and they have my vote.
7
I cannot believe her comments about spending the $3B elsewhere did not receive more attention. She demonstrates complete ignorance of economic facts. I haven't abandoned the Democrats but I fully agree we need more intelligent candidates who do not just pander simple ideas to fix complex problems.
4
@Phyliss Dalmatian. I began grade school when FDR was president and am lifelong Democrat. You sound like what I am now which is a mainstream Democrat. Our party represents the "people" the the people who made America the great nation that it was and the Republicans always represented "business" which was the ownership class when as in the 1940 convention under the name of America first it toyed with fascism and in 2016 was taken over by fascism, claiming that he would put America first and make America great again, with claims of a lost golden age that never was.
Thanks to a massive fraud on the American people were "elected" a failed business man with many bankruptcies as presidential who dreamed of becoming an autocrat and an oligarch.
We have one political party who will in the sorting process move to the center left . What claims to be the Republican party but in reality racketeer lead criminal organization willing for the right amount money will sell this nation to foreign governments and giant corporations all based on fear, greed and the ability of a master con-man to make 35% of the people, the under educated, misinformed and racist, who cannot tell the truth from lies and do not care which is which.
The Republican party will still exist after the 2020 election but it will, in my opinion become a regional party of mostly Southern states and it will not be viable in my lifetime.
2
The problem with this whole take?
It ignores the fact that the GOP and the Business Class lead a decades-long attack on multiple fronts: against labor, the enivironment, regulations, and, most of all, paying their fair share of taxes. And eventually enough of the Dems capitulated. Thus, the USA, after spending decades investing in education, research, and infrastructure in order to grow the middle-class that baby-boomers grew up in, turned around and began cannibalizing itself. All this talk about "the far-left" wanting to "redistribute" ignores that the great redistrubtion has been happening all along--just upwards. Why grow the pie if you don't believe you'll get a slice?
1
Define “fair share” of taxes please. I’ll bet your definition of “fair” is quite different from mine.
Tom Friedman is sounding more like Milton Friedman every day.
No, the two "extremes" do not resemble each other. In fact, one isn't even an "extreme." While the right wing is fast approaching the killing of democracy in order to keep money and whites in power, the left wing is just trying to save the planet and the middle class.
Please, Tom, take a vacation and clear your mind. You are getting old and it shows.
Just ask yourself, what would FDR do? Or LBJ, or RFK? Not all that different from "radical" AOC, it just 'feels different' coming from a young woman, and a woman of color no less.
1
You don’t think AOC qualifies as extreme? I do.
1
No, she neither seems to be or is extreme. Her ideas are common sense in a decent society that progressives from TR, Fighting Bob Lafollette, FDR, LBJ, RFK, Feingold, and many others have argued for decades.
The U.S. is merely behind other industrialized countries. And despite heroic efforts of some, I doubt if we will catch up.
1
I don't for a moment buy into Friedman's Four-Party State premise.
Instead, far too many are often single issue voters. When it comes down to pulling the leaver, they focus on a single issue or theme even if there are positions that come with the package that they don't agree with.
For example, how many Americans fall behind Trump on immigration alone. They might also like conservative judges and gun rights, but do they really believe in massive tax breaks for wealthy corporations and individuals? Did Brits who voted for Brexit really consider the ramifications of lost trade or were they just happy to raise the drawbridges to Europe in hopes to keep "them" out?
What has become clear to far to many candidates is that if you get voters to focus on one issue (one phobia), then you can exploit that fear. And that quite frankly explains why Trump not only ended up in the White House, but why he was able to beat all of those front-runners during the GOP primaries. He figured it out even before he announced his candidacy because his first words as a candidate are the same words he uses today.
It is funny that Friedman mentions AOC. She has big audacious ideas and every now and then, her inexperience and youth gets the better of her. I hope that over time, she figures out a way not to misstep. But she has figured it out, just as Trump, that today's voters are one-issue oriented. That is why she decided to toss everything into the New Green Deal. Keep it simple.
3
@It is time!
do yo really really thing a 2 party system fits all the diversity we need out there in picking our leaders. The for (far) right should have a party, the right of center, the left of center an the (far) left should have a party. Greens need party independents do to. What's not to like about finding a party niche that speaks for you
Democratic incrementalism vs. Republican radicalism has moved our country to the right.
The type of "gotcha journalism" that digs up an unfortunate phrase in some obscure FAQ is beneath you, Thom.
It's time to at least acknowledge the progressive left, like some of your colleagues have done in recent weeks/months.
Germany, the Netherlands, ... have growing economies, full employment just like us and on top of that public services and safety nets that take unnecessary anxiety away from its inhabitants. It's not radical and there is no trade-off.
3
While a new Amazon headquarters would help revitalize an aging postindustrial backwater where nobody wants to live, with crumbling infrastructure, appalling poverty and limited opportunity, offering tax breaks to successful corporate titans does nothing to grow the economy. Instead, it entrenches monopolies, handicaps competitors, and discourages new business formation. Tax breaks of this kind are the antithesis of the free market capitalism.
Democrats are not "becoming socialists." Instead, they are coming home to FDR's vision for the party. I explain in this piece I recently wrote: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/2/18/1835670/-Democrats-Going-Too-Far-Left-No-Embracing-FDR-s-Legacy?_=2019-02-19T12:32:26.746-08:00
2
This guy has been wrong about so much for twenty years. The Democratic party is a big tent party. Reports of its fracture are absurd. This sort of piece probably will cause some people to sit down and out as disaffected. Hang it up, you tiresome fellow.
It's becoming a Plutocracy.
2
The truth is in the nuance.
Just to point out, one of the highest rated comments on the Amazon NYC pull out article on The NY Times was from a person from Queens saying, and this is a accurate paraphrase ; “ I don’t want a job. I want AOC to redistribute wealth like I elected her to do” ... based on the support it received on here by its “recommend” count, it seems to be a common opinion. Democrats could be in open civil war this election. GOP will continue to acquiesce to Trump. Looks like another bad year for sanity in 2020.
5
@F. Jozef K. the Republican Party gave in to the know nothing faction represented by the Tea Party, and now the Democratic Party is following suit. Given the state of education in the US, I don’t expect significant improvement any time soon.
It is insane that for Friedman, the idea that someone with a full-time job, that -
- has to drive a taxi on weekends
- has to rent out his spare bedroom on AirBnB
- would be an acceptable living scenario in 21st century America.
Friedman has often-cited this ridiculous example in many of his columns as "the way things are," and - even more ridiculously - as a favorable example of our modern, dynamic world.
You want to know why people are rejecting the two party system? Friedman's absurd ideas, which carry a lot of weight in the centrist establishment - are the reason why. Those who benefit from this system are asking the rest of us to swallow increasingly lower standards of living, and telling us it's good for us.
171
@Vin Where did he say it's acceptable? He just said it exists as an example of people who have a stake in both the labor and capital side of the economy.
12
@sethblink it's a scenario often cited by Friedman when talking about the present economic situation in America. He usually writes about it while extolling the awesome drive and craftiness of American "micro-entrepreneurs" (or some such nonsense word), completely oblivious to the fact that most people would rather not spend every waking hour working to pay the bills (or renting rooms in their house to strangers).
18
@Vin
Except, it is the reality right now. Many people with cancer would prefer not to have cancer, but until we find a cure for every type, some of them will die.
The reality of present day economics is similar: life is and will continue to be a struggle for billions around the world until corruption is eliminated and prosperity reaches every corner of every region on the planet. I’m guessing 200 years.
6
Friedman is always thoughtful, however, I think he misplaced the main event, climate change. Green New Deal makes the point, but needs work.
We need to get off the politics and realize we, all four parties, are inextricably connected in this. Civilization is at stake within a lifetime; this is more an existential crisis than a political one.
The problem we face requires us to act decisively, now, before the window is shut, and warming to 3 to 6 degrees C. becomes inevitable, with utterly catastrophic consequences.
A national mobilization is urgently required, joining a worldwide alliance to stop emissions within 30 years; an achievable goal!
This course will yield enormously beneficial outcomes for the world's: public-health, economics, social systems, and environments; if only we choose to act now.
The alternative poses unthinkable consequences for our offspring.
Let us bury the hatchet, and join together to save ourselves from ourselves!
1
When I read the responses to Friedman’s column, I can clearly see the divide (divisions) we face as a society. Although I see a lot of criticism of Friedman, I don’t see anyone picking up the ball regarding his suggestion that local level collaborations provide some hope. This points to the recent book by James and Deborah Fallows (“Our Towns”) who traveled the country and interviewed people extensively, finding hope in collaboration by people who put aside labels and just got to work solving problems. The assertion that a Green agenda is the province of the left is an example (and not the only one) of skewed right/left thinking. It doesn’t need to be thought of that way. Modification to our energy infrastructure will not come cheap. But since climate change will affect us all, we should all contribute to possible solutions. Approaches need to be sensible, and they can come from people of either political persuasion. Innovations in this field need not all be “techy”, so the “elite” won’t gain all the benefits. Job creation will follow. We can’t wait for a “genius entrepreneur” to save the day and create jobs. We all have some of the innovation in our DNA, I am sure of it. Working together can be powerful.
Growth is not a solution to inequality, period. Friedman keeps rehashing it without doing basic arithmetic. Without breaking up monopolies (google, amazon, FB, etc), the majority of every dollar of growth goes to monopoly rent. Not only can you not outgrow wealth and income inequality, growth actually compounds the problem.
It's time for a structural change. Bernie, Warren, and AOC have it right.
You're right about one thing: "Unwilling to work" was a deeply stupid thing to write. It's flatly unworkable and indefensible, and it makes a mockery of socialism. It's also a single phrase that you cherry-picked from an office draft that A.O.C. disavowed as a mistake. But according to right-wing pundits and yourself, "Unwilling to work" nevertheless represents the entire Progressive wing of the Democratic party.
I don't buy it.
I don't blame right-wing pundits. They're not paid to address real problems, like legalized bribery (excuse me, "lobbying" and "campaign contributions") that turns Democratic and Republican "public servants" into corporate puppets. On the contrary, right-wing pundits distract the public from such obvious institutional problems, and smear anyone who does point them out. That's their job.
What's your job, Mr. Friedman?
3
@Chris
unwilling to work may also be an ironic way of expressing the thing.
Many people can't work due to illness or cannot show up on a schedule set by someone else for personal reasons and most government agencies will due to how they are designed and the prohibition of using their own judgment by republicans mark that down as "unwilling to work" .
This is most of how the republicons have set up our government since they were allowed to tear it down under reagan. They have taken the methods and practices used to impose racism and are imposing bigotry on all.
1
We can’t, if we are moral, let the ‘will not work’ers starve. It has been tried over many centuries, in many countries. It ALWAYS ends in the death of the country. So, what to do? If you don’t want to work, don’t. But, all your food will be doled out, just enough calories & nutrition for your family to survive. You will go stand in line once a week & be handed a bag of your allotment. Better learn to cook from scratch, as your food will have NO prepared foods in it. Maybe, since we are still idiots about nakedness, we will have to clothe you. A 1 piece uniform, vomit green, 1 per family member, per year (to get the next years, you will have to strip & hand in your old one). Housing? Large scale, megalopolous housing. 2 room apartments, bath down the hall, keep it clean as every so many days it will be your family’s day to clean it. Everything needed for survival. All we need give, for nothing. Kid grows up & moves out, your allotments go down by one person. Once all the kids are gone, you move to a 1 room apartment. Which you keep till you & your spouse die. Oh,kids can’t move back. Minimal healthcare for community health. Don’t believe in vaccination? Special apartment buildings for you. Even if you work. No going outside, except to go to work, where you will work in special offices, factory jobs, any job, with no other people around but other antivacs. Ask to be vaccinated? Once it’s done, if you elect to work, your free. Your dangerous, you must be kept separate, if not.
Two thoughts:
1). Mr. Friedman ignores the growth of Independent voters – people who, in frustration, have forsaken both political parties (including Mr. Friedman's versions). Their numbers approximately equal the numbers of registered Republicans or registered Democrats. While they may not be factors in choosing party candidates, they have, and will, count mightily in general elections.
Why navel-gazing partisans and political advisors & journalists (the overwhelming majority, it sometimes seems) ignore Independents is beyond me.
2). Mr. Friedman's four categories in this article are a renaming and updating of categories that date back at least to the early 1960s. Then, the US had liberal Democrats, Southern (conservative; blue dog) Democrats, conservative Republicans (Goldwater, Taft, ...) and liberal Republicans (Rockefeller, Case, ...), plus a few hybrids. Each group has evolved over time, but there have long been four American political "parties".
3
There is a potential nearer upside to the fracturing Friedman describes. It could serve to add detail and nuance for a largely ignorant electorate. Specifically, the difference between Socialism and a societal perspective should become clearer. Similarly, the difference between limited government and an isolationist, xenophobic and "anything to make a buck" environment should become clearer. To make this happen Americans need to be told the truth. The playing field is more uneven than ever. In a class system, inequality begins at birth and typically lasts a lifetime. Such inequality means that the odds are stacked against some Americans, who are not "losers" because they need our help. Free healthcare and education may be more affordable if we don't assume the costs remain as at present. Similarly, corporations, free markets, and Wall Street are not our enemies if their incentives benefit all stakeholders.
THE RHETORIC OF MS OCASIO CORTEZ Is more suited to the lines of Tinkerbell or the Tooth Fairy than to a political leader. Her facts are unchecked. She does not understand the basic principles of economics, at the state or national level. I wouldn't follow her to a water fountain. Of the four factions Tom Friedman describes, I see the Grow The Pie Democrats as the most pragmatic and possible. Also most attractive to voters all along the political spectrum.
2
@John Jones How do you figure that? So far AOC has proposed nothing that does not already exists in a prosperous EU country.
Even the "gotcha phrase" Friedman found in an obscure FAQ referring to income without the willingness to work, exists. In Belgium, unemployment benefits are indefinite and on top of that there is a safety net of last resort for those unfit to work, social assistance. The latter also includes free living space.
Whilst I certainly think that takes things too far, I'm also not blind to the fact that Belgium is one of the only countries in the world where inequality has decreased over the last 10 years.
1
Actually the Trump faction really aren't traditional conservatives. Many come out of the George Wallace, Ross Perot gang who are old new deal democrats. They believe that the growing govt debt threatens their middle-class entitlements and think that if they stop the Mexicans, jail some welfare queens, fire some govt. hacks, and get rid of PBS that the Budget will be balanced and good times will return.
1
Without question, change is coming and it is long overdue. But, there are structural impediments that need to change in order for leaders to come together. A presidential candidate still needs to secure 270 electoral votes to become president. If that doesn't occur, the election is decided by Congress. The Congress can't even agree on citizen voting rights, so good luck with that.
And, if the change is going to endure, we need to get rid of money in politics so that election outcomes are determined by facts rather than money spent. And finally, bring term limits to Congress. With all due respect, constantly seeing and hearing stale old Caucasian males mouth the same things year after year after year and seeing no progress on critical issues year after year after is not keeping America great.
1
It appears Mr. Friedman has taken some undue liberties to support his thesis. "Unwilling to work" could mean mothers (or fathers) with newborns who would arguably be better off staying home for a while in lieu of paying for expensive child care. Indeed, few would argue that a newborn is best served by at least one parent choosing to stay home with him or her.
In reply to the outraged commenters on AOC’s “unwilling” category:
Is a parent who stays at home to take care of children, whose wages would not cover the very high cost if childcare, unwilling to Work? Or actually working?
A common threat is a lot easier
Very Good!!!
These differences exist. But, the right understands that Trump is all they have. I think a real split on the left, Biden wing v the Marxist wing is much more likely.
1
Forget about splitting Democrats & Republicans. Look at the growing numbers of voters who choose (where their state laws allow) to register as independent or decline to state. Certainly in California that is where the voter count is growing.
Big changes are needed for our country - getting $ out of it all would help immensely.
I’d even settle for 3 parties.....
1
Let's face it. We're a mess!
1
So, the non-industrious poor don't deserve to live in the US?
1
How telling that you attach no name to the so-called “old G.O.P. center right”! The reason is obvious: there is no such thing, and hasn’t been for a long time. And do not mistake the defections of Bill Kristol et al as evidence that such a thing exists. These Fox News Hucksters are merely embarrassed by the man they worked for years to ensure would become the leader of their morally bankrupt enterprise.
Mr. Friedman might qualify as the real thing. But he has little company, I’m afraid. A center-right GOP candidate would get slaughtered in the next general election, as did all such wannabes in the last. So please, spare us the nostalgic mooning about, longing for the old days when the GOP was a reasonable movement that actually gave a damn about anyone other than their rich donors. You might as well hope for a return to Eden or the Golden Age.
There's a problem with this thesis - that the GOP/Conservative axis will ever divide itself or chose ideology over party loyalty. That is simply not going to happen; William Weld hopes to the contrary. What's going to most probably happen is that a few ideologically-based Conservatives will defect to a Clintonian Democrat axis which will further divide Democratic/Progressive votes while inflaming the barely-shrunken GOP/Conservative base; which will be able to add "heretical betrayal" to their charges against their ideological opposites to bolster their Get Out The Vote drives. All of this will be egged on by the Media who will make this into a horse race regardless of reality.
The most likely outcome for 2020 is that three of these four groups will be represented by a major contender (Trump, Schultz and Biden), with only the Green Party representing the far left.
The only pie Bloomberg is interested in growing is the one containing his and his 0.1% buddies wealth. A few technocratic adjustments coupled with more business tax breaks isn't going to help the people being left behind by our current economic system.
1
You say cities are doing this, but dont name them. I suspect the amount of the median salary in cities that "work" is quite higher than in cities that don't. Also, you will find cities that "work" exploiting a commons at a higher rate.
Dream on. Trumpers will dominate the republican primaries and renominate him. Increasingly left wing voters will dominate the Democratic primaries and nominate a radical, proto-socialist. The Democratic candidate will be so far left that Trump will win in an electoral college landslide. There will be no third or fourth parties moving above 5%, although there might be an indepemdent or two ( who will siphon votes from the Democrat - Schultz, Bloomberg?).
There were 4 parties in the election of 1860. Lincoln won without anywhere near a majority of the popular vote, but with enough northern, antislavery states to win the electoral college (do Democrats really want to abolish it?).
3
The rank choice voting in Maine is a reaction to essentially 3 party voting. This past election is the 1st major test but I feel that it will be a system that insures majority rule while protecting minority rights.
I actually think just 3. Neoliberals are both Republican and Democrat. I have been convinced of this since the Democrats rolled on Gore in 2000. Romney, Powell, Clinton, Schumer and Pelosi, all Neoliberals and as such, actually what has been come to be known as Republican lite. Their base swerved off the Neoliberal road in 2016 and managed to elect a super criminal which was always the pot of gold at the end of the republican rainbow. I am absolutely a Democratic Socialist and have been since the 1970's so at no time in all these years did I have representation in government other than the independent Sanders. The hand of wealthy Americans is evident in the huge support for both parties at the same time, like hedging bets, no matter who looses, the wealthy still win resulting in huge socioeconomic issues like massively unequal distribution of money and the growth of monopolies. These Neoliberals got us here. I'm not sure they are up to the real issue at stake. " there are only two ways to cure political tribalism: “A common threat or a common project.”" Here you missed the real opportunity entirely. The most pressing threat for humanity is climate change. That must be the commons we fight for. Only the actual left, of all the groups you mention, addresses that as paramount and lets the resulting details fall out in accordance with that goal. It will be hard to move forward while it is legal for corporations and the rich to lie about this.
1
If it all about work, Sherrod Brown comes to mind as someone who might be able to coalesce the two left elements. The dignity of work. That is his mantra. It may be the key to a cooperative left leaning platform.
@Geo Olson I like Sherrod Brown, but he's a white man, so he doesn't have a chance with today's Democrats.
I put myself into the economic dividers who favor heavy redistribution of wealth and income from the upper class to the bottom 80 percent. The top 20% of U.S. households, for example, had 52% of all household income in 2017, up from 43% in 1970. Taking the 9-percentage points from the upper quintile and giving it to the bottom 80-percent(starting with the bottom 20% that has only 3% of national income) would eliminate poverty in the U.S. It would raise incomes of all of the 240 million Americans in the bottom 80 percent. This would place our country back roughly in the income distribution of 1970. Everyone would still have to work; the upper class would still have over 40% of national income, but now over three-quarters of Americans would have their first real income increase since 1970.
2
The fractures in political ideology are evident, but only in the party leadership, because the snow of distracting information is what makes up the Political Industrial Complex. I would guess that 50% of people who vote, (25% of people qualified to vote) don't pay attention to the NYT, or CNN or even Fox for that matter. So there are no real sharp lines, just impressionistic, rorschach tests, in actual voting. Those at the bottom of the political interest ladder are being sold, by both sides. Republicans, white privilege and cultural fear and all, are winning the ratings right now. The "redivide-the-pie" Democrats are not doing a good job of marketing the reasonable message that they mean to propose. And the Trump supporters have pent up fear of change, that has become the biggest part of the Republican party, so the party of Lincoln, or the oligarchs is mainly dead except for unpatriotic types like McConnell who would watch us drift into authoritarianism instead of doing his real job of living up to the constitution. Without a common project, and a Green New Deal could be one if edited properly, we are probably looking at the "Decline and Fall of the American Project". (Please patriots get rid of Trump, he is destroying our nation!)
1
The far left of the Democratic Party lives in a bubble. Members of this group think most Dems are like them....no way. Joe Biden, Hillary......please say you will run.
2
totally backward. redivide the pie is Bloomberg. rich getting richer at expense of others. supply side economics is a proven fsilure for about a generstion now.
What-a-tangle-of-hyphens-to-complicate-a-simple-premise. The moderate majority dislikes the far right and the far left. The majority will come together in the middle.
1
@Bruce
"The majority will come together in the middle" ... and nothing will change. Is that what you want?
In today’s environment there is one party, the liberals and the GOP enemy !
The Republican Party is now so tarnished with bigotry, ignorance, greed, selfishness and complicity as to be irredeemable.
There is no place in US politics for moderate conservatives at present - the GOP has been hijacked by Trumpism and the hard right.
There is definitely a vacuum into which a new party could move on the right. I'm far less convinced about the left.
1
In no presentations of the far left's ideas has there been a recognition of an important reality: The number of people who are already gaming the system.
There are a lot of them. They know how to get free stuff. They mooch off of peoples' good will, off of their parents, off of the government. And they have a lot of free time as a result---not bothered by such trivialities as having to get and keep a job. Raise your hand if you personally don't know people who do this.
It is a sad fact that every time something is created for people who are truly in need people who are not truly in need jump in to take advantage of it.
Unbridled capitalism is evil. And so is providing too much for people who can do it on their own.
I'm afraid that the GND's "accidental" statement of "unwilling to work" was not an accident, but was a statement of philosophy.
It has been the Republican party that has taken the bridle off of capitalism. As a system capitalism has proved to be far superior, over time, than any other system. But like everything, it has its inherent flaws.
I see none of the four groups invested enough in controlling capitalism. Far leftist are on another planet. And the Democratic Party has become a forum for grievances, although it is still the group most interested in doing this. Republicans? FUGGABOUTIT.
A plea to the New York Times: Will you please hire a writer who actually talks to real people.
And can we please give Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a break? She has been in Congress, what? Two months? Let her get used to the routines and get her staff up to speed and then maybe we can pile on about her "naive socialism". You want to get into policies with a fine tooth comb go after republicans; you will find plenty of lice in their proposals.
We have a choice in this upcoming election: We can get on with a Green New Deal or we can go back to living in caves.
3
More black-and-white thinking. I suggest we can "grow the pie" AND "redivide the pie" at the same time.
2
I think you mean three parties. Corporate (center Dem, center GOP), racist (right GOP), and for the people (left Dem).
1
It's what you claim it is, Mr. Friedman, if you have a tendency of playing with stereotypes in simplified and condescending terms that are so myopic in scope they don't resemble the people you've been referring to.
YOU are the one who keeps referring to Democrats as leftists, Mr. Friedman. YOU are the one who keeps insisting on a division in the party as a political commentator and as a conservative.
Perhaps the problem is with YOU and how fractured YOU are, and that you just need a therapist.
While we were patting ourselves on the back for Winning theCold War.....we lost track of the long range effects....
USA continued to soldier on into the New World Order as if it was still New Deal Military-Industrial-Welfare Complex that was relevant. USA #1 World Police, teaching the rest of the world about Democracy and Capitalism......and Containing various evil empires...ISIS, BinLadin, Putins Russia, drugs, terrorism, Saddam, who's our enemy today(I've lost track).
IN effect, we look like the mad drunk in the parking lot of a bar at 2Am throwing punches at shadows.......
The Dempcrats, bless their hearts, cling to a vision of America forged in 1968, Woodstock, Chicago, The Whole World is watching, Freedom Riders, NewDeal, Civil Rights, End the War, Nixon is Evil.....they fail to realize their Guilt Trip is being cynically manipulated by an Inner Sanctum, a Tammany Hall type Corporate Organization called the DNC.
The DNC has absolutely NO interest in changing the Status Quo....and is happy to reinforce the belief that no national interests have changed since 1968.
Now ... the Republicans......they just got slapped around by Donald Trump....and they deserved it. Their party values got hijacked by a very sinister, black-hearted, cynical group called the Bush Family....who can hardly be considered Republicans......The Bush Family and their minions....and their Clinton allies....have almost destroyed America...all for personal gain.
Friedman is out of touch and behind the times once again. How long ago was he touting the need for something similar to a Green New Deal, oh that’s right he was simply self promoting one of his books.
Nailed it.
I'm dissappointed! Another false equivalency argument....from Friedman!?
Actually, Thomas, three will do just fine.
One for the hard right wackos. They can vote for whoever promises legislation to deport anybody who isn't a white male.
One for the hard left wackos. They can vote for whoever does the best job promising legislation that makes absolutely everything FREE, FREE, FREE!!!
And one for the center. I'll be waiting there for them.
1
That you think “unwilling to work” is a
revelation means you have no idea what is going on, or why Trump is President.
Let’s get this straight, we “Trumpers” are the unwilling to work for the unwilling to work. That’s it. It is that simple.
We have been observing “unwilling to work” for years. Obama said “if you're willing to work hard...you can make it here in America", yet in the 2,700 page ACA there was not one line that said “for this discount, you must be willing to work”, Medicaid was expanded to single men with no children many of whom were exactly “unwilling to work”, and Pelosi announced that because of the ACA “you can leave your work!” It was clear to us working stiffs the government was under the impression that we LIKE work more than the other folks. (For the record, we’d rather be fishing.)
Trump promised to put an end to the free rider program that was being paid for by the working American taxpayer: Freebees to the unwilling to work, illegal immigration, China’s unfair trade, unfair NAFTA policies, free rider NATO, etc.
We are willing to work, to take care of the homeless, the poor, the widow, but our American values of compassion were being taken advantage of, and we put a stop to it.
You can say we “hoard the pie” and “pull up the bridge”, but if you are just figuring out that the other side is happy to take our money and give it to those “unwilling to work”, you are so clueless as to what has been going on, your remarks carry no value.
2
NY Times readers are dreaming of socialism. Socialism is no value proposition. If you’re thinking Denmark, that is a market economy with a safety net. Please review the evidence (ie, the failure of socialism everywhere) And good luck in 2020.
1
Mr. Friedman, I'm genuinely curious about why you are not buying the explanation that "unwilling" was a draft error akin to a typo? The phrase 'unable or unwilling' comes up so frequently and in so many contexts, that it seems very plausible that this was a sloppy drafting error.
1
I’m very disappointed, Mr. Friedman.
You chose to write half of your column about a sentence in the rough draft of the Green New Deal but nothing about the Green New Deal itself.
Since the Green New Deal has the adjective “Green” in it, a casual observer might conclude that it concerned ecology and climate change, and that by ignoring the Green New Deal, that you had exposed yourself as a climate change denier.
1
Astute political analysis? No. Drivel.
No, Tommy, America is still a two Vichy party country:
The “rougher-talking”, neocon, ‘R’ Vichy Party controlled by this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire and their party ‘leader’ (fuhrer in German), which is fast moving to dictatorial National Emergency (‘Enabling acts’ in German).
And a vastly weakened “smoother-lying” neoliberal-con ‘D’ Vichy Party, ignorant or complacent of the DGCEmpire, and their vague, dollar-drenched, and fearful politicians who are nowhere near even Bernie’s ‘16 campaign of just saying “Political Revolution”.
IMHO, the ‘R’ Vichy Party of the Empire (under faux-Emperor Trumpius) will continue and accelerate its movement to and even more obvious fascist Empire — well before the 2020 showdown vote.
While the weakened and un-‘Woke’ Democrat Party will either be completely rebuilt as a revolutionary democracy-based New Green Deal Party of ‘we the American people’, or be replaced by an entirely new people’s peaceful continuation and completion of a Second American “Revolution Against Empire” movement, ignited by the people firing a; loud, public, sustained, ‘in the streets’, but totally non-violent “Shout (not shot) heard round the world”.
In following-up the “Common Sense” of Tom and the rallying-cry of Pat, Bernie should shout:
“Give us Liberty from Empire, or Give us Death”
1
Time to retire the economic pie. "Grow the pie." Ridiculous. Can't our NYT professional scribes do better?
Friedman's next 'big idea'.
Sorry, we gave 'grow-the-pie' Democrats a chance back in the 90s. The pie got bigger and it all went to Bloomberg and his buddies. (Why do you think Trump was so popular? He lied and said he was on the working class's side.) We're going to redivide it now, even if it gets a little smaller.
But, hey, Tom, I'm sure you can do without that third country house. You can tell all your buddies at Davos about it.
1
"An F.A.Q."? Why does Friedman still write like it's 1997?
The “progressive” movement is like a circus clown: funny and hard to take seriously at first but vaguely menacing nonetheless. Whether it’s the voracious have-nots who want to gorge themselves on someone else’s pie or the upper middle class liberals who believe in free tuition at state colleges but who would never send their children to one or the vote whore politicians who pander to them, it’s a volatile mix that could very well produce a killer clown out of a Stephen King novel to lead it. We need to be very careful.
2
What is this column asking, exactly?
There have always been factions within parties. Will left-leaning Democrats and right-leaning Republicans formally split from their parties? If they did, that wouldn't be a stable equilibrium, so the extreme parties would likely evaporate in a few cycles.
Will there be more swing voters--centrist Democrats who might consider a centrist Republican over a left-leaning Democratic nominee, as we saw in the four party system that characterized US politics up to the 1970's? I suspect not as long as negative partisanship drives US politics. Moderate Democrats would come home to Sanders because they hate Trump, much like moderate Republicans (in a despicable moral miscalculation) came home to Trump because they hated Clinton. The evidence is that negative partisanship is waxing, not waning.
Do Uber drives really "side with capital"? On the whole, no. What a nutty claim! Using your own car to work the gig economy doesn't make you a capitalist.
Is Michael Bloomberg as "grow-the-pie" Democrat? No, he's a former Republican who espouses mostly Republican views and doesn't like Trump.
Should we subsidize those who are unwilling to work? That's actually a complex moral question. One way to view efficiency wages is that workers collect a partial rent from having a job: because hiring new workers imposes additional costs, companies pay extra (a form of rent) to retain insiders. Seems unfair to the unemployment; maybe they're owed compensation.
I am of the opinion America has always been a four party system and the political dysfunction we are experiencing stems from the fact the we have been for the last thirty or so years a three party system. What I'm talking about is the democrats and republicans during our most functional period of government(post wwII to 1980ish) had a 4 party system comprised of liberal democrats conservative Democrats liberal Republicans(Nixon Eisenhower Rockefeller) and conservative Republicans (Reagan). The benefit of a four party system means both parties are forced to compromise inside themselves so as to get stuff done. In a four party world bipartisanship isn't seen as a betrayal its a system of centrist rule. The problem America is currently running into is that the republican party is compromised of one party which makes it so that there is very little pressure from within the party to get work done. Instead ideological posturing has taken over and business has stopped.
It can be debated that multiparty system behaves a lot like two party systems due to the nature of coalition forming and that two party systems behave a lot like multi party systems do to variations in electorates. As I see it our systems of elections at every level make a multi party system completely impossible.
Friedman is actually on to something here. The political environment is ripe for a leader to pull together the disparate factions within each the two major parties by seizing upon and exploiting the common thread that is not irrevocably tied to the party dogmas. It will be interesting to see if there is someone out there that can do that.
Please find me the candidate that is a fiscal conservative (lower taxes, lower federal and state spending), wants to address the broken border and immigration system, strong national defense (though not the world's policeman) yet who is a social liberal, I am a strong pro choice advocate, fully support gay rights including marriage and full protection for all under our constitution (not sure if this last point is socially liberal versus an ineloquent way of saying no one should be discriminated against). Yes there are more issues but I think you get the idea.
1
"We need a common project, and it’s obvious: Build a new foundation for the middle class."
A division into four parties poses a greater risk to Democrats. And there will be no such project unless the Democrats win the Senate and the White House in 2020.
Senator Sanders announced his candidacy yesterday. Whether or not one supports him, one thing is clear. His candidacy will be divisive. One day in, it is already divisive.
90% of Republicans have fallen into line behind the deplorable Mr. Trump. If Democrats want to win, can they afford any division at all?
The divide between pro and anti Sanders folk now looks like the Grand Canyon. It is worse than 2016 when more than 20% of the Sanders voters did not vote for Clinton.
Most Democrats agree on the broad economic aims. On the other hand, many of us are more progressive than Sanders is on social issues, e.g., gun control, or structural racism and sexism.
Where is the division coming from? There's too much history here, e.g., the belief among anti Sanders folks that sexism was rampant among the Sanders supporters and campaign staff in 2016.
Such things are the unhappy side effect of his decision to focus solely on economic issues and not social ones.
Whether or not Sanders wins the primary, his candidacy is likely to re-elect Trump. In that light, his campaign and base look more and more like a Sanders-before-country personality cult, united by "the media is anti-Sanders" conspiracy theories.
2
Realignment of the two major parties? Perhaps. More than two major parties existing long term? Not going to happen -- Duverger's law.
A 4-party system would be a good case for "instant runoff" balloting as in Maine. That reform is a long ways off at the Federal level, but could be implemented by the pollsters with one week's notice.
Rank-choice polling would be particularly informative if, say, there were 17 candidates in the D primaries. In 2016, for example, it might have shown that although the "leading" R candidate was the first choice of 10% of respondents, he was the last choice of everyone else.
1
I suggest the phrase was used thinking of the context in which such phrases are used by republican designed government agencies to make public assistance as onerous as it is possible to make it such as classifying almost any request by the citizen as a ploy and an excuse to deny them assistance or any kind of help at all.
You may be shocked to hear that the people often resent this and are unwilling to comply with such abuses.
I think the division you describe among Democrats is exaggerated for dramatic effect, and such hyperbole is how you end up with Trump and Trumpism.
For instance: the FAQ guidance for the "Green New Deal" and the verbiage you suggest reflects some profound schism on the left could easily be nothing more than sloppy wording in a rough draft. In fact, this seems far more plausible than the alternative you seem to believe. What seems more likely: AOC et al intend to create a vast welfare system for lazy people? Or is it more likely that the language "unwilling to work" referred to people who could get jobs with Exxon, but wanted to take lower-paying, more rewarding jobs with nonprofit, environmentalist organizations, and people who could get jobs as warehouse workers in Kansas City but wanted to keep their family farm in rural Missouri and raise their kids in the country, and people who could take high pressure jobs in large NYC legal offices but would rather open small boutique immigration law firms and offer affordable support services to refugees? It seems more likely that whoever wrote the guidance meant to say that Americans ought to have the real option to be something more than whatever the market most values.
It seems like you are doing the heavy lifting for Trump and all Conservatives. The media indeed created Trump. The sensationalism that will surround this obvious misinterpretation will no doubt play a role in the election. You are spreading misinformation.
I think that the situation is even more complicated whether in the US, France or the UK. New parties are likely to 'blow up' just as soon as they appear.
The West has lost confidence not just in political leadership, but in itself. Without confidence, without vision, we are confronted with mind-boggling issues such as climate change and just recently the spectre of nuclear rearmament.
European former powers have had to adjust over many years to their diminished status following decolonization. The USA is having to adjust in a shorter time and the process will be unsettling.
1
Coming from the UK, I’ve long thought that the US *should* be a three, four or five party state.
But looking at how this hasn’t saved Britain from its paralysis over Brexit, I’m no longer sure of that.
I remain very much in favor of non-partisan election officials, though. That is vital to a functioning democracy.
We all know that the talking points taken by conservative pundits on "those unwilling to work" are based on a deliberate misinterpretation of the suggestion -- perhaps poorly worded -- that the very concept of human "work" and employment is going to have to be entirely rethought as we enter the post-industrial age of the robot. But then again, it's pretty hard to take any "conservative" position on those who are "unwilling" to work seriously when folks like Mitch McConnell and Ann Coulter are already working so very, very hard at making the the idle rich idler.
Small issue with you "In truth, the episode was a huge failure of imagination by both sides. " On the government side, it was a back-door deal, shrouded in mystery (can't help but think Moreland Commission) with zero community input. On the amazon sid, it was a temper tantrum "oh you're not laying down for whatever we want to do, we will take out marbles home now, that will show you." They didn't even make an attempt to talk to ANYONE.
AND, I have yet to hear ANYTHING about what those "150k jobs" are all about. Exactly what ARE those jobs and exactly what qualifies one for such a well paying jobs? How can you say "imagination" when it smacks of snake-oil?
"Unwilling to work" was a poor choice of words. "Unable to work" would have included many of the same people AOC would have targeted. The elderly, the disabled, and others whose life situations have made it impossible to hold a job.
As though two Parties are not enough to wreak havoc and undermine Democracy. Four-Party? God Bless! The fracture of Conservative and Labor Parties has only destabilized British Government with nothing being done for British citizens except hurting them. And the other largest Democracy - India.
There are so many Parties there that government is toppled every three months by a no-confidence vote. Absolutely, nothing gets done. America beware! It is wise to learn from our mistake, but it's even wiser to learn from other countries' mistakes!
I wish it was this straight-forward, though I generally agree with Friedman. I would argue that the groups should have different names. AOC and her ilk are not the redivide pie group, they are the non-reality idealists, because they have some good thoughts, but no workable funding solutions. In other words, they are non-starters that can provide some goals, but don't really measure up as warranting a seat at the adult table.
The GOP has simply been captured by the evangelical ignorants. They don't want to know about facts, because their beliefs trump facts anyway and they always listen to their charismatic leader. They make politics into a religion with Trump as their preacher.
The Middle Right part of the GOP are middle aged and old who are too disengaged or lazy to review the beliefs from their youth and update them to today. When they talk, they sound like it is still 1982. It is unclear how to wake them up, though some are jumping ship with disgust while others remain as they become de-sensitized to Trump.
Ironically, if we returned to 1982 we would find affordable college, fairer tax policy, and better public funding under Reagan. That is how far the GOP has straid to the right, they make Reagan look moderate.
4
Democrats at the National level have courted the wealthy for support, with an unspoken agreement not to fully require the wealthy to pay their fair share. As inequality grows, the Democratic Party, if it’s mission to working people, the poor, minorities, ect is real it must move away from coddling the wealthy donor class. The Howard Schultz/Bloomberg types can try to take over the Republican Party if they do not want to help those with less. The far right has it easiest in its mission, solve nothing, hate others, but it’s mission, as we see with the Trump administration, will have no accomplishments. It will eventually be the far left progressives and conservative Democrats (becoming Republicans) that will reform as the 2. It’ll be messy till then.
Thomas Friedman writes: "The 2020 U.S. election will be unlike any in my lifetime." I could say the same about any and all U.S. elections, and I'm 89. The 2016 election was the most unlike election, but that only proves that anything is possible.
Aside from that, Friedman's column is a good analysis. Between now and Election Day 2020, who knows what will happen?
1
As a lifetime registered Republican, one squarely in the “never Trump” camp, and someone who spent over a decade on a Federally funded workforce development board focused on retraining, job placement, and economic development, this piece struck a resonant chord. I would hope that those in the center-left and those in the center-right will recognize that their common interest and ability to work together to “make America work again” is where their hidden strength lies. In the center we are grounded in facts — not dogma, we value even incremental improvements as successful — not blocking opposition at all cost, and we know that our differences are on the margin — not what defines us. Envision the three-party system instead.
4
America is a moderate to conservative country. Justr check who holds most of the offices from town councils to president. Sanders lost to HClinton by 2.5 million + votes. HClinton more moderate than left leaning lost to Trump by 10 states. America: moderate to conservative.. no matter the party.
1
You really got my attention on this one. The pie-eating synonym is spot-on, although it did make me hungry.
Problems rise when people try to paint those on the left with the most extreme brush and vice-versa. Talking from the extreme ends is a surefire way to jumble communication.
I have long held that the political extremes are not linear, but rather circular. Those on the extreme left and right are virtually the same people with small differences in emphasis.
1
It's unrealistic to expect a centrist candidate to do more tan pay lip service to each of the issues in the enormous list of issues that I believe require attention in the wake of our
nation's Worst President Ever. I don't need a choice between two centrists I don't trust to notice the problems I care about.
What I hope for is a candidate who will win against the status quo, and will attend to at least the most urgent items on that staggeringly long list. What I'll settle for is a candidate who is not the incumbent. And with that attitude, millions of others just like me will probably get another centrist. Will enough of us vote this time? Will our votes be counted? This is why we need more parties, and a parliamentary systenm that encourages coalitions between centrists who win and progressives who can remember what matters. Look around -- most modern democracies have one, and you don't need to look far.
For decades, Canada had a 4-party system of this nature at the federal level--the far right Social Credit, moderate right Progressive Conservative, moderate left Liberal, and far left New Democratic. The far right was perhaps not as extreme as the Trumpians, and in fact disappeared in the 1970s and 1980s as the Conservatives began to drift rightward. The Liberals and NDP on the left have remained separate, but support has drifted back and forth but combined has remained steady at ~60% over the years. The only way conservatives can form a government in this country is when the left splits the vote.
1
Americans tend to settle into two parties because it makes sense in winner take all elections. Paradoxically, we're currently in a period of hardening partisan alignment that nevertheless masks real fluidity and diversity among political views. An interesting time to look back on is the 1912 presidential election. Republicans were split between Taft and the progressive Bull Moose alternative, Teddy Roosevelt. This allowed Woodrow Wilson to take the White House for Dems. Wilson himself was a contradiction. He was genuinely progressive on a number of economic and labor issues, but was also steeped in the Jim Crow racism of his party.
The question today is at what point will any of the various demographics in the electorate switch their party preference and allegiance? Hard to see it happening soon, but it will happen inevitably. One of Trump's best hopes for re-election would be an independent candidate who siphons away the votes of social moderates and liberals who think the Dem nominee is too left on economics.
Mr. Friedman has neglected to mention that former Republican governor of MA Bill Weld announced last week that he is in the first stage of running for the R nomination.
He might actually win the NH primary, but is unlikely to advance very far in the other Trumpublican primaries. But then he could well get the nomination of the country's #3 party, unless other GOP defectors contest him for it. In 2016, he and Gary Johnson polled as high as 8% in the RCP averages. As is typical for third party candidates, their actual vote was much smaller, but at 3.3% was enough to deny Trump the mandate of a popular plurality, since Hillary only beat him by 2.2%.
1
I wouldn't panic yet. The one tread that holds us together is democracy, take that away and one side steals the government. We're close to theft now. Ideas are not a threat. We just all need to understand what binds us all together, thats a winning strategy.
1
Personally I think the whole :Decide to 'not work' instead, thing has been totally overblown. What is being talked about is allowing a parent to PARENT, which IS a 'Job' and it IS 'Work' it is just not Paid as Such.
There is the Vital Difference: People need to be able to afford to be a parent without having to Also hold down an outside job or be dependent on one person working to keep a family going, and that is harder and harder, and Families have been shorted by not being able to have Full Time Parents on hand.
Perhaps there needs to be a minimum basic income, of say, $36K year per adult. That way a couple with kids could have one parent work outside the home and one at home ful time, and nobody being shorted on income, nobody feeling pressured to perform in days of declining wages and increasing competition on all levels.
We cannot just grow our own food or depend on hunter-gatherers that we grew up to be, ecologically, and so we need to be subsidized on That Basic Income Need level that one person CAN raise a child with. Imagine a community that had liquidity, lack of income derived stress and the ways it would combat homelessness and other lacks, just by making sure that everyone CAN Survive without HAVING to Be a Slave, even as a Wage Slave, to the Banks, Government, Corporation and Advertising companies which consider us just 'things' to extract profit from.
We have hit bottom and need to re-prime the pump, which has been long dry for too many for far too long!
3
@B. Honest A minimum guaranteed income of over 30k a year for people who have probably never worked at all?? Meanwhile, seniors who worked for decades are supposed to survive on 10k a year in SS benefits. How is that fair?
@me Are you saying my stay at home mom never Worked? Even if she never worked outside the home? THOSE people have been left behind, which means ALL of us who have Parent's, and All Parents with Children presently will understand that. Our culture gets shorted when we have to ALL scramble just to survive, except for those Very Few with $Billion$ at the top of the pile, while Billions starve while working their arses off.
You tell me who needs the money more?
Perhaps an artist needs the space to make things, it is not saying they are not 'working', people going to school presently being saddled with huge debt, much for the schooling, but also to survive on while doing the schooling.
A stay at home mother/father needs to have a steady, stable income independent of a second adult in the house for the protection and advancement of the Children, if nothing else.
I, myself live on the less than 10K/year, as a disabled Veteran and 56 yrs old, with Medicaid. I am forced to live in a camper and 'BARELY' survive on SNAP.
NOBODY should be living at this level of poverty. I did my duty to my Nation, and I have been dropped, neglected and ignored by the VA unless I can jump through their hoops, which I cannot even physically get to anymore.
So, Yes, having done my work in Industry, in the Military, and as a disabled elder veteran, I say that the Minimum must be at least $36K these days. A room would cost me at least 600/mo, when all I get, now, is 771/mo.
A camper is fairly great.
The Democratic Party would be making a huge mistake if they abandon their big tent for Republican / Tea Party style ideological purity. There are certain core values Democrats share (inclusiveness, being a main one, making health care a fundamental right, access to education and training, living wage, combatting climate change...) even if they don't all agree on how.
1
America isn't Italy where dozens of small parties vote together in a block. When a party changes, it does so from within. We saw this in the 1960s when the liberals took over the party. We saw this recently when the Tea Parties took over the Republican party; there was more than one astro-turf tea party organization. Later, the Tea Parties morphed into the Trump cult and the quislings that we see today.
Now, the Democrats are being embroiled in a fight between the establishment and the progressives. The establishment is tainted by their indulgence of the donor class that they so depend on. The progressives are brash and new adopting Bernie Sanders' pragmatic socialism --- why should socialism be reserved for the rich?
My bet is on the young progressives. They have lived with socialism as their lifestyle for many years. They're not afraid of it. They will win and take the rest of us with them.
The natural consequnce of four parties is that no one gets a majority of electoral college votes. Then what?
In that case, it’s my understanding, the question gets thrown to the House of Representatives and that’s where the new President would be chosen.
Ultimately, the pie is the earth, and there's no way to grow a bigger one. Either there's going to be a lot of re-dividing, or a lot of social unrest, until the magical day when humanity wises up and achieves worldwide negative population growth.
1
@jomiga
I agree that resources are finite, but humanity is not a a person but billions of people and hundreds of countries all striving for the same resources. The 'Law of the Commons' says that if every one of these entities acts in their own interests as they see them with no constraints imposed on all, those resources will eventually be unable to support the remaining humanity. Between climate change and nuclear proliferation and ecological destruction and the strength of emotions such as fear and hatred homo sapiens may join the dinosaurs with zero population. My guess is that this is more likely than somehow someone manages to sterilize enough people that we get negative population growth. The urge to reproduce is too strong.
It seems to me pretty obvious that the “unwilling to work” passage in the GND FAQ was referring to a possible universal basic income approach. And as we know, people on all sides of the political spectrum are intrigued by the opportunities of a universal basic income policy.
The media would love WE THE PEOPLE to be a multiple party state. It creates tension - and news.
WE THE PEOPLE do not need more than two parties and the large segment of society who are Independents.
Independents vote for the individual with the best ideas for 99.09% of us. The two parties are a social ruler to help us decide. More parties would only fragment people and be easier to manipulate. We have seen what that gets us. Steve Bannon, The Con Don and their brethren.
NO. Our system is fine just the way it is. The media's job is to inform us with the truth about candidates and they must dig deep to find it rather than trying to tip the scales to their candidate of choice.
1
@njglea I totally disagree. The optimum solution would be no parties at all, they try to lock officials into a vision where party loyalty is more important than national loyalty, and honest disagreement is equated to treason.
Unfortunately, they are too useful and will never go away. Therefore, the next best thing is a multiple party state. When there are two parties, the majority gets what they want; the minority complains about it, and the people are the losers. With multiple parties, an absolute majority by any party is unlikely meaning that parties must talk to one another and compromise (which is not the dirty word many have made it) in order to get things done. This gives more people a voice in how things happen, which will lead to a better and more widely supported outcome.
Really agree here. As an example of the two Demo factions, I was listening to a podcast where one of the commenters stated we shouldn’t have any billionaires. I thought that was a great overstep and said so in the podcast’s forum. About half of the people agreed with me. The other half didn’t. When I asked how investments in risky startups to combat global warning were not the mission of government, one comment was why not, and could I provide any examples of it not working. Humm...do people not read any history books?
Conservatives seem to have found their darling - AOC. It doesn't matter if she isn't old enough to lead us. Just as long as she's not Bernie Sanders. If the democratic establishment bit the bullet and backed a truly progressive candidate, like Bernie, who might result in their having to share wealth and education with the vast working poor of America (and not just our oppressed minorities), Republicans would REALLY get nervous.
1
Really? "... good jobs don’t come from government ..." Are you kidding, or suggesting that moderate Dems think that?
Someone should warn the 800,000 federal employees impacted by the shutdown. Someone had better tell the military. Someone should also tell the police, fireman, school teachers, librarians, and even trash collectors who work for state and local governments that they do not have good jobs. What an extraordinarily elitist thing to say.
3
“Elitist” thing to say? A silly thing to say, is how I’d put it. Otherwise, agreed!
"What if I am a steelworker in Pittsburgh and in the union, but on weekends I drive for Uber and rent out my kid’s spare bedroom on Airbnb..."
Pittsburgh did not vote for Donald Trump.
What if you paid attention, Friedman.
Democrats aren't fractured.
Democrats are diverse.
And unified in our concerns about working people without finding a minority for a scapegoat.
You want Trump country, stay out of Pittsburgh.
Right, because we need a government elected by 26% of the population. NOT.
There was a four-party election in 1860. And yes, that is ominous.
1
"Creative adaptation is happening in many of America’s counties, cities and towns, where trust is much higher."
"Mayor Pete" Buttigieg is an expert in this, has practical results to show you, and, oh yes, is running for president.
1
"It's not impossible."
The number of possible columns that could be built around this hedge are infinite.
Perhaps you could muster a few accurate predictions before using it again?
Hmmm...
Isn’t AOC too young to run for President?
1
@Wendy Meyer
She's the subject of the first third of Mr. Friedman's column, so apparently he doesn't think so.
Nice piece, but we need more conversation about the constraints of massive annual deficits and national debt of 22 trillion, which will soon surpass 100% of GDP. Tax cuts DO NOT PAY FOR THEMSELVES no matter how many time GOP lies to us all. Military spending that approaches one trillion dollars annually must be rethought to better address the actual cyber threats of 21st century. 3.5 trillion for fragmented, confusing, duplicative, racially and economically disparate healthcare is ludicrous. We have plenty of money.....we need compelling vision and strong grassroots leadership to reorder spending priorities going forward.
Would be very healthy to have more than one party.
Nor everything is binary and actually you live with one party split in two but the same. The rich deserve and the rest work for pittance, right to work, is the idea using words like democracy and freedom to mask The thievery and dystopia.
If you had a wider politics the word socialism wouldn’t be freaked out about.
Your politics is so narrow that it doesn’t allow for any other possibility. America as King Lear!
"...green versus growth." Really? That would-be dichotomy is so astonishing to me that I had to read is three times to ensure it was not some kind of type of editing error.
Given the benefits -- and jobs and growth -- of going "green" are so self evident I actually do not understand what point the usually erudite professor actually intended to make.
Can you please clarify, Tom...or can anyone?
1
No, we are two parties, the Dems and Repubs will not allow a third, let alone a fourth party. You can count on that.
Why am I so critical of President Clinton?
The man saved my life!
I owe him so I am trying to help him save his soul!
Bill, love the people, not the capital and the global corporations!
Selling your speeches for millions of dollars is an equivalent of selling your soul to the devil unless you use the opportunity to be extremely critical of the greed, hubris, ego, conceit, and deceit gathered in front of you!
But, if you told them the truth, they wouldn’t ever again invite you back, would they?
That how we unintentionally sell our very souls to the highest bidder…
Mr. Friedman's column is so rife with questionable assumptions that I can't go through them all. But I will point out one which reveals much. He still treats the Russia allegations as serious. That ceased to be a tenable position over a year ago. What it tells me is that Friedman's commentary on Trump cannot be taken seriously. Until this paper admits that the Russia story is baseless, it cannot be taking seriously either. Dishonest journalism is the biggest problem faced by this country. Absent a serious media, there is no check on the left and the right is understandably inflamed.
2
There is no longer a Democrat Party as my Father & I joined. We were liberal which had degrees of Socialism & Capitalism & some within the Middle.The Common denomanator was we were mostly middle class workers. .Today we are defined as Progressive made up of mostly Black & Hispanic, &
Moderate, made up of Jews,some Irish & Italians. More & more the Jews, Irish & Italians are becoming more conservative and crossing over to the Republican Party. Some 70% of Jews still remain Democrats, which will change as Antisemitism continues to grow among Black & Hispanics & chasing Jews out of the Party & becoming Independents.
Watch for a Large turn out for Schultz among Jewish Voters who cannot support, Anti semitism or Trump.
2
It's scary how un-canonized our methods of operation are. For instance it's a two party system, period. And yet it isn't. A third party can only be a spoiler. So how do you play that?
Americans play it stupidly, like everything else, almost.
Anyway, money will out, anyway.
If Mr. Freidman's steelworker happens to be a struggling white male with a family he may have a difficult choice to make between capital and labor if those are the sole factors in his decision. But if he also happens to be a decent, loving, patriotic human being and labor (i.e. the Democrat nominee and its amen chorus in media like the Times) insists that he (and his country for that matter) may very well be a racist, women hating, homophobe benefiting from "white privilege" because of the circumstances of his birth I can can guarantee you whom he would vote for. Democrats are truly oblivious to why they lost in 2016.
1
Nope. Two parties. Although, not democrat and republican. The two parties that exist are the wealthy party, which contains all republicans and many democrats. This is the party that owns almost everything and it's brainwashed minions who love them some good old royalty overlords. Then there is the party of the poor and middle class who know they are getting shafted on the value of their contribution and labor. This party is made up of some democrats and many people who don't identify as any official political party. Rich against the poor. That's it.
Friedman is a good minion, living a life above the poor and thankful that the wealthy love him for his loyalty to their wealth. He is impressed by their piles of money and sure that they have earned it while the poor are in their position, he believes, because they have earned that position as well.
Ocasio-Cortez was born in 1989. She can't run until the 2024 election.
Trump may well be impeached. Perhaps his call to the world to decriminalize homosexuality is a reflection of his fears.
https://www.advocate.com/politics/2019/2/19/trumps-campaign-launches-campaign-decriminalize-homosexuality
If Trump is indeed impeached, we may return to a two-party system.
1
Why have the Democrats lost the presidential elections to Trump - a lone, selfish, egoistic, and erratic outsider?
It might be the combined lack of essence and sharp message.
The Democratic Party used to stand for the workers and the middle class.
Today they have intentionally divided, fragmentized and pulverized the party.
Now they stand for the male workers, for the female workers, for the straight workers, for the gay workers, for the transgender workers, for the Caucasian workers, for the African American workers, for the Latino workers, for the American-Asian workers, for the atheist workers, for the Christian workers, for the Jewish workers, for the Muslim workers, for the legal workers, for the illegal workers…
By using such a foolish mantra, the Democrats managed to destroy and polarize the middle class what Trump masterfully exploited…
The question is who is stupid, reckless, divisive and illogical here…
And if you don’t have enough patience and stamina to listen the Democratic message to the very end, you are not alone!
1
In other words, unless a malevolent alien force invades earth from another planet, we are doomed to tribalism and eventual extinction. Party on planet of fools.
For God’s sake, it is absolutely incorrect statement that Donald Trump represents the far right.
As always, he exclusively cares about own interests, meaning his hubris and ego…
He is always willing to sacrifice anything and everything to accomplish that goal, from the US Constitution and the aides he personally chose, over his ex-wives, the creditors who lent him the money, and the hero soldiers who went to Vietnam War so he could stay out of it, et cetera…
With nearly 8,000,000,000 people on the planet and a population that is rising nearly exponentially combined with automation that eliminates the need for many unskilled and semiskilled workers, I doubt there is really very little need for a non-skilled workers or those unwilling to work in the future. Human beings are over populating the planet and definitely not an endangered resource. Those unwilling to work should be cast aside.
1
Despite the fawning lefty adulation of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez....she is only 29 and will not be 35 until 2024, so she is unable to run for POTUS or V-POTUS.
Whoever leads the party next year, it will not be her (yet).
1
@Concerned Citizen She's already de facto leading the party. Her ideas have more influence and media reach than anybody else's in the Democratic party.
2
Thank you Tom Friedman for bringing this topic to our attention.
The reality of the situation currently is that we have a one party system in the U.S. The Republican party is not a GOVERNING party. This has been obvious during the Bush and Trump periods.
To solve the problem we definitely need more parties and a two-phase election.
1. National parties should include labor, green, conservative in addition to social democratic and moderate democratic as well as any other party with a governing agenda. People would vote for the party they believe would be best for the country. This would be phase 1.
2. Like the parliamentary system, parties would then form coalitions for a runoff election. Winning coalitions need 50% of the vote. No electoral college.
Do we need to change the constitution to do this---yes. Is this more difficult than sending a rocket to the outer extremes of our galaxy---no.
1
Didn't we use to have a four party system consisting of liberal republicans and conservative democrats that negated some of the partisanship resulting in inept legislation. The dichotomy of a Bloomberg and a cortez is a healthy debate long missing from party politics.
1
What Thomas Friedman is saying we need 4 more years of Trump because of all the heavy lifting needed in a world of enemies that need to be defeated
With 90% approval Trump has with the GOP a booming economy Trump has a winner's hand and he takes great risks
Imagine if he invaded Venezuela and won over the people there undue the damage caused by John Kennedy in 1961 that almost brought us to a nuke war from our defeat by Castro when we could have stopped his dictatorship in its tracks ,Trump could end this 60 year Curse like I ended the curse of the Bambino by all my death defying HEAVY LIFTING
hehehehe
And we will be ready for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by the time she turns 60 but who knows she maybe a miracle women and break that curse
hehehehehe
@WAXwing01 Your comments suggest a similar binary thinking as has marked political parties - that the world is either good for US plutocrats, or it is inherently the enemy, and in need of destruction. Do you care the least about how many lives are ruined or destroyed in the process. A winner's hand? Great risks? Not sure who manufactures your data, but you do not seem to be living in the real world.
Many of the spoiled children of the super-rich are pretty clearly "unwilling to work." Friedman has undoubtedly met a number of them at the posh parties of his friends. Under the present system they are not only able to enjoy a very comfortable standard of living, but to inherit their parent's wealth largely untaxed and to pass it off to their children.
Most of the super-rich don't really work at all and the "work" that the minority do is usually not especially socially useful, consisting largely of protecting and enlarging their family hoard.
AOC's FAQ language was a mistake and there is no reason to think it revealed some hidden agenda of hers. But there should be little doubt about Friedman's commitment to the continued comfort of the idle rich, which is why he is so eager to attack one of the few elected officials genuinely unafraid to challenge their interests.
3
This analysis is all very nice, but the real distinctions are between a party that belives taxes are a form of evil that must be limited, and a party that believes taxes are what give the gov't the wherewithal to provide for the general welfare of the public. A broke gov't is an ineffective govt. Period. The plutocrats like the system where one dollar equals one vote, which is basically what "the market" is.
Republicans - including never Trumpers, showed which side they were on when they stood eith their colleagues in opposition to Obama's agenda. And which faction were Obama and Clinton btw?
3
I can not imagine that we will have another 4 years of getting nothing done in Washington save for making Donald J. Trump the headline of the day.
It would be a delight to have a choice and if that is among 4 parties all the better. Choice brings improvement in candidates (pure competition) and not a two party systems (oligopoly). Seeing what IS POSSIBLE is helpful for all of us not simply the same backward looking platitudes.
1
@ZigZag - Except that a multi-party system is not likely to work very well with the winner-take-all electoral college approach with which we are currently saddled. The system we have has rarely worked well. It needs to be dismantled and re-thought.
2
@Keith An excellent point. I agree completely and hope this will change (along with daylight savings going away - whoo hoo)
Four parties are better than the one party system we’ve morphed into in the last forty years: a political system that allows the posturing, opposing, parties to take turns as good cop bad cop , obstructing each other and continuing the charade whereby nothing changes allowing the status quo beneficial to our plutocracy to remain in place.
4
We are actually endangered by the extremes of both parties. We are living through the nightmare of the Trump regime, and the country would be equally torn by the far left.
Let’s start with the needs and dangers that most agree upon. Infrastructure and Climate would be a good place where agreement and comity could start rational dialogue/action.
To pay for this effort we must tax those most able to pay. They have been the prime (some might say sole) beneficiaries of the past three decades of our economy, even through the recession.
It could be justifiably be argued that the Trump tax cut was the rich man’s statement that only the “little people” must pay, and pay, and pay. The wealthy have gotten a disproportionate pass that has stratified society and rent the social fabric.
To the Bloomberg, Schultz, and Walton class we ought ask “How much is enough?” We seek not the largess of “their” good deeds, but rather we seek the expansion of opportunity for all through just taxation.
And there’s the rub!
1
There is no provision in the way our government operates to have four political parties. There is only one executive who has the powers of a near king. With about 40% of the country hard right, you’ll always have a hard right president. This is why our system, transplanted to Latin America has almost always bred instability. The stability in our system was engendered first by unlimited land and resources that allowed the economic prosperity of the masses, and later by the New Deal reforms, WWII and organized labor that did the same. In the aftermath of SCOTUS induced Citizens United corruption, bad trade deals and the speed in which technological disruption is impacting the workplace, polarization and instability are the result. It won’t lead to new political parties, and if it does, it will increase the dysfunction.
3
The likes of Trump and AOC get all the press.
And we've heard from Krugman and David Leonhardt that no one wants a centrist in America anymore.
But I agree with Friedman that pragmatic centrism is the best "ideology" for navigating today's challenges.
Because Far Left-Right divided government sure isn't. I don't know what Warren and AOC are smoking, but if Trump can't even get his wall--his signature campaign promise--progressive Democrats surely are not getting 70% tax rates and checks in the mail for everyone unwilling to work.
Pragmatic centrism might be the only way to actually get things done this century (see Cuomo, Bloomberg, Kasich, Hickenlooper, etc.)
3
@Mmm
Umm, except 65-70% of the populace supports a 70% marginal graduated tax.
Less than half the country supports a wall.
Big difference there
@Mmm Except that there was a time when we did have more equitable taxation, so it is not an impossible dream that such American practices could once more become the way things operate. We are at a crucial point in the world with respect to population, climate, technology, etc. such that "center-of-the-road" is basically the same as doing nothing, and everyone will have to deal with the results.
Think Senator Klobuchar (also from the great state of Minnesota) then read an earlier Friedman column: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/opinion/community-revitalization-lancaster.html
1
Michael Sandel, in a Canadian interview, is against a guaranteed minimum wage. It would stigmatize the receivers, and antagonize the contributors to the point they move farther away from community. I wholeheartedly agree. Friedman is writing AFTER the giveaway to the ultra rich and large corporations, the "gimme gimme gimme' rich folks, that inherit wealth, pay money managers to choke the system for maximum profit, and then be saluted as "job creators". This tax cut/deficit blowout has already happened. Let's claw that back. In what fantasy is a small Congressional cohort gonna do any good? The way it stands now, the most dark money wins the whole shebang. Friedman is a free loader, pensioned, rather 'from the gut' but not in touch with any real substantive argument that doesn't exactly coincide with his own values. Friedman is easily cowed. Remember his MBS adoration?
2
what do you suppose is meant by the notion of "people unwilling" to work, compared to the reaction to the phrase? does unwilling mean feckless, lazy loafers who feel the world owes them a living? people who have other pressing responsibilities such as caring for sick infants or aged
parents? or does it conjur up the idea that there are Americans unwilling to become serfs because there are people in Bengladesh or, yes, illegal immigrants here at home, who are willing to work under dangerous, unfair, or even illegal conditions for wages far less than what it takes to merely survive economically? did the antebellum slaves work? expatiate.
1
'Grow-the-pie' is a terrible adjective and a nonsensical image. Also, a buzzword is not an argument.
1
Pie in your face for pie-eyed analysis. Can one bake up a pie metaphor to discuss America's problems? The proof is in the pudding of this article.
1
Wanna see a candidate that not only understands this economy but is making long-term plans for it? Check out Andrew Yang, Democratic hopeful.
The USA is a one party state it is an apathy party mainly. This has been going on for decades. It crosses all geography and demographic lines.
The rich and influential are also apathetic they pay people to be active for them while they lunch and golf.
70 percent of citizens did not trust or like Trump or Hillary and we got them anyway. At state election level the voters can be in the teens level of participation.
At local party level 200 people might show up for an open monthly party meeting while the city might have more than a million people. What is that? It is not one percent.
We have a pretense politics on TV run by money and disinterest. And that my dear friends is that!
Four parties with one sixteenth participation is not much is it? The focus on Republicans and Democrats is a reenactment not a live politics. Like it or not this is the story everyday. That is how we got the idiot Trump.
1
Mr. Friedman,
Sometimes your thoughts and opinions are of limited scope and are wonkishly focused on a small but interesting detail of a much broader topic. (Your obvious cluelessness of simple everyday knowledge shown on your appearance on Jeopardy left me really rolling on the floor laughing).
Other times you do the opposite and bring together ideas from across spectrums and come up new viewpoints that leave me pondering for days. This piece is the latter.
Thank You.
A steel worker, in the union, has to work Uber, Airbnb and shop at Walmart on weekends? You want to know why Americans are angry? You want to know why working class people voted for Trump? Btw, everyone but the author knows AOC was talking about a guaranteed income, which Her Hilaryness even deigned to consider on the way to her coronation in 2016
1
Shorter Friedman: both sides are just alike! My taxi driver in Dubai said so!
What rubbish analysis.
3
You ask "Could we have our first four-party election in 2020 ...?" Please review 1860.
Lincoln 40%, 180 Electoral Votes, Rep.
Breckenridge 18%, 72 EV, S. Dem.
Bell 12.6%, 39 EV. Const. Union
Douglas 29.5% 12 EV, N. Dem.
Sounds like four to me. Although we reunified the North and South, and their 1860 Democratic Parties, we must not forget how our nation came to Disunion through uncompromising.
3
This article makes some great points, however I offer a few enhancements.
"Across the industrial world parties mostly formed along one set of those binary choices or the other. But that is no longer possible."
Binary choices seldom make a good decision set. In actual fact, America, and all other reasonably governed countries are a mix of capitalism and socialism. We do some things in common and some things as individuals. Pitting one against the other is a false dichotomy. Discussing how to manage the mix would be much more productive. And equating one side of the mix (socialism) with failed states is a false equivalence: virtually all failed states in the world are kleptocratic dictatorships which are capitalist or socialist in name only.
"We need a common project, and it’s obvious: Build a new foundation for the middle class."
This project should also have a strong emphasis on green technology so it can kill two birds with one stone.
3
I get your point but there are no more steel mills in Pittsburgh. It would be Uber seven days a week with no union and no benefits.
4
Recent polls show Trump’s emergency backed by 85% of Republicans and his job approval rate is 85%. Does that sound like a party that’s cracking in two? Trump’s base is the Republican Party
1
@Mark Rabine
I do not think the Republican party bears much resemblance to the party of Reagan or Bush. Not in policy or number of members. it has already morphed into another party.
This column is far fetched except as a cautionary note for Democratic aspirants to the Presidency. To judge by the two overriding standards for internally coherent and distinctiveness of the two parties, party internal cohesion and polarization on roll call votes RE legislation (each well documented in the data and writing of Kenneth Poole and colleaques).
1
I don’t alwaysI agree with Tom Friedman, but this column is spot on.
I believe the next presidential election will ge the most consequential of this century. Our country is deeply divided and cannot continue on this collision course.
I hope Michael Bloomberg runs and wins. He is both a pragmatist and a philanthropist. We need to right our ship.
Even if he serves for one term,I think he can get us back to from the brink of disaster.
Both the President and Congress are dysfunctional.
3
Very well-thought-out piece, very plausible. I think maybe 2032 instead of 2020 for the 4-party mashup, but who's counting?
Globalization is still just one thing: cheap labor with free access by capital. "Surge protectors" is a great idea, but let's see some specs, please.
For 2020, Democrats are making Trump the "common enemy." Some, like Hillary, expend yuge amounts of useless energy focusing on the evil of Trump Supporters.Big mistake, fellow Dems. We want almost every voter. We want Obama-Trump voters to come home. Don't diss a voter group!
And for 2020, the GOP is sliding onto Socialism as the "common enemy." It's unlikely to be a good bet -- better bridges and highways are common taxpayer property, but not quite "Socialism."
Trump does not fit the "far right" sobriquet. He's all over the ideological map. Democrats who loved walls in 2006 and 2009 are looking pretty silly. We should know the Chamber of Commerce GOP is in thrall to the prospects of unlimited cheap labor coming into the USA, and we know that Clinton Democrats love the Chamber of Commerce political donors, too.
The so-called "centrists" are basically "status quo ante" donor-class admirers and lapdogs. They well may prevail. But "make America Work Again" os truly a terrific slogan, no matter who is selling it.
1
Actually, it's still pretty binary: the uber-rich vs. the Uber poor.
5
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the notion that there is a serious cleavage of "grow the pie" and "redivide the pie" in Democrat-land.
The problem with that analysis is that it ignores a basic tenet of the people and policies so casually tossed into the "redivide the pie" camp: that in order to encourage more people to be risk-takers who form their own companies and create more jobs, you need to have a more solid and stable base for them to work from.
Entrepreneurship is higher in many Nordic countries precisely because they have a more solid foundation, including security in childcare, healthcare and personal security.
Another problem with this analysis is the blithe declaration that "grow the pie" Democrats 'know' that good jobs don't come from government. While not every government job is well-paid, they are generally reliable and provide a basic level of security and dignity for the workers--and the extra frisson of being able to say, "I work for you."
Also? Government has started and built much of that infrastructure that creates that increased opportunity.
Both parties have their fractures, but I see more on the right than on the left.
4
How would it work in the US? Many parties in the primary under the umbrella of the two major parties is what we have now, but they come together to support the nominee. If they don't and run independently no one party would likely get enough electoral college votes.
When you cannot think of anything to say, write a column like this.
The basic issue at hand is not the split of the Dems into two factions, nor the imaginary split of the GOP into two factions. The basic issue is that 85% of Republican voters still support Trump.
Why is that?
It is because they are glued to Fox, paranoid Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram posts, talk radio, “Bible” broadcasts, and Trump as Messiah with his Twitter feeds as commandments.
This propaganda apparatus can guarantee re-election to those who curry the favor of the bonkers billionaires running the GOP members of Congress.
The struggle to be faced is how to defeat the most successful brainwashing machinery since Goebbels and the rise of Fascism.
22
@John Brews ✅✅
Watching Fox News is a form of political pornography.
Fox’s formula is to manipulate the base animal instincts of negative emotions of anger and hate. That creates a false sense of traction against the vicissitudes of life, especially for those who are losing traction every day - a false gratification of sorts. Anger & hate create a kind of rush. In the absence of other rushes, it creates a need for more. Fox viewers are anger & hate junkies.
What has Stormy Daniels and Sean Hannity have in common? They are both Porn stars who have ingratiated Trump, each in their version of Porn.
4
@John Brews ✅✅
It's a shame that you don't seem to recognize the other side of the propaganda machinery coin.
1
This is a frightening prospect for me as a Democrat. To oust President Trump in 2020 Democrats need to do one thing. This is to appeal to the members of the disaffected middle class who in many cases unenthusiastically served as the swing vote in 2016 and enabled President Trump's razor-thin victory. The worst thing we can do is to develop a nutty leftist Democratic agenda that will further alienate these people and push them back into Trump’s arms.
The BEST thing we can do is to let the Republicans develop their nutty fringe while we avoid doing that and instead pursue what Mayor Bloomberg is calling a grow-the-pie strategy. Of course, it will be a great help if we can advance a presidential candidate who will avoid the mistakes of 2016 and instead champion effective economic issues (e.g., not "socialism") that will appeal to those voters who we must win back.
6
These fantastical "grow-the-pie" Democrats have failed at every single turn. Is this article satire? Does it Friedman genuinely believe that Reaganomics works? Is that what you want? Reagan Democrats?
The Workers will see through this. One day, Rust Belt voters will realize just how rotten the trough is from which the Republicans have been feeding them.
And they will not be happy about it.
It is really cute that you think Donald Trump represents the far right.
Still out of touch with the common man.
1
Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton wasn’t the far left, right?? The idea that a left center, run of the mill safe choice will beat Donald Trump is an old and tired narrative that doesn’t align with reality. In fact, the “far left” is not that radical or outrageous: suggesting that economic and environmental policy are intertwined is the truth, as well as the relationship between economics and oppression. Equal opportunities/rights and our planet are what many young people care about. We the young people stay home (the general we, not me, I always vote) when we are forced to choose between the same old white person saying the same empty promises that in the end will amount to the same destruction of the planet and catering to the rich and racist and sexist policies. I don’t believe that most people are center thinkers. I do believe that people have been showing up for four years at every march, demonstration, election and organization for progressive policies that promote equality and taking care of the planet. If you really want Donald Trump out of office, listen to what and who the young people are fighting for. It ain’t Bloomberg.
5
If true, DTJ will be re-elected and majority rule goes out the window and we become a minority ruled nation, which may workout nicely for the GOP.
Let me explain to Bernie supporters and others what more than two party(s) means, so even the most ignorant among us can understand it.
1] Our Constitution does not "yet" allow for runoffs (like many European countries), which means as the present reality dictates, a person could win with less than 50%, maybe as low as 20%, depending how many party(s) partake in this madhouse scheme of things, OR the House elects the POTUS if the electoral college's criteria is not met, OR we could institute ranked-choice voting (google it Millennials)
2] Until this is fixed, when you hear someone say we need more party(s); you are listening to a stupid person and should immediately walk away, so you don't lose IQ points too (stupidity is contagious).
N.B., If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. ... Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President.
Friedman should expand this into a book and soon enough to make a difference!
I’m stunned at how bad many commenting seem to think things are when just last week, 69% had confidence that their finances would be better next year - the highest number in 29 years.
Add to that the biggest wage increases in 15 years and the lowest unemployment among Blacks, Hispanics and Women, in history.
Seems like the wrong time for introducing Socialism.
1
@TR88. The 69% are wrong about their finances next year. Right now millions of Americans are learning that they really did not get a tax cut.
@Lefthalfbach I’m just telling you what Gallup reported last week.
Also, let me correct a typo. It was 21, not 29 years.
"cozying up to Russia" What cozying up to Russia? Like bombing Syria, a Russian ally, twice? Or pulling out of the ABM?
Trump tried to buck the insane enmity towards a nuclear power but he seems to have backed off.
You seem to have sense, and I wish you had not bought into the Democrats' nonsense.
The center is bigger than both the R and D parties but it is totally ignored. The parties need to accommodate and respect the middle or we need a third party.
4
It doesn’t matter how much you grow your pie if I never get a piece of it. And pie is delicious, so you don’t seem inclined to share. Yet I’m the one who bought all this kitchen equipment and hey, wait — I’m baking the pie, too?
This is worse than being the lone vegan at the family Thanksgiving dinner!
“Let them eat cake,” is all I see when noted invasion-enthusiast Thom Friedman gushes over the great pie-bakers of our time.
1
No surprise that people are rejecting the center right Democratic and right of right Republican parties. They've grown the pie (?!) for their shared wealthy funders, but not for the rest of us. Why should voters feel any loyalty to either party? The times are changing Tom, and you're sounding like a conservative blue dog Democrat when you trash AOC.
1
No. The US is not becoming a four party nation.
And choices were not “binary” in the 1950s.
For pity's sake.
It is true that the Times has columnists and most all those columnists on a regular basis publish non sense. The civic value is non existent.
It is true that the Times has “reporters” who regularly publish “news analysis” that is warmed over gossip based on false premises that meet the needs of the gossip sources and of trolling for readers.
But all this has little to do with the lives of about 99.9 percent of natural person Americans.
2
There aren’t 4 parties. There are two. One is the Alt Right White Nationalist Kleptocracy Party headed by Trump. The other party is the party of science, competence, and honestly, headed, for now, by Nancy Pelosi.
In each party there is some nominal dissent. But that’s it.
2
Trump’s party is the « nationalist anti-establishment » party. It’s an oxy-moronic position that initiates self-contradictory policy proposals.
I don’t see how it can survive itself.
If a movement were to come along espousing the unwillingness to work for slave wages, then you’d have something. “Take this job and shove it” comes to mind. A song popular in the day in rural and citified areas. Common ground?
Economic security for people “unwilling to work”? Who’s going to sign up for new taxes to support people unwilling to work or be retrained?
Apparently you wouldn't, Mr. Friedman. I wonder why?
2
You know Tom, this is all commentary. The truth actually can fit on a bumper sticker: 'Make America, AMERICA again."
1
The Nazis came to power by forming a plurality, not a majority. Trump has a die hard base that is likely to stick with him. If the rest of the electorate in 2020 is divided into center right, center left and radical left factions, Trump and his ilk remain in power. Once that happens we are heading in a direction that could fundamentally change our government.
Wake up Democrats! Electability is the sole criterion for 2020. The far left is not electable on the presidential level. There are many, a majority of Americans, who are hopeful that someone will actually represent that majority. The best hope for this is a center oriented Democrat who can gain enough votes from disaffected Republicans and left leaning Democrats to win the 2020 election. Biden? Klobacher? Someone else?
1
@Bill not quite. Hitlertook office as Chancellor by winning a plurality. Howeverm], he took power by getting a bill through the Reichstag granting the Chancellor’s Office Emergency powers. That bill passed by majority vote. The majority was made up of the Nazi Party and the Catholic Center party.
The catholic party voted with Hitler on the instructions of the popes Envoy pacelli, who had reached a deal with Hitler. pacelli became Pius 12. Hitler became Fuhrer.
@Lefthalfbach
Chancellor by plurality...
Declaring emergency powers to subvert the Reichstag...
Finding a way to claim dictatorial powers...
History does have a way of repeating itself.
The point of my comment is to find a candidate to win in 2020.
@Bill
I totally agree re the need to nominate somebody who can win.
It's all in the branding. How about "share-the-pie" voters and "devour-the-pie" plutocrats? We've been having this "conversation" since 1992 and Clinton/Gore (the slogan was, "For the People, For a Change"). I know this much. Since then, average HHI is falt and the top 10% "share of the pie" has grown from 30% of all wealth, to 70%. Oh, and Friedman et al. have been extolling the virtues of "grow-the-pie" policies the whole time. Enough. At a certain point, turn the map upside down and see if that works.
1
“Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work.”....so absurdly laughable, but an apropos mantra for the socialist wannabe Alexandia Cortez and her cohort of millennials. If that’s what’s coming down the pike, voting age eligibility should be raised to at least 45 and over...maybe 50.
We are a plutocracy and becoming a stronger one every day thanks to Citizens United. It doesn't matter how many parties we have because, eventually, all we be owned by big money. Until we get rid of CU and K Street lobby money nothing will change since Washington is owned and controlled by big money. Dems included. Sorry that is just the way it is. Wake up people.
1
i agree with your arguments and I support there should be more than just two major candidates for presidency from two major parties. But the constitution does not allow that. they have to run as third party or as individual. bot mean you have to be billioniar to go through all logistics of qualification. Moreover, these two parties are the product of the original constitution - parties of whites to rule white country. if you look back you can see minorities (black and women) were not allowed to vote (among other irregularities). they were afraid of minority growing majority in next three decades. that is why I propose a minority-majority party which should include all those factions of two majority parties. . I feel the third party can break the tie with a fresh start. Some of founding principles are as follows:
• Review of constitution to cater to the modern world xt
• Review president’s power to employ
• Complete separation of church and state
• Term limit of the senator and the congressperson
• Open immigration to talented people without country specific quota
• Shrink states so that senate representation is proportional to the population
• Public referendum when the congress is deadlock on issues they cannot resolve esp;ecially on immigration
• Serious review of gun ownership and the relationship to the national guard
• Voting rights for permanent residents paying taxes and no criminal record
• Listening white nationalists’ grievances for better USA
As a political junkie, I see that both the Democratic and the Republican Party are going to extreme left and extreme right while most of the Americans are at the center. The extremist and the controversial leaders and agendas get media attention and they get most coverage. The extremist people in any field have big mouth and can make a lot of noise. The people at the center are quiet and disappointed. America is no more one nation under God but extremely divided under the leadership of ultra right and ultra left. The Republican Party can be divided but in the ballot booth they are united. The Democratic Party fracture is very serious. Look what AOC and other ultra leftist Democrats did to Amazon . They drove this mega business away from our city. We lost about 30,000 jobs, tax revenues and proved to be unwelcoming to other big business. NYC is now antibusiness city. Stupid.
“...Make America work again, for those who are willing to work and for those who are willing to work together...
What about the other 99% of us...
PS
Just in contact with my Chinese hat supplier – this is a non-starter...
First – MAWAFTWAWTWAFTWAWTWT doesn’t come close to fitting on the brow...
And – at a nickel per embroidered character – that’s another eighty cents per hat...
Whew...
My Mandarin milliner – who, incidentally, wants to be a Mandarin millionaire – and I have just negotiated a fantastic red new deal...
MMCHSR – stands for...
“Make My Chinese Hat Supplier Rich”
By the count, only another dime, and – as a gesture of global good will – he’s settling for a nickel per head...
Sell at a loss – and make it up in volume...
Yeah - like that's ever gonna work...
Instead of mocking Aoc and Sanders, those who believe in "growing the pie" should come up with their own "Save the Planet, grow the pie" plan--and get it through Congress. I am serious. This economy based on consumption is destroying our earth, and no earth--NO PIE!
as usual, Friedman is stuck in the american centric view that America can survive all calamities and we are going through just another drama in the never ending soap opera that is America. but no, Americans are missing the fundamental issue here: the country is essentially bankrupt. THERE IS NO PIE. the government is funding 1 out of every 4 dollars on credit. once the servicing costs become unsustainable, massive spending cuts and tax increases will happen....and that's the good scenario. the bad scenario is that the politicians cannot figure this out in time and the country defaults, the dollar loses its international standing and military dominance, and america enters into a state of terminal collapse. ross Perot, where are you?
@GH
Maybe the US could cut the immense defense budget, whose military actions create more terrorists, more hate, more instability in the world, and make the US less safe.
Old habits are hard to change.
Too many citizens worship the military.
Trying to get along is cheaper and would allow the planet more chance of becoming sustainable.
But the Establishment and its media tell us to be afraid... so up goes the defense budget.
There are domestic and infrastructure programs that will pay back more than their costs.
Early childhood education, for example.
1
Tom,
I agreed with most of of your piece. I will like to add a few sentences to both your problem solution.
Problem: John Hickenlooper or Amy Clobuchar could never cross the threshold of the primary challenge.
Solution: A staggered primary as practiced in Maine or Vermont where people have to mark a first choice, then a second choice and then a third choice. So that at the end of all primaries hopefully a Clobuchar/O'Rorke team or Hickenlooper/Sherrod Brown team can be both on the ballot. Unless that happens Trump will be a shoe-in for a second term.
@Rasika
President Bernie Sanders 2020
He has real, leadership abilities, can work "across the aisle" and addresses concerns that matter to all poor and working people, and that is the great majority of citizens.
Bold leadership is necessary.
Another bland centrist won't do!
What the political middle is struggling with is what I like to refer to as "reactionary politics" on both the left and the right. After decades of transfer of wealth by the GOP to the one percenters has now reached a critical point with many working and middle class voters who see their lifestyles under severe threat while the GOP again has transferred more wealth to the top. The Democrats now have a number of legislators who see a crisis around every corner and wish to address these perceived crisis with fast and furious legislation without the taking time to gather data and access solutions that will work in our complex economy. The far right is only concerned about abortion rights and immigration. They will vote for just about any candidate who is against either. None of these sub-parties are taking into consideration the whole spectrum of needs that the country faces and both parties are not engaging and not compromising, when appropriate, to get things done.
1
This splintering is a problem in our system where the prize is awarded on a plurality basis. Remember, Trump was the plurality winner in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, even though the majority voted otherwise.
It is not a problem any more in Maine, which has approved ranked-choice-voting over the objections of the brass in both parties (and political "consultants" who have their calculus scrambled). They can no longer crack the electorate into pieces and then pick up the biggest piece. If both of the first place candidates are unacceptable to majorities, then the third place candidate can be someone that we all can live with; a consensus candidate.
See www.fairvote.com
1
What's so terrible about a minimum stipend for those unwilling (or unable) to work? It would eliminate a costly welfare system, eliminate a costly benefits to the disabled system, help the homeless, and make a somewhat decent existence possible for artists of all types, and people who just want to do nothing. Is doing what you want not the ultimate goal?
Is it economically feasible? Would the benefits outweigh the costs? Before long robots will be doing most jobs, so a plan like the above will be necessary anyway. Maybe AOC was right the first time. Worth some consideration in any case.
@Ira Brightman
The term "unwilling to work" still needs some explanation by its authors. If they mean people who choose, for now, to stay home to care for children, elders or ill spouses then, yes, let's support them in some way, maybe health care or let them accrue social security. They actually ARE working. But people who just don't want to work? It will never, ever fly with the majority of Americans. In fact, many Americans will stop listening as soon as they hear "unwilling to work" so even if the left's explanation of it is sound and reasonable, few will hear them out.
1
@Ira Brightman
Parenting education, quality early childhood education, free or affordable quality childcare, quality K-12 education FOR ALL, healthcare for all, tuition free higher public education
Investing in the above, and fewer people would lack life skills necessary to participate in the work force.
And any parent caring for their children, disabled or elderly is WORKING!
1
AOC is clearly not ready for prime time. She seems to have good inclinations. (She's about as qualified as is Sara Palin - though she has more excuse because of her lack of experience.) After AOC's surprise election, she has been catapulted into the limelite by those actually hostile to progressive reform. Bernie is a serious threat though - and they know it.
2
Mr Friedman, I don't know "what-the-pie" I am, I just want our government to rein in faceless global corporations that ship jobs by the million overseas in the name of profits, keeping the difference in costs in tax havens and leaving millions of Americans unemployed, large pharmaceutical companies and large insurance companies that rule/ruin American's lives by forming cartels, price gouging like nobody's business for life saving drugs, bankrupting middle class Americans for minor illnesses and accidents, to rein in large corporations destroying our environment in the name of progress, to rein in predatory financial institutions wrecking middle class lives, and predatory food companies which created the obesity crisis in America, fertilizer companies polluting our waters, big agriculture bankrupting our farmers , polluting our drinking water, enslaving our youth in private prisons etc etc. I hope I belong in one of these pies.. by the way, I am "willing to work".
4
Here are four possibilities,
a) Both AOC and Trump are re-elected in 2020.
b) Only AOC is re-elected.
c) Only Trump is re-elected.
d) Neither is re-elected.
I personally think that all four options are live. Wonder what others think.
@Ludwig
AOC is re-elected... unless the Benjamins do their usual assault on democracy
Green and Libertarians get lots of votes.
In 2016, Libertarian Johnson/Weld ticket received 4,489,221 votes in the general election, or 3.28 percent of the popular vote.
I voted for them after having voted Democrat my entire life.
I have not intention of voting for candidates just because they are the lesser of the evils.
The Democrats should win in 2020 but, if they pick the left front runners, they will lose to Trump.
And I and millions of others will refuse to be intimidated into voting for the Dem/Rep ticket.
2
@simon sez
Weld is a pickled WASP who doesn't give a hoot about the public sector.
He sent Massachusetts into recession and forced state workers on furloughs, which was later ruled illegal.
No one intimidates you, Sez. If you want President Wild Turkey, you can have him. Just get ready for even more underfunded PUBLIC everything.
I'm not interested in supporting those unwilling to work. It should be pointed out though, that most of the non-working Americans are in the rural 'red' regions of the country. The red welfare states soak up much of our money and government socialism; SNAP, medicaid, etc. while lecturing the rest of us on the perils of big government. Talk to employers in the rural areas, they will tell you how hard it is to fill jobs.
I blame Fox News for giving them a sense of entitlement. They have spent the last couple of decades hearing about "those people" who are on welfare, red states people don't think that they should have to work, 'those people' aren't, so why should they?
2
"We need a common project, and it’s obvious: Build a new foundation for the middle class."
While I agree with this sentiment in principle, it's not as compelling a soundbite as say "We'll put a man on the moon by the end of this decade" or " a Green New Deal." And let's face it, we live, and have been living, in an age in which he/she who has the best soundbite wins.
AOC is still on the steep end of the learning curve in her new job (and in my view doing a great job of learning the ns and outs of DC life), and I don't agree with everything she's saying or suggesting, but it's astonishing, and really impressive, how she's driving the conversation. And she has a great soundbite.
2
@AP18 I think it's clear to anyone paying attention that ACO literally has no clue how finance works. The Amazon debacle is a spectacular example. She doesn't understand that $3 billion is not just sitting in a state checking account in NY. She can't comprehend that a tax incentive is not the same thing as a payment. She failed to see how much revenue could have been generated and how many middle class jobs were lost because of her "soundbite." Most importantly, that $3 billion, she's ready to spend it and it doesn't even exist. She doesn't get that either.
You say she's doing well, but she just cost her community millions in a state already losing jobs to more competitive markets in other parts of the country.
But you're right, she has terrific command of Twitter and that's the most important thing in politics today.
1
Our problem is that the far left and the far right, both small fractions of their parties, are running the show but they don't represent the majority of the people, who lean more toward the center. The result is that the passionate extremists run their parties and the majority of the voters stay home because, not only are they not passionate about the candidates, they frankly do not like them. The United States is in trouble and will remain there until the political parties wake up.
6
Actually the majority of Americans support Medicare for All and free community college education. The majority of Americans want action on climate change.
5
@Zegee, I agree completely and would add that many want major criminal justice reform too.
2
Perhaps picked, I may have missed it: AOC will only be 31 in October 2020. Too young for the race.
Instead of criticizing AOC and Sanders, those who promote "growing the pie" should come up with a "Save the Planet while Growing the Pie" plan and get it through Congress. If we continue with an economy based on exponential growth of consumption, we will kill the earth, and NO Earth, NO PIE.
3
@Tenfork
If we lead with "Save the Planet", it will never happen. A pie that is more fairly sliced will actually help save the planet. Globalization drives both economic inequality and the destruction of the planet. We don't see all the pollution and trash from our Chinese, consumer product world because it happens 'over there' somewhere.
2
@Tenfork
The planet will be fine. It's been around for billions of years. What is threatened is not the "planet", but it's ability to sustain human life as we know it.
1
@Tenfork
another option... USE THE PIE BETTER
I sincerely hope Mr. Friedman is wrong. For if the parties' fracture in 2020 happens, the wrong man, the worst President in history, will win again. Democrats must keep that in mind first and foremost. Their primary goal next election cycle is to win. Period. Their left wing has to be controlled. Sorry Bernie.
4
@Rick Morris Your party should have been working on a coherent platform for the last two years instead of chasing go-nowhere investigations. Instead of grooming a couple solid candidates on a strong platform based on healthcare and education (two places dems lead by a wide margin), your leadership has spent two years screaming about Russians, racism and pornstars. Dems will lose badly in 2020 and it should have been a cake walk.
Now you have ACO and Bernie sanders at the top of the ticket scaring the life out of anyone near the center of the conversation. It's there own fault.
Military bases all around the world. Our military excursions and financial tentacles working in tandem against real and perceived global enemies. Supposed democracy exported at the end of a gun. Regime change and globalization. The financialization of everything. A rise in nationalism--white nationalism and emboldened white supremacy. A president who identifies more with Putin and Orban than he does Lincoln and Roosevelt, men for whom shows of power are more important than diplomatic relationality. The moral vacuity of his inner circle of minor despots. Deregulation and inequitable concentrations of wealth. Deaths of despair: suicides and addiction (which has raised the national mortality rate). Rising fundamentalisms, Islamic, Christian, Jewish, even Buddhist. Displaced peoples and backlashes against refugees. Xenophopia. Mass shootings at home and suicide bombings abroad. Drones. There is an illness in the land. Friedman talks as if there is something still salvageable in the status quo, both economically and politically. That globalized capitalism and Western hegemony can fix the societal fractures it creates is a vacuous notion. Nuclear reach and erratic climatic intensifications really are threats to human survival. More often than not, these two realities are dismissed out of hand with disdain. Corporations write our laws and Goldman Sachs provides our politicians. Capitalism, what a funny thing it has proved to be. Maybe we really do need social democracy. Just saying
5
This isn't the first time parties were split. In the first half of the twentieth century the Democrats included both social reformers and Southern politicians dedicated to violating the civil rights of African Americans.
2
It is inevitable that America's two-party system will come to an end. Even the so-called banana republics have a choice of three, four and five political parties. The mighty America has only two. Shame!
Every two years we choose between the bad and the worse. Registering as an independent is just a protest. It is just being contrarian. We need a third party urgently.
7
Wow. Way to torpedo the Progressives by cherry picking an obvious misstatement. Perhaps you'll notice that there is a corresponding drop in support for the NYtimes along with the ongoing drop in support for the mainstream Democratic Party. Opinion pieces like this are exactly why.
The Times treatment of Sanders during the 2016 primaries was atrocious, but it is he, not AOC who will be leading the progressive drive this year. As for "grow the pie" Democrats, they *are* essentially trickle down Democrats, and are nothing more than a delaying tactic. In case you haven't noticed, there is enormous empirical evidence that grow-the-pie has been failing the middle class since about 1970. Progressives will be reinstituting progressive taxation, as well as bringing the US into the first world by enacting Medicare for all, more progressive labor laws, and restrictions on the financial industry. If this drive damages, or even completely destroys the existing Democratic party, then so be it.
2
@Jim K So what do you think of the population growth compared to the middle class? The percentage of middle class people has remained flat (61% in the early 70's, 59% now), but our population is not only much larger, but we also harbor millions of people that drive down wages in low income jobs. That's empirical data, not opinion. If "trickle down" is an abject failure, the number of people occupying the middle class should be much smaller, but it isn't. The United States is home to the largest, healthiest middle class in the world (sheer volume, not percentage). If 10 people enter our workforce, it's likely 6 of them will live a middle class lifestyle. That lifestyle would be considered wealthy in the vast majority of the world.
How about the income growth over the last couple years in the middle class? It's finally growing. Again, statistical fact.
I think that part of the problem is that the left will deny those stats like the right will deny climate change. The science and math sits somewhere in the middle of what the party's narrative is.
What if the Center Left and the Center Right merged and we had a 3-party system?
4
@Jake Jacobson PhD.. in reality that is what we have, and it is not working. Both parties are so corrupt, that any corporation can buy them out with a small amount of cash. In my state, both Schumer and Gillibrand looks at the polls and votes along with the wind. AOC and Bernie do not take corporate money and will not become prostitutes to big money ( don't call them LEFT because they care), and work for all Americans. I think Bernie will get the same amount of support from both the left and the right.
@Jake Jacobson PhD It will never happen.
Return abortion rights to the states, reform medical malpractice and tort law and regulate pharmaceutical companies at a level that would force them to be pro-consumer. Enact term limits for the house and supreme court, same for federal courts. Reduce pension and wages for government jobs (thereby pushing people into the private sector and relieving the tax burden on medicare and social security).
No politician would touch those for a variety of reasons. Those are just some of the hot buttons that will always stifle a 3rd party in the US.
Mr Baer's proposed bumper sticker would still leave out a lot of americans. What about the coal miners who don't want to do any other work and insist on ruining the environment and their own health,
and,
some of us liberals, who just cannot 'work together'/compromise with Dumpfers who propose spoiling the entire environment, but who will settle for destroying just a part of it right now......more later?
1
The bumper sticker has too many words. Maybe condensing it down to Make America Work again for those who are willing to work together. Or Make America Work Again=People willing to work together.
In the end, when there is one Democrat still standing for president in 2020, whether it’s a Sanders/Warren or a Klobuchar or a Biden, the Republicans will tar them with the same “socialist” portrayal. They will shouts it loudly and often, and will have all the money they need.
2
I think 4 parties is the best thing that could happen to America. The more the better. The two party system is totally dysfunctional.
2
“the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez far left”. Bernie and AOC maybe “far left” inside the DC bubble but their policies be they universal healthcare, opposition to senseless wars, to increasing taxes on the top 1%...all enjoy solid majority support in the population. Going by that criteria, far from being “far left”, they’re centrists
2
@Nima
No cows, no planes, no jobs!
Sounds pretty far left from where I sit.
I agree that the Democrats and Republicans are splintering, and that they are splitting as you describe, but I think you would be foolish to ignore the growing Libertarian constituency. Donald Trump is so bad that he has made an entire generation cynical towards government. Combine that with the decline in religious values and you've carved out a very large group of libertarians, who are especially prevalent in the millennial generations.
The bigger conflict going forward is between left-wing Democrats and libertarians, with hardcore Republicans disappearing over time, as has happened in California. Moderate Democrats will be split between the two, with the suburban whites that flipped to Democrats in 2018 going back to libertarians.
Where are these "Never Trumpers" you speak of in the GOP? They've all retired and retreated.
1
Little reality content in Mr. Friedman's commentary. In the real world, you cannot have "adaptive coalitions" of forces with diametrically opposite economic interests. Helping the capitalist hurts the workers. Helping the workers hurts the capitalist. The boss wants longer hours for less pay. The employees want shorter hours for more pay. It is not a partnership between the two, under capitalism, but an adversarial relationship. . . . .The workers produce all value. The economic "pie" is not only grown but completely baked only by the workers. They create all wealth in society. But the capitalist, though only a parasite, controls the means of production. So the capitalist exploits as much of the value produced by the workers as he can. The workers have only one defense: to organize unions to resist this exploitation. . . . But US workers have been unable to organize for years. The American labor movement has been destroyed--with the complicity of three of the four political "parties" of Mr. Friedman--both wings of the G.O.P. & the pro-corporate Democrats. The fourth, the Socialist wing, is simply a grassroots reaction to this total take over by Capital. In ten years there will be but two American parties--the fascist and the Socialist. Which side will you be on?
2
Grow the pie? Given the onslaught of climate change coming to you, sustainability must replace growth. For every year that there is no action, the extermination threshold grows closer. Time to wake up and elect people who will do something to save the planet. Otherwise humanity is on the path to extinction.
2
Just having three parties already elected George W. Bush and Donald Trump. I can’t imagine the damage that would be done if we had four parties.
1
The only Trump voters breaking away are suburban women and some small business types who just cannot stand him and his antics. With those voters, we won enough reasonably close districts to flip the House.
IF those voters stay Blue and if we get a big turnout of black voters in the large cities of the North, we will beat Trump in 2020,
Other than the two groups I mentioned, there is no Republican center-right. In fact, what is left of the Blue Dogs is the center right in America.
"What if I am a steelworker in Pittsburgh..." Umm, if you're in the Pittsburgh of 2019 you are more likely to be a computer scientist or IT professional.
For the umpteenth time, repeat after me:
"There is no 'far left' in the United States."
Thank you.
3
This column implements the "Chewbacca Defense," a well known literary strategy designed to overwhelm responsible dissent. It does this by introducing a multi-layered melange of bric-a-brac so disorganized so as to obviate coherence by living beings.
One idea after another they come, interpenetrating one another like images on an mushroom assisted vision quest for the holy grail of American politics:
"Britains Labour Party, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, AOC and the Green New Deal, Grow the Pie, Divided the Pie, NAFTA, Trickle Down, Portable Health Care, Pensions, Amazon HQ2, Race to the Bottom."
Dasher, and Dancer, and Prancer, and Vixen . . .
"Never-Trumpers, Russia, National Emergency of the Wall, Mitch McConnell, 2020 Elections, Steelworkers, Uber, Air BNB, Wal-Mart, Binary Thinking."
On Comet, on Cupid, on Donner and Blitzen . . .
"Complex Adaptive Coalitions, globalization, climate change"
And finally, in last place (wait for it):
--> THE MIDDLE CLASS
The meaning of this paper pile of sliced-up post-doc journal articles is then exquisitely reduced to "2020 is gonna be a fun election year guys !" Wow. Can't wait! Hope my health care doesn't run out and I live that long. Hope Trump doesn't press his Big Red Button before then. Hope wildfires in Wyoming don't kill off all humans living there. Hope the great Barrier Reef isn't totally dead.
Gravity is pulling the starship into the corona of the sun and the captain thinks it's "cool." Great.
1
“….They’ve actually moved to a totally different grid — one that asks every day on every issue: “What works?”
Yes, independents, by and large, are uninterested in ideologies, in binary or quaternary choices. They are motivated to promote things ‘that work’ on each separate, complex issue, not solutions that hew to ideological cleavage planes. They are bored by the fact that if one claims to be a ‘democrat’ or a ‘republican’, there is not much need for further dialogue with such people; independents know where each partisan stands on every issue, be it immigration, free enterprise, taxation, health care, climate, evolution, guns, etc. An independent knows the propaganda sources, right and left, fueling the partisan cleavage and looks on in dismay at the lack of critical, original thinking in these stereotyped ‘tribes’.
It is time for partisan-free candidates, who can approach each issue with a ‘what works’ attitude, not a stereotyped, Pavlovian, knee-jerk talking point agenda provided by their preferred propaganda organisms and outlets.
"Make America work again, for those ... willing to work ... work together" and Vote
1
Our nation has become too much “me” to the detriment of “we.”
2
Thank you Mr Friedman. I foresee the same thing and hope it comes to pass
“Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work” is AOC’s version of “Universal Basic Income”, an egregiously stupid idea that would pay a guaranteed income to every American, without any qualifications or requirements. It is also proposed by Presidential candidate Andrew Yang. Before you dismiss this as the hare-brained scheme it is, google it and see how seriously some take it. Well-intentioned but clueless “politicians” like AOC and Yang will ruin us if we let them.
1
"What if I am a steelworker in Pittsburgh and in the union, but on weekends I drive for Uber and rent out my kid’s spare bedroom on Airbnb"
If that's the case, then in the U.S. you are relying on your union job for healthcare, retirement security, and decent wages.
171
@Larry Dickman Like many of Friedman's columns, this one is utter nonsense. The worker he's talking about would certainly prefer to spend weekends with family and keep his home for those who actually live there. He isn't able to do that because unrestrained capitalism has made his work pay less and made him work more just to keep his head above water. That's a lousy situation, not something Americans can be proud of. If Friedman has a way of solving that problem, let him say so. If not, he should shut up and his column should be given to someone who has something constructive to say.
21
All I can say to Mr. Friedman is that if FDR were alive today, and saw the changes going on within his party, he would be flashing his trademark smile from ear to ear.
49
@Stos Thomas - Yeah, if Friedman thinks AOC is too radical, what does he think of FDR's Second Bill of Rights?
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or mines of the nation.
"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
"The right of every family to a decent home.
"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
"The right to a good education.
37
@Stos Thomas We live in quite a different world than FDR live in. The Days of Upton Sinclair’s “The jungle” are way behind us.
The world we live in today is a globalized world with 8 billion people, automation on the rise, low skill jobs being phased out by computers and efficiency, people working from home and a totally revolutionized economy.
Humans are an excess in the world there are too many of them. They’re causing all of the problems from overpopulation, pollution, and a strain on natural resources.
Human should becoming more competitive and not relying on the government to do more for them While they do less.
With an exponentially increasing population government subsidy of social programs just doesn’t add up for everyone.
3
@Stos Thomas
If his cousin TR were alive and President today, he'd be working hard to rein in the excesses of Silicon Valley tech companies.
7
Four viable parties would be a good start to the reform our political system sorely needs. Blowing up the electoral college & gerrymandering, and rethinking how each state gets two senators no matter what their populations are would be great as well.
American Biparty system lived its course. It is over.
Extreme or radical ideology groups are asserting themselves for a long time in Center parties , In existing structure trying to keep them under one roof ends op Todays GOP.
Today's GOP doesn't have center right part anymore, because symbiotic part consumed all food and air.
Let start to break these parties . These non center people must establish their own parties , they have some percentage and they play a role to become government.
Under one roof , traying to maintain sanity is just not a viable option anymore.
We need center right and left parties clean.
Also these extreme parties needed for a pluralistic democracy to buffer Trump like people should never see a light again. other wise , Like Trump they can hijack entire party and run plane to ground.
This is not working anymore.
Multi-party democracy is not possible in the US as long as the Electoral College exists. There is no runoff election if the EC does not return a majority for one candidate. The House of Representatives elects the president under an arcane system where each state gets one vote (Alaska = California).
This process was used twice and failed both times. It took 36 votes to elect Thomas Jefferson in1801 and the decision was made by Alexander Hamilton because he hated Aaron Burr more than he hated Jefferson. The second use was 1825 when John Quincy Adams was hand-picked to snub Andrew Jackson, the overwhelming winner in a field of four candidates.
Neither party wants to roll the dice on this procedure. Who says America doesn't remember its history? There is too much to lose.
The solution is popular election and runoffs when needed but there are too many vested interests opposed to that form of democratization.
2
Looking at America from Friedman's "where are the people politically?" angle lets him meander through this meaningless essay. Unfortunately, America's winner-take-all election structure -- Congressional districts and the Electoral College -- mitigate exclusively for two-party politics. A third (or fourth) party that receives 20% of the vote in every district nationwide will have zero representatives in Congress, zero electoral votes, and therefore near-zero ability to influence policy or reward its supporters.
6
The binary choice between big government/high regulation and small government/low regulation, whether it still exists or not, is wrong. The dichotomy itself, now dogma, is false and misleading. Regulation, as well as support and services, work best when administered at their targets (and sources of revenue) and not from afar. Our federal government HAS become bloated. Without constraint, federal programs for a country our size WILL expand, get ratcheted in and live to support themselves. The "administrative state" IS real. Here's the mind stretching bit. This does NOT mean we need less government. We need MORE government - just not FEDERAL government. For our now 300 million plus country, government at the national-level is often inefficient and leads to disconnect and alienation among the very people it's intended to serve (who then don't vote which exacerbates things.) We don't need Big Government (in most cases) - we need LOTS of Small Government. The SCALE of our government should match the scale of the economic and social activity it's designed to regulate and support. The rise of globalization has occurred in parallel with the expansion of our national-level government (and our media). We need to inhibit, not promote, corporate/global capitalism. To this end, we'll need to maintain our borders and use our considerable natural and human resources to support a society that could serve those beyond our borders as a positive example, rather than a negative one.
1
@carl bumba
Though I concur that there are issues that can be dealt with at a local level, this is a nation where much is national in scope and lots of small government hinder economic growth and achievement. Picture 50 states setting individual safety standards for autos (some contradictory) or minimal pollution standards for a corporation polluting downriver into another state's ecosystem. A minor historic example of the problem was the censorship of movies when multiple cities set different censorship requirements. Every film had to have different copies edited to meet the numerous and varied requirements.
We travel in a nation 3,000 miles wide but are capable of dong it in only a few hours, crossing numerous states and hundreds of jurisdictions. We are no longer a republic of 13 states were it took days to travel between them–and few did so. That is part of the reason for big government–it's a big country.
1
@Kit
Thank you. All true. But I didn't make an absolute statement. I said that more big government isn't needed... in most cases. Some nuance is needed. OF COURSE, high speed rail, our power grid, the control of our carbon reserves, and at least all of our advanced medicine should NOT be managed by the Mayberry police department (sorry, I couldn't resist). In the scheme of things, the valid examples you cite are minor. The point is, trying to manage a country as large, geographically diverse and populous as ours with a one-size-fits all corporate and federal government approach will backfire culturally and economically. In fact, we are witnessing this now.
1
Do you do standup?
1
There really hasn't been a two party system in this country for years. The American electorate has always been a complex one that could never be focused into two parties. At its easiest it could be broken down into the far right the far left and the middle. Its pretty clear that the extremes always seem to get the lions share of exposure. But, it has always been the middle the social liberal fiscal conservatives, or the social conservatives and fiscal liberals that made America what it truly is. Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt were of the middle they took from both left and right and melded the ideas into something positive. Lincoln did the same. Greatness comes from individuals who take ideas no matter where they come from and try. Sometimes the ideas work often times they don't but to simply go to the left or the right and say if its not in my spectrum its bad is always a recipe for disaster, the current administration is a prime example.
2
At first I liked the idea that the two things that could cure political tribalism were "a common threat or a common project" (and of course the preference for the latter). But I don't think it's that simple under Trump. You note the moral bankruptcy of Mitch McConnell, but Trump is beyond that. Trump is so far gone that he has no moral authority to evaluate what is a threat or to present a vision for a common project. If he told me there was a threat to the U.S., my first reaction would be that he is making it up for political reasons and because he figured out that reacting to that threat would enrich himself, his family and his billionaire "friends." His version of a common project is a wall that divides us, not unites us, and has absolutely no value. The country could unite behind a response to a common threat or a vision for a common project only when it has a leader with common sense. And the fact that, today, the country could not unite to react to a common threat - because only of this so-called president - is the biggest national security risk we face.
6
Out here at ground level we have forced labor, in multiple jobs, necessitated by inflation in housing, health, education, and utilities costs while rightists seek benefit and protection cuts. Forced labor, as in involuntary servitude. The Cortez proposal is understood to imply a necessary restoration of upward pressure on wages. More carrot, less stick. OK?
1
@JVM There is no involuntary servitude. You are mixing up the need for resources with a requirement to work. There is nothing wrong with societal pressure to be as self sufficient as possible.
1
Yassir Missa John Sir!
Mr. Friedman should realize that there's no such thing as the "free market."
Additionally, Mr. Friedman hasn't yet grasped that the average person doesn't give a hoot in tarnation about all that talk about a fair wage when all s/he needs is to put food on the table and pay the rent...then s/he heads out to that second job.
Alas, religion rears its ugly head to divide the world even further. Toss divisive religion into the mix and you need more than four parties. In total, religion is a recipe for disaster.
Face facts, humans are their own worst enemies as they head for the exit.
1
Stick to pancakes and Volvos.
I think one way to graph what Friedman is saying is as follows. Our first instinct in political sorting is left vs. right or Democrat vs. Republican -- a one dimensional line. We have broken this down into a two dimensional graph of social issues (corporate good vs personal freedom) and financial issues (socialism vs capitalism). A third dimension is foreign affairs: globalism vs isolationism. Before Trump one could place most politicians somewhere on the three dimensional graph. Trump has tapped a fourth dimension that has always been there but was not acknowledged : democracy, reality, and order vs autocracy, unreality. and chaos. This fourth dimension is twirling the three dimensional graph like a top generating motion sickness for many and is the core issue behind the 2020 presidential election for every candidate.
Your assessment of the polical problem was ok. Our system is failing.
Once there was a global problem w/ ozone. The system passed laws, created the EPA, problem solved. That doesn’t happen anymore.
Your assessment of the econ problem is entirely wrong.
The problem isn’t the pie needs to grow, it has been growing since WWII. The problem is the median wage, which grew w/ GNP (both 100%) to 1972 has been flat since 72 even tho GNP has grown 150%. (2nd Graph @ https://goo.gl/w2btYa).
All that growth has gone to the 1% for 47+ years. That trend isn’t possible w/out complicity from elites in both parties. Which explains the revolt from both parties bases.
So that whole grow the pie analysis is has to be thrown out.
I’ll throw u a bone tho, the issue isn’t wealth distribution, it’s bargaining power distribution.
(& You can’t exercise bargaining power without working)
Arguably America has one governing principle: free contract. What you earn then is a function of bargaining power.
The GOP has 1 prime directive: the ever greater concentration of wealth&power on behalf of the Wealthy&Powerful. They succeeded at this by attacking other groups agency for bargaing power (Unions for workers, affordable Ed for mid class, ACORN for the poor) while strengthening the agency for the rich (the corporation, a form of collective ownership, 80% owned by 1%, see Citizens United).
Creative ideas about redistributing bargaining power will help but the rich won’t give up theirs w/out a fight.
5
I would say that Mr. Friedman represents a “center left” elite that has been complicit with the center right, in allowing nearly all of the new wealth created in the last 47 years to flow to the 1%. Again that’s 150% growth in GNP since 1972 nearly all to the 1%.
This has created a terrible seam in our society. It has also contributed to the opioid epidemic and other kindred problems of self destruction.
This is not sustainable. Sooner or later some monster like Trump/Putin would come along and exploit this obvious seam in our society. It will get worse until it gets better.
Mr. Friedman’s assessment of the problem is obviously flawed is part of how Center Left Elites contribute to the problem. OAC’s assessment of the problem is more correct, as she’s more vested in the problem but her solution is flawed.
The true elites know the problem is the loss of bargaining power to ordinary people, so analysis like Friedman’s here seems almost purposely wrong, meaning he’s trying to help the 1% keep and grow what it has.
Other societies do not have this problem. Japan has employment for life + company unions. Germany allows unions on the boards of corporations so that the 1% can’t run the companies into the ground, like say, they did with Sears which used to provide a middle class existence for their workers
The elites have systematically failed the masses in both parties, and that’s leading to rebellions by the base in both parties. This is why Trump & OAC & Bernie are emerging.
Our first four party election?
Off the top of my head I can think of at least two others: 1860 and 1948.
And in both cases it was thought that the splits would irrevocably destroy the Democratic Party. Didn't quite happen that way.
You can go nuts over the notion of people "unwilling" to work (God forbid, eek, civilization is threatened), or, you can raise questions about how we ought to be thinking about the distribution of society's wealth. The policy idea of a guaranteed income--favored by conservatives and liberals alike fifty years ago--would provide money to everyone, whether or not they were "willing" to work. Why was this policy idea attractive to both the Left and Right fifty years ago? Because even fifty years ago, thoughtful people realized that our economy was so efficient that more and more people would NOT be needed to produce abundance. Given this situation (what a wonderful problem to have!), it made sense to provide everyone with a guaranteed income to provide for themselves. (Bureaucracy could be reduced and individual responsibility and choice could be supported.)
We now are returning to the idea that more and more people are never going to have "decent" jobs, if they have jobs at all, and that there is no technical reason any longer to deny ourselves the benefit of disconnecting work from income. We can now produce more than enough "stuff" for everyone to enjoy, without everyone having to work to produce it.
Only the 1%, who would lose their toxic control over society, need fear such a policy. For the rest, everyone can hail the day when everyone is guaranteed a certain amount, and can choose to work for reasons other than putting food on the table, and paying rent.
2
@Pecus ... I totally agree. Friedman seems to imply, if I read him right, that growth is required for employment, forever and ever. Well; it is as presently formulated; people absolutely must hold on to jobs that they hate in order to put food on the table, especially since the GOP keeps cutting assistance programs, and labor laws, across the board in order to give more to the rich. Looking around me, I wonder how long we can "grow the economy and grow human population" forever without destroying the planet, as we are already doing. Universal Basic Income offers a possible solution. Of course, it would create other problems, such as people who would do nothing; and others would game the system, but there would be incentives/regs to minimize that; and, besides, those people already exist, they just do a poor job where they get work, and then get fired. With UBI, people could find jobs they actually enjoy, without worrying about getting kicked out of their modest domiciles; and, I believe, creativity (if not productivity) would flourish.
@Pecus, have you been following world history over, say, the last 100 years or so? The abject failure of the Soviet Union’s economic system and the murderous cruelty needed to sustain it for as long as it existed should be a clue to what I’m talking about. That, and China, where millions were also sacrificed for socialism before it became one of the world’s most vibrant capitalistic economies.
1
Ever since Tom Friedman declared it a tragedy, that his children would be unlikely to have a better life than their parents, I realized that he just did not get it.
His kids do not need to live better than he does.
I'm sure the Friedmans live plenty well.
In order for there to be harmony and sustainability on this planet. his kids, the Friedmans, and many like them are going to have to live differently, probably with less.
And that need not affect the quality of those lives at all.
Wealth/income inequality and climate change are ticking time bombs that have to be addressed.
We all will have to do more with less.
Remember the best things in life aren't things.
And Tom, what about the thirty percent below middle class.
They aren't worth your time to think about, huh?
While "doing more" with less in consumer goods, the US needs to do more, creatively and with incentives for the catalyst of personal responsibility, with health care for all, quality early childhood education, better quality education K-12, tuition free higher education.
This planet may limit how big we can grow the pie, but our imagination and decency will determine how resources are used to make a better, more sustainable future for all.
3
I’m pretty sure CNN has hired all of the Republicans who oppose Trump.
Maybe we’ll have the debate this time around on the Democratic side between the Hedge Fund Titans and the Occupy Wall Street Socialist wings. I never saw how that was going to work, but the media will do their best to smooth it over, just like last time.
1
The grow-the-pie segment seems a bit too rosy as described (and I would put myself in that category). Understanding that trickle-down or free trade doesn't work and acting on it are very different things. I don't see meaningful attempts in either group to address these very critical issues. Especially since they created the more radical groups in the first place.
I do agree, however, with the overall theme of more fragmentation. And it can lead to scary scenarios. Examples include the fracturing in the Weimarer Republik in Germany, that opened the door to fascism. Probably any -ism to follow a democratic order is typically a problem.
2
In fact, both the Democratic and Republican parties offer some good values that match my own preference. Thus, I vote for the person not the party. I am sure there are millions of people vote like me - person over party. It doesn't matter whether it is a two-party system or 4-party system. As long as we have a system that offer fair competition and let the capable person had the chance to come out. That will be good enough.
2
Mr. Friedman's criticism of the "unwilling" in the phrase in economic security portion of the Green New Deal is a display of his rather narrow view of the time lines of most workers, especially women. A woman who gave birth to a child recently may not be "unable" to work, but she may be "unwilling" to work. A woman caring for a child with cancer may not be unable to work, but she may be unwilling. As a retired woman in her 70's, I am not unable to work. I am unwilling to work. These "unwilling" workers require financial support from some source. Paid family leave, Medicare for all, enhanced Social Security benefits would provide better economic security to women and men whose working lives are disrupted by caring for others and by job losses over the course of a working life.
13
Very good point. The arguments of people like Friedman who cry fowl over the unwilling line ring hollow—they’re pouncing on poor choices in wording to distract from the real problems. I do think there is a problem with wording here and that AOC and others will want to think of different ways to pose what are proposals that should have widespread appeal to skeptical audiences. That language should shift the focus from whether or not people are working, to how we can expand the definition and appreciation of different forms of work. You are performing work—and very important work at that. Unfortunately it is work that is currently and historically undervalued both for gender reasons and because it can’t be monetized. The line would more effectively be: people unable to work or who perform undervalued and/or unpaid work (eg, child care, elder care, etc).
@DH Very good point and very well said. Thanks for the important clarification.
It has always been so, and will always be thus: We are a free and powerful people and will ally with others, sometimes temporarily and sometimes for a lifetime.
As for me, I always vote for FDR.
It was big money that split America in his time, and it is billionaire money that is doing what it can to divide us from each other, and by the way, from our Constitution.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
5
Democrats and republicans are Not willing to enforce any prohibition on hiring undocumented workers. They instead line their pockets with illicit income while undermining American workers. They also engage the nation in senseless immigration arguments which are undermining our democratic freedoms. The nation has ceded its power to the special money interests which will eventually lead to a revolution.
One only has to look at the rise of Donald Trump.
4
It seems to me that in the USA today anyone without serious physical or mental problems can get a job. Many jobs do not pay well enough to support more than a single person.That works fine for an immigrant willing to share an apt with others. He/she can work and send some money to his/her family in their home country with the hope of wither returning in a better economic position or moving up the economic ladder here. They model does not work for many US citizens. Strong unions and manufacturing jobs worked in the past but it's been years since that model was scrapped.Today many of those citizens vote Trump and/or Bernie, as they feel betrayed by both political parties.
4
the fragmentation of the social order is exactly what is found (and predicted to occur) in the "collapse of complex societies" (Joseph Tainter).
it's remarkable to me, as a septaugenarian, to look back on history and see how far humans are unable to see what is obvious in plain sight.
we've grown too big, we move forward too fast, we allow citizens freedoms that they lack the personal resources to manage, we expect too much of human nature and put too much faith in "technology" (now AKA robotics and AI).
here comes your future: fragmentation, localism, parochialism, increased social diversity, increased social discord, increased failure to meet events with legislation and administration, increased use of surveillance and robotics to assert control.
4
AOC is probably thinking of universal base income and that‘s clearly an idea whose time has come in Europe. Some countries have already started to put it on the ballot.
2
@heinrich zwahlen perhaps that’s why Europe is falling apart?
I view these political disruptions as healthy exercises in democracy---the world has gone through enormous economic and technological changes that now demand new ways of thinking about and acting upon our workplaces. The process of developing new worldviews is a messy one, some on the far right and far left are finding out. Unfortunately, Trump has made this process messier than it needs to be---he continually diverts attention from the kind of thoughtful conversations we need about the issues brought up in this article with his middle school antics. My hope is that by 2020 the general public will be fed up with debates filled with juvenile name calling and look for a candidate that offers a coherent response to the global economic and political shifts we are all experiencing.
Michael Moore does a bit where he discusses things like schools, health care, etc. Most Americans of all stripes agree with what is today, a center-left position. The Right at this point is the Norquist/Trump party, which is very good if your last name is Koch, less so if you are actually normal. The ultimate melting pot was the two party system, which is rigged (both Trump and Bernie are right here) but to maintain a two party system only. People forget that Perot's challenge caused both parties to agree to not press him too hard on ballot eligibility, because BOTH major parties would lose if the ballot laws, which are basically written so only the big Two can play, were exposed or changed. Trump ran as an R because he knows a lot of the voter base is single issue, or can be easily propagandized, and he gets Fox News as a built in propaganda arm-and no one would complain as he stuffs his pockets with grift. Dems are a lot harder to corral. We need a multi party coalition system to allow a broader stream of discourse.
1
Government doesn't provide good jobs???
What a farce. As many other commentators have noted, there are many excellent jobs in the public sector, with paid health care and pensions that don't exist in the private sector.
Friedman frankly sounds like Ronald Reagan.
If I was coaching a recent high school graduate (and I often do) that maybe wasn't the academic all star that would go to a great college and work for some elite company, I would highly recommend a job in the government. For a City of New York, or State of Massachusetts, or Federal Job. Holidays, pensions, health care, almost impossible to fire. These are some of the best middle class jobs in the world.
Stop tromping on the government, advising against universal health care, equating Cortez and Bernie, and trying to be clever about endorsing another Hillary like establishment Democrat who takes care of the elite like you.
7
Yes, Friedman is an anachronism today. He still thinks Biden is 'center-left'? Has he been paying attention attention in the decades since 1992?
Friedman's elitist. corporate globalist pov is what people all over the planet are rebelling against. Liberal, caring values are now found mostly on what he deems the 'far-left', the only one of his four parties that prioritizes people and sustainability over profits and endless, suicidal growth and expansion.
Picture two people...
The first is a 4th-generation Appalachian, faced with decreased employment in the coal industry because now instead of mines, the remaining coal companies use 'mountaintop removal' which employs fewer people. The Appalachian, rather than leave his home county to get an education and a job somewhere else, stays home, collects welfare, and snorts fentanyl.
The second is a Guatemalan woman who walks 2,000 miles across Mexico carrying her baby, in the hope of getting a minimum-wage job as a chambermaid or dishwasher.
Who, of those two, is 'unwilling to work'? AOC may have spoken an accidental truth, which is that a lot of persistent unemployment in the US is unwillingness -- if not to work, then to do the things that would lead to work.
But, considering prevailing minimum wages many workers are hardly better off with a job than they would be as beggars. If you let AOC have free rein to develop policies and programs, many of those "unwilling to work" would eventually find that they wanted to work.
2
@Mark Gardiner just over one third of American states have larger prison and police budgets than education budgets. Millions of loggers, miners, oil workers, assembly line or process workers, all with grade 12 or less. Democracy dies in ignorance. Which Americans have embraced since day one.
The GOP hasn’t had a center-right since before the 90s. The objection among establishment GOP types is they wish he were more artful and perhaps a more competent manager. On policy though they are in almost total alignment.
Don’t forget that it was preeminent establishment GOP stalwart Grover Norquist who has always said the only requirement for a Republican president is that they be able to hold a pen with which to sign their tax cuts into law. Trump has filled this role better than they could have hoped.
On foreign policy, Trump is even enticing the Democrats right flank as he ramps up a new potential boondoggle in Venezuela. And of course warmongering against Iran is always bipartisan, no matter how many treaties and humanitarian norms the US has to abrogate.
So no, I don’t think there’s as much fracturing as either party establishments and the Trump administration want people to think. The perception is good for fundraising though.
@Matt F Dole, McCain, and Romney each were "center right." They each lost badly also.
This is what happens in families, as well, when they are headed by “crazy-makers.” Some personalities are propelled by sheer force of will but all those around them must choose sides and never know from one minute to the next which face the crazy maker will turn on them. Factions abound but only the decision to not maintain the relationship allows escape.
A nation is not much more than a family writ large. If you don’t look up and around you will not realize that the destruction goes beyond your own confusion. Are the bookies laying odds yet about whether Trump will leave if not re-elected or is that too far in the future even for them?
You can't grow the pie and prevent catastrophic climate change. Not possible. Long term, you need to re-divide a sustainable pie but in short term you need to shrink the pie in certain areas. Cattle, corn and consumption need to decrease. Trees consuming atmospheric CO2 in the short term (10 yrs) need to increase massively as they become sources of long term quality food and biomass.
Two parties: Sane and Insane.
6
@Louis J so the D's are going to convince India and China to reduce carbon emissions?
@Scott: Of course your position amounts to nothing more than "current policies are likely to kill all our grandkids, but that's their problem -- not ours".
Great. Now there can be four parties treating politics and elections like sports teams.
I wish that instead of having more parties that we could eliminate the party title entirely. Yes, I know that this is an impossible and outlandish idea. This is just a thought experiment.
If people simply focused on ideas, and if they didn’t know what party the idea came from, they might vote differently. I don’t know how many times I’ve watched political talk shows and have not known the party of the politician being interviewed. I don’t like that feeling. Knowing if it’s a Republican or Democrat helps me to make a judgement about what the person is saying. As soon as the name and party are indicated, I can feel myself adjust slightly in trust or doubt.
More tribal political members will do more than just shift slightly in trust or doubt; they will slip into full trust or total skepticism and hate. (Not everyone does this, of course, but it does happen.)
Imagine elections like that weird singing show on tv wherein the performers wear costumes or the tv show The Voice when the coaches are picking their team members and can’t look at the singer who is auditioning. There is no ability to judge the singers based on who they are or what they look like. They have to be evaluated based on talent. Stripping away the political label would be like that.
I know, I know! Totally ridiculous idea—no need to respond about how terrible of an idea.
4
I think Mr. Friedman is seeing things through an aged and too-simple prism of obsolescent ideologies. Many 2008 Obama voters became 2016 Trump voters! While I agree that the "Green New Deal" will frighten away many, the idea of "basic income" {independent of one's motivation} is one that appeals to some thinkers on the Right as well as the Left -- as a way to deal with the quickening pace of automation and the disappearance of middle-income jobs for people of median abilities or less.
2
The fractures in the Democratic Party concern policy and they will heal when the general election rolls around. The fractures in the Republican Party are about Trump and his fitness or unfitness for office. They will never heal.
6
I expected better from Friedman. He has not noticed that the GOP is a radical, broken party. It serves only the donor class, while playing on the fears and bigotry of its shrinking base. The Democrats' massive turn out led to big wins at the mid-term elections. Expect more of the same in 2020. Moderate and Progressive Democrats have a ton of common ground. Warren, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and others are leading the party back to its FDR roots. Nothing at all radical about this. It is long overdue.
The GOP wants to save huge tax cuts for the wealthiest. The Democrats want to save America and the planet. Only a Democratic president and Senate will tackle campaign finance reform. Whose side are you on?
12
@MHW "fractured and broken?" Did the Republicans not pick up Senate seats in the last cycle, setting the state for even more conservative SCOTUS appointments.?
1
@Scott: How could the Republicans lose Senate seats in 2018 when so very very few of those seats were actually on the ballot? Then again, it's not hard to win elections when are willing and able to game the system via gerrymandering, voter suppression and the like. Something which Democrats don't tend to do (as in the recent New Jersey redistricting) but which Republicans glory in. Probably because they know they can't win if they play fair. Face it. When you can lose the popular vote for the Presidency and in Congress (as in 2016) and yet still get control of both -- well you can call your form of government a lot of different things, but one thing you can't call it is "democratic".
1
This is a good observation. Lost in the clatter, is what is going on in communities across the nation....understanding the issues and finding solutions at the grass roots and state level. Our president and Congress have only proved how useless they really are at making important decisions for the good of the nation. Citizens United hard at work to divide and conquer.
4
"[T]here are only two ways to cure political tribalism: 'A common threat or a common project.' We need a common project, and it’s obvious: Build a new foundation for the middle class."
Even more urgent and compelling than that common project is our common threat: climate change, along with its sundry interrelated economic and ecological issues.
I'd also note that the way Mr. Friedman phrases his proposed project - a not unimportant thing in and of itself - is inherently divisive, and it's a bit tone deaf of him not to hear it. I do understand that he wants to build and bake a bigger pie, but what his words emphasize is how that pie is divvied up.
Good point. He can't help himself. He's a Democrat, somewhere on the scale, but no matter. It's about dividing people up into various identities and to sculpt messages, promises and hand-outs to them. He can't help it.
Historically the country - like many - could use war as a glue during tough times. Sometimes war was necessary, sometimes not at all. That won't work now because the world could blow up. But China wants to write the news that you are reading, make no mistake.
It's hard to be as pessimistic as I am about this country. It's easier to just to blame others, the other party or parties, the elite media and and their political darlings and creations, the nuts who show up drooling at campaign events for all of these potential DEM candidates. And, of course, Trump.
Friedman gets paid to write columns. He wrote this one. He got paid. Nothing there we don't know, nothing there that is useful. So sorry.
The middleclass has been emasculated by the demise of unions and the clout of American capitalism's 'power of the purse'. Wealth controls our officials and thus our government, rendering the vast middleclass as irrelevant.
Middle American citizens are so busy scratching for a piece of the 'American Dream', they no longer project a political force of any consequences. There are few politicians to favor their causes, as measured against the many in the pockets of the 'one percent'.
A redistribution of wealth may be extreme, but a more level playing field is a must for social harmony.
10
I agree with your characterization of the political environment we face in today’s presidential milieu. To wit, 2020 voters are a mix bag of liberal and conservative audiences. They cannot be pigeonholed as one or the other, and by the same token, political candidates should not feed them promises of one kind or the other because they won’t be effective. To be successful, political candidates should hone and target their messages to address the concerns of Middle America. That means a compendium of conservative and liberal issues and solutions. It also means populism in a nutshell, not identity politics.
3
Two problems with the Republican analysis in this article. First the “never Trumpers” constitute a de minimus part of the republican party today. This is obvious from the polls that regularly show Trump support among Republicans at 90+ percent. Second, Republicans really haven’t stood for limited government in decades. Just look at the spending increases they have done under W and Trump. The only thing they have cared about more than anything is tax cuts for the donor class. The limited government mantra is really about removing regulatory burdens from the donor class’ businesses.
22
"Grow-the-pie Democrats know that good jobs don’t come from government or grow on trees — they come from risk-takers who start companies. They come from free markets regulated by and cushioned by smart government." Tom Friedman
Free markets? What free markets? The notion that the US has a free market economy is a myth. The American economy is an oligopoly with two to four massive corporations controlling virtually every major sector of our economy. Until the US government addresses this issue, production will continue to suffer, wages will continue to stagnate and the pie cannot grow.
(See Jonathan Tepper's splendidly researched and documented book THE MYTH OF CAPITALISM.)
19
On balance, multi party elections for President and Congress would have some advantages and is worth a serious discussion. However, that discussion must begin with how to unrig election laws which gives Dems and Reps an “automatic” ballot spot and make it a challenge in many states for a “third” party candidate to get on the ballot. Not true everywhere but true in enough states to preclude even footed multi party elections.
Going out on a limb here, consideration should be given to a one day national primary for President employing a ranked choice ballet system where the top two candidates would the appear on the November ballot.
6
Wholeheartedly agree. Plus we should move to a system of proportional representation in Congress and state legislatures, do away with the electoral college, add get money out of our elections.
4
Presenting this as a choice of grow vs divide is a false choice. It's a rhetorical device, not a sound argument. As is your framing of this as a division between the young and the wise.
I am so sick of older people invoking some version of "young liberals act impulsively based on their heart, while conservative know better thanks to age and perspective." And I'm 44 and have a minor in economics from MIT (and a masters in computer science).
Conservative thinking has led us to the most unequal society in a century, never mind the environment. Time for thinking different.
13
I do not see the parties breaking up. Reality is more likely that many just decide not to vote. Young people have long decided it was mostly not worth the effort. Hispanics have never bought into the whole democracy thing. It will just come down to whether old folks will maintain their support for Trump.
The answer is surely yes. The game is already over. Out smarted by a master manipulator autocrat.
Glad to see you got your cheap shot at the "unworthy poor" (unwilling to work) out in the opening paragraph in order to castigate all progressive legislation. Noticed you didn't mention "willing to sell our election process and overturn the Constitution" in your analysis of the Trump faction.
The current Republican Party and its leaders have twisted until the wold integrity has been wrung out of all policy. The suffering and death in this country caused by a broken health system, gun violence, inequitable judicial system are merely collateral damage necessary to allow the 1% to continue tis climb to obscene wealth.
There is much more in common for the first three groups you mention than I think you realize. Hopefully they will realized that only by working together can we rid our nation of the Trump scourge.
20
Oh con-tare my friend there is no coalition that includes the wealthy to organize with labor to expand the pot. Speaking of Pots I wish someone would fix the pot holes on my street they have been there for a year.
2
Small problem with multiple parties: If no one gets 270 Electoral College votes the House picks the president...oh wait...
3
Maybe we should put down our forks, go outside, and realize there is more to life than pie.
4
@NB "Maybe we should put down our forks, go outside, and realize there is more to life than pie." Exactly! Friedman is clinging to a discredited conservative idea that three of his four "groups" represent, something along the lines of "Work will set you free." Meanwhile, he himself recognizes how tired his thinking is: "Many of the old binary choices simply do not line up with the challenges to workers, communities and companies in this age of accelerating globalization, technology and climate change, but national governments are so paralyzed by partisanship that they can’t adapt. And most families are too weak to manage these forces and pass along the American dream to their kids." Maybe one of the "adaptations" he thinks he wants is exactly what you write--enough with the pie! That's a good reason to be "unwilling" to work in the system as currently configured.
2
We need at least a third party. Because I would probably have to vote for neither Republican nor Democrat in the next election.
Of course, "none of the above" would have won in 2016. That is, 42% of eligible voters simply didn't vote. Many of them were probably turned off by the choice that was offered.
I couldn't vote for Clinton because she seemed to support Gloria Allred who had turned the Cosby trial into a media circus. What was clear was that the media trial was unfair becaue the prosecutor had run for office on the basis of getting a conviction.
I know i am the only person who believes in due process as guaranteed by the constitution. It's what I was taught separates us from the godless communists, who had show trials, with the results guaranteed in advance and publicized by media manipulated by the elite.
So I was probably all alone in my opposition to politicizing the Cosby trial.
But that left me with only one choice, namely Trump. And Trump is dumb as a rock. He may be guilty of collusion. But he's simply not smart enough to understand the notion of collusion.
So having voted for him, I now support his impeachment on the grounds of incompetence. Yet, amazingly that impeachment might not happen.
And that may leave me again with a choice between Trump and an opponent who believes in the Me Too movement, which will put men in jail with no actual trials to determine what happened.
Once again, no real choice. For me, democracy is already dead.
@Jake Wagner Interesting unpacking of the mind of a Trump voter, which I've always been curious about. Thanks.
2
@Allan Dobbins I'm a blue state liberal, but agree that most Trumpers who didn't have the benefit of seeing his pathetic C - list antics on NYC TV for years could see him as a "none of the above" choice, sent to break things and shake it all up. They know he's flawed, but only after two years of constant exposure, have they realized that core competence is lacking. I always say I'd disagree if Jeb! won, but I'd not think the car is being driven by a blind drunk in a raging snowstorm.....
Yes, it seems misogyny trumps everything else for this one. For others, it’s racism and xenophobia.
Geez, Tom. I know it might be tough to get a piece past the editors that doesn’t rip Trump, but you could have tried.
The story IS about what’s happening in the Democrat Party, on the continuum between free markets and socialism. The Republican Party, like it or not, is united in the Trump free market approach that fights for fair trade and pushes allies to contribute more to safe-guarding our system.
3
@KJ mcNichols
Corporate hegemony and international bullying isn't a "win" for the US. You want a thug leading America? Thanks for ruining my country.
1) "...or won't work" - hm...wonder how that did get in? Obviously, they knew it wouldn't fly in that form - vs. saying people who 'won't work' because they're mentally ill...or people who 'won't work' because they're a mother who is forced to fulfill federal work mandates and leave her child in an unsafe situation to get welfare...
2) But actually, I don't care Friedman does or doesn't "buy" - the right wing would be dead set against the GND anyway, and right liberals like Friedman are using a gaffe as an excuse to what they would have rejected anyway.
In other words, both right liberals and the right want it to be a knock out blow. Whereas, in fact, the fate of progressive liberals like AOC will depend on the strength of grassroots movements in response to newly popular progressives policies like healthcare for all.
4
As long as Donald Trump loses in 2020, how the nation gets from Point A to Point B to achieve that result is secondary.
4
Though she promotes policies far more popular with the American public than the neo-liberal market fantasies of this columnist, Ocasio-Cortez is somehow "far left".
It would seem the true extremists in this country don't know themselves for who they are.
9
Friedman’s “complex,adaptive coalitions” sound a lot like David Brooks article about “Weavers”. Brooks got a lot of criticism in responses from readers. Maybe this description will be more palatable. We need solutions and hope.
1
The 2007-2008 financial collapse gave birth to OWS and The Tea Party.
Because President Obama won office, the OWS folks thought they had it made...and largely disbanded into AntiFa groups i Portland, Seattle and in parts...into BLM. They were content knowing 'their guy' was in the White House, only to find out he wasn't 'their guy' at all. The OWS crew didn't even bother to consider that the real power lays in the US Congress and State Houses.
The Democrats serious overreach of power in 2009 in passing ACA in the middle of the night without a single GOP supporting it cost 70 moderate Democrats their carers in Congress and the Tea Party had their chance to insert their influence on governance..even if they had a loud minority within a majority (ask Boehner and Ryan how easy it was to corral this group).
While the Tea Party was flexing its muscles both nationally and at the state level...the OWS morphed into strong AntiFa protestors...all through the 2010-2018 time period. Trump's election (Bernie's Socialist loss) set them afire....and now they're asserting themselves by weaponizing Trump hatred on the far far left to get D's back into power at the state and federal level.
The Democrat Party (Nancy Pelosi specifically) is going to have to learn how to manage these AltLeft radicals in her caucus just as John Boehner was unable to do with the far right wingers in his caucus.
This doesn't create 4 parties; but 2 wings within each of the 2 parties.
It's as simple as that.
1
Actually America has financial security for people unwilling to work. It's called welfare, foodstamps, medicare etc. What Ocasio-Cortez' hair brained proposal should have said "Also for those unwilling to work who are not female as well".
1
@JJ Gross
"Actually America has financial security for people unwilling to work. It's called welfare, foodstamps-"
Nah, that's just a false right wing talking point.
You can't support the claim.
For example - people getting food stamps don't work?:
"The overhwelming majority of food stamp recipients are seniors, people with disabilities, and working families....To receive food stamps you must be poor….and, if possible, you must be working...In 1996, President Clinton and Congress put in place work requirements for unemployed food stamps recipients. Able-bodied adults age 18-59 and without dependents must be working for at least 20 hours a week or engaged in job training, education, or community service for a certain number of hours each week. Otherwise they can only receive food stamps for 3 months in a 3-year period. High unemployment caused this rule to be suspended during the recent economic recession but is now back in place. (It was reinstated in most of Pennsylvania on March 1, 2016.)
https://www.justharvest.org/advocacy/the-truth-about-snap-food-stamps/
1
" ... Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez far left."
From this true blue Democrat: this woman is getting WAY, WAY, WAY more attention than she deserves. She's a first-term Congressperson, for pete's sake!
The GOP has delighted in "playing" the public and a willing media establishment by portraying her as the quintessential Democrat and SHE IS NOT!
Pardon the shouting, but let's get some perspective here ...
8
@akp3
OR rather than her corporate donors, she actually cares about those people she represents, a novel idea don't you think?
“….They’ve actually moved to a totally different grid — one that asks every day on every issue: “What works?”
Yes, independents, by and large, are uninterested in ideologies, in binary or quaternary choices. They are motivated to promote things ‘that work’ on each separate, complex issue, not solutions that hew to ideological cleavage planes. They are bored by the fact that if one claims to be a ‘democrat’ or a ‘republican’, even of the two flavors of each that Friedman posits, there is not much need for further dialogue with such people; independents know where each flavor partisan stands on every issue, be it immigration, free enterprise, taxation, health care, climate, evolution, guns, etc. An independent knows the propaganda sources, right and left, fueling the partisan cleavage and looks on in dismay at the lack of critical, original thinking in these stereotyped ‘tribes’.
It is time for partisan-free candidates, who can approach each issue with a ‘what works’ attitude, not a stereotyped, Pavlovian, knee-jerk talking point agenda provided by their preferred propaganda organisms and outlets.
2
Very thought provoking article.
BUT ... when he's listing his dichotomies, the one that goes "Green vs. Growth" reflects the frequently recurring myopia and blind spots that mar even Mr. Friedman's best columns.
Catchy, glib ... but false! He should know better, he should think harder and write more clearly. Oh yes, and someone should edit, because these gaffes ARE chronic.
And then there's the neat symmetry he's constructed in our 2 major parties. Alas, on the Republican side ... it's almost all in his head. Another Times article yesterday demonstrated that, and while Op-Ed writers aren't "reporters," neither should one expect that their penning fiction!
As for the Democrats, Mr. Friedman talks of "the most unprecedented, unpredictable election in decades" the way sports broadcasters hype a "big game."
Next to nothing by way of support. For all that there was a VERY pronounced fracture line in 2016's Democratic contest, it was well into the 90's (pct) that people who voted Bernie in the primaries voted for Hillary in the general. Arguably, it might have been a lower number had Bernie prevailed.
THAT is NORMAL ... and given what 4 years of Trump have done by way of shredding the "no real difference" argument, it's hard to believe Mr. Friedman believes his own predictions.
Probably best if both the author and his editors enforce "Stick to what you know and understand." He's simply not the "quick study" he may once have been.
1
If Bloomberg was a "grow the pie" Democrat what happen?
Mayor for 12 years, and now both housing and the subway are both collapsing right now.
1
“ America “ is not a state. it is a continent. The USA is the only nation on the planet that has grabbed for itself the identity of an entire continent.
@citizennotconsumer
So why do some in Iran yell "death to America?" They have a vendetta against the continent?
Then again, I do understand the humility of South Africa only claiming a part of a continent especially considering the hubris of Australia!
Friedman should read the paper that is his platform. Being willing to work may not be enough. I refer to the piece headlined " The Hidden Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite. "
@
"In public, many executives wring their hands over the negative consequences that artificial intelligence and automation could have for workers. They take part in panel discussions about building “human-centered A.I.” for the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” — Davos-speak for the corporate adoption of machine learning and other advanced technology — and talk about the need to provide a safety net for people who lose their jobs as a result of automation.
@
"But in private settings, including meetings with the leaders of the many consulting and technology firms whose pop-up storefronts line the Davos Promenade, these executives tell a different story: They are racing to automate their own work forces to stay ahead of the competition, with little regard for the impact on workers."
2
Americans are genuinely caring people who understand and are willing to support their neighbors who are unable to work. We are not willing to support parasites who will not. By adding economic nonsense to the new green deal ,the extreme left has guaranteed less of a buy in by a large portion of Americans. This is a disaster as green technology is our economic and environmental future.
1
@Roger
Really? Then you have no problem in handing out BILLIONS in subsidies every year to the fossil fuel industry that was a large contributor to the pollution problem in the first place!
@Deus I believe you have misunderstood my comment. I support a green plan as do many Americans. I will NOT support parasites unwilling to work!
I wouldn't call Trump's GOP the "far right". "Loony right" is a better term for them.
1
Sounds like a great idea. Would also love to see term limits implemented. Mitch, Chuck, Nancy and a host of others have been around too long. Politics is not a career, its a public service so let's start treating as one.
The sound logic is one of the most important assets in life.
If I am the American citizen, then my capital is the American capital.
It means there is no global capital. If it were, it wouldn’t belong to anybody!
The question is whether the American capital should work on behalf of USA or for the overseas countries like China, India or Pakistan?
1
@Kenan Porobic That sounds like a very protectionist viewpoint. The problem is that protectionist policies have not been good for America. Trade and s necessary and that means a global flow of capital. Americans do make money, even if indirectly, from our trade relationships.
@John
Not really.
That's just the fair and just statement. The trade is just an exchange of the goods.
If one side is selling to the other side a few hundred billion dollars goods without buying anything in return, that's not the trade but just the shopping.
The trade is always balanced.
It means the free trade is just a euphemism for the balanced trade and the shopping spree...
Mr. Friedman is onto something, since the existing two party system has wide ranges of positions within parties that make them less than hospitable for those looking for like minded attitudes and positions. Multiple parties would likely force government by consensus again because one party would have less ability to shutdown causes that the overall public wants. It might also make it more expensive for special interests to buy politicians if it can't just buy key players of the party in power. The founders had initial reservations about political parties in general and had foreseen a lot of the problems that showed up in the last few decades, so another approach might be no political parties at all. Personally, I would rather see that because that would mean Mcconnell would have as much influence as anyone representing Kentucky actually deserves (no slight to residents, just Mitch). It also would be prohibitively expensive for special interests to just slather money around, since they would have to buy a lot more office holders than if the shortcut of taking care of party leaders isn't available. Maybe at that point, officeholders would be working for constituents again.
1
I'd agree America is becoming a four party/ideology state.
Another way of defining the four parties and ideologies is;
1) Left/ Progressive
2) Right/ Conservative
3) Establishment (Left or Right, e.g. Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Never Trump Republicans).
4) Populist/ Anti-Establishment (Left or Right).
Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Trump supporters are Populist and Anti-Establishment. They are also somewhat anti- mainstream media. Both the Democratic and Republican parties couldn't see this coming and were caught off guard.
3
If so, about time!! If there is one thing that the US can learn from the UK and other countries in the E.U. is the power of coalition, made up of political bodies that are forced to work together and compromise.
Now given Washington DC has all about forgotten that compromise exists altogether.
The real beauty of a four diffrent parties is that regardlesss, one will never have the full power (or influence) to do as they please without the consent of the others. This will also allow a mixture of ideas.
If this is is the trend, then by all means, join the modern political age. The GOP and Democrats have passed their time. Two sides of the same coin, owned and controlled by Wall Street.
Perhaps with this change the common citizenry will find their concerns adhered to and more importantly, valued.
3
The US government stands out among other Western democracies with its two-party system, which is arguably a minimal democracy. This state of affairs is encouraged by troublesome aspects of the current political system, such as "winner takes all" elections, but it also results from both political parties using their existing power to stymie political diversity. It would be refreshing to see the wide range of opinions and ideologies of US citizens reflected in a plurality of political parties.
3
What’s missing from this analysis is race and ethnicity. The “far right” faction you defined as Trump supporters aren’t interested in economics. What they want is cultural hegemony. That’s why Trump/McConnell/Ryan got away with the “tax cut.” If you survey the right, you find that many of them—majorities, some times—agree with the AOC wing of the Democratic Party. Even in red states, every time an increase of the minimum wage to $15 per hour has been on the ballot, it’s won. And, if you look at public opinion surveys, overwhelming majorities or pluralities want social security and medicare expanded, the rich taxed at much higher rates, more help for education, more help for the poor (though, oddly, less spent on “welfare”) and guaranteed health care for all.
The good news is that younger Trump voters are far less devoted to cultural issues and are far more tolerant of other races, immigrants and the LGBTQ community than their elders are. Eventually, these young people may make common cause on economic issues with Democrats as their elders die out. Without race and culture as rocket fuel, what’s left is libertarian Reaganism—low federal spending to complement low federal taxes on the rich—and nobody much wants to see that except, perhaps for the politicians who are beholden to monied interests. But, even that has the potential for disappearing as more and more politicians latch onto the Obama/Sanders/O’Rourke model of raising money from small contributions.
2
These divisions (at least with respect to the Democrats) are more a continuum than a division. You put "free community college ..... intentional strategy to more equitably spread the benefits of growth among bosses, workers and shareholders" as goals of the "grow-the-pie" Democrats but they definitely rely on dividing-the-pie too. How are we paying for free community college for all? And doesn't a more equitable spread by definition mean dividing the pie in a different way?
2
@KS I think the last sentence can be interpreted in a dangerous way. An artificial means of dividing the pie that separates work from wage is a terrible precedent to set.
For those of us who no longer can identify with the extremists of the left or right, a splitting up of the two existing parties might offer the hope of a party by which we might feel represented.
6
I believe the "unwilling to work" phrase was trying to capture parents outside of the workforce. If you can't afford childcare at your present wage, you need to stay home with the child. You are therefore able to work in the sense that you are not disabled. However, you are unwilling to work in the sense that you have no economic alternative. A poor choice of words but I can see where they were going.
Setting aside that unfortunate misunderstanding, fighting climate change is a common threat and a common project. A project that will ultimately help restore the middle class. Neoliberals don't like to acknowledge this reality. Tagging progressives as "re-divide-the-pie" is really neoliberals expressing fear over the end of the Reagan era.
"Grow-the-pie" Democrats are really just free-market Republicans with a social conscious and a higher tolerance for direct government spending. Howard Schultz embodies the position more than Joe Biden. Most "grow-the-pie" Democrats just don't like to admit it.
In this case, there are really only 3 parties in America at the moment. We have the hard right led by Trump. We have the traditional FDR left led by Sanders. Then we have everyone leftover from the Reagan era who can't admit they were wrong about a lot of things. Republican or Democrat, the primary distinction is their wardrobe color. Do you prefer a blue tie or a red tie?
Fact of the matter is, if I hear one more word from anyone associated with Clinton or Reagan, I'm not voting.
16
@Andy
"I believe the "unwilling to work" phrase was trying to capture parents outside of the workforce."
Actually, i think she said what she meant was workers who were made obsolete by technology or outsourcing, but didn't want to be retrained to work at the likes of call centers for 1/3 the wage and no bennies.
1
@Andy
"Then we have everyone leftover from the Reagan era who can't admit they were wrong about a lot of things."
So true, and front and center among them is Thomas Friedman.
2
@Andy "you need to stay home with the child"...oh, the horror!
Nonsense.
America is not and never was meant to be democracy. Neither Ancient Athens of Classical Greece nor the modern United Kingdom with a parliamentary democracy represent the political governing nature of America.
America is and always has been a republic of a particular kind. America is a divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states. The only representative that Americans have always directly voted for and elected was their representative in the House of Representatives.
Until the Constitution was amended Senators were elected by state legislatures. Presidents are still elected by the Electoral College. Federal judges are nominated by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate needed for their appointment.
The Founding Fathers feared faction aka partisan political parties. But they assumed that white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men who owned property like themselves would always reign and rule. They were wrong.
And unlike a parliamentary democracy aka the United Kingdom there is no room for more than two partisan political parties in our republic. In a parliamentary democracy the executive and legislative functions are one and the same. Multiple parties are inevitable.
3
@Blackmamba
I believe, going forward, if the country is to survive change in America and the way it is governed is inevitable. If anything, it has now been pretty much confirmed how fragile democracy is especially in a Republic like the United States. The reality is, there is no "fail safe" point for democracy, it has always been based on the goodwill and conscience of those with the power to do the right thing for all of its constituents, not to use it for its own benefit. Unfortunately, that is now exactly what is happening.
What we are clearly seeing now in America is a gradual forty year concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few who consolidate that power through bribery done to serve strictly their interests while gradually dismantling those institutions that protect society as a whole. Clearly, Trump and the majority of the Republican Party look at democracy and the rule of law as a nuisance and something to be disregarded, not respected.
The fracturing and/or the dismantling of the two parties hopefully can morph into another form that represents ALL Americans, not just a few. One thing we do know, the right and and its extreme elements will do anything to prevent that from happening. Theirs is an ideology of the "status quo" and the past,
not the future.
2
@Deus
I hope that you are correct.
But I fear that the fate of the Roman Republic may be our destiny. The Roman Republic had a full time Senate with citizen executives and generals. Julius Caesar and his governing political heirs replaced that with divine emperors and malign generals. Greed and hubris are part of our flawed mortal human nature and nurture.
Rome turned to conquered barbarians for national defense and security. Since 9/11/01 a mere 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to wear the military uniform of any American armed force.
@Blackmamba
Several years ago Isaac Asimov wrote an article about what went wrong with the Roman military system. The Senate tried to cut costs by delaying paying soldiers their rightful wages (think "shutdown") The generals forced the Senate to pay up. To the average soldier, this meant that he owed his loyalty to his general, not the Roman government. Once generals figured this out, they had private armies that could be used to overthrow the government and put themselves in power. starting with Julius Caesar..
From the historic perspective Reagan and Bill Clinton will be remembered as the pair of the most influential presidents in the US history, but they will be remembered as the infamous ones.
Mr. Reagan persuaded us that paying the taxes is optional and that we could put the governmental spending on the credit card and pile up the national debt, thus making permanent separation from the previous American morality.
Bill Clinton signed the law that transformed the capital from being American into the global one, thus dooming us into competing with the Chinese labor.
That action froze or shrank our wages and salaries.
Both political parties are just the elves of the global capital.
I have to admit the personal bias. I never trusted the professional politicians and clergy.
Why would anybody obey the well-paid bureaucrats claiming that without them there would be no faith, freedom, equality, democracy and justice?
Taking all the credits for our God-given rights is just too much for me to swallow...
I admit that Clinton’s actions were dramatically worse than Reagan’s, but I am doing it grudgingly. Why? I owe my life to Bill for getting involved in the Balkan War and preventing Sarajevo from ending up as another Srebrenica.
However, President Reagan had the Alzheimer’s disease as a just reason for his permanent silence after leaving the Oval Office.
What’s Clinton’s excuse for the treacherous behavior after witnessing all those bad consequences?
Where is his mea culpa?
5
@Kenan Porobic
Clearly, if there was one individual and his policies that led to the election of Donald Trump, it was Bill Clinton who, during his two administrations, decided to turn the democratic party to the right and, like Republicans, "sold their soul to the devil" and started collecting corporate campaign dollars. At that point, the democratic party started to ignore its long time constituency, and up until the most recent mid-terms, resulted in a gradual 10 year decline to the brink of extinction.
Any wonder why so many democrats have turned, once again, to the memory of FDR and his policies?
1
@Kenan Porobic
"Mr. Reagan persuaded us that paying the taxes was optional".
It wasn't all Reagan's fault. I was taught in school, long before Reagan, that the American Revolution was justified by "unjust" taxes. Actually most of the taxes went to pay debts incurred by the French and Indian War, from which the colonists had benefited immensely. Nothing unjust about that, but it has left Americans with a hostility to taxation ever since.
@Charlesbalpha
If the Great Britain waged the war, then the entire kingdom should have paid for it, not just the colonists.
It means the colonists didn't objecting paying the taxes, but their taxes ending up in London and royal court...
Does it mean that the colonists didn't believe that the wars and directly related taxes are good for the economy?
It seems they were smarter and better educated that today's Nobel Prize winners in the economic field..
Four parties? Yes, please, if we can diminish the influence and noise coming from the fringes, along with the no compromise partisanship they promote.
1
"Grow-the-pie Democrats know that good jobs don’t come from government or grow on trees"
Is the cop on the corner stopping traffic so school kids can pass doing a good job? Is (s)he reasonably well paid? Do we need hem?
Is the physician at the CDC who is studying the flu virus ao we get a working vaccine doing a good job? Is (s)he reasonably well paid? Do we need hem?
Is the construction worker who is shoring up a creaky bridge on the interstate doing a good job? Is he reasonably well paid? Do we need hem?
Is my daughter who works for the Attorney General of DC thinking of ways to get dead beat dads to pay for the support of their children doing a good job? Is she reasonably well paid? Do we need her?
Are there tons of things that need to be done, or should be done that this country needs that government should do if for no other reason that private businesses will not do?
Let me give an example what private private companies CANNOT do. In colonial Philadephia, when you took out fire insurance, you got a medallion to put on your house. If it caught on fire, the private fire company of your insurance company was supposed to come out, see the correct medallion, and put out the fire. If the fireman of the Green Tree Company came out and saw the medallion of the Penn Mutual Company, they would let it burn to the ground. What do you think of this system, Tom?
Some things like making and selling cars are best done by private companies. Others are best done by government.
296
@Len Charlap
Could not agree more. That sentence stopped me in my tracks. Let's not encourage more talented and creative people to go into government: great idea, Tom, especially with the existential threat of climate change looming upon us. What an idiotic observation and thank you for refuting it so articulately.
36
@Len Charlap
Adam Smith, the supposed inventor of capitalism, acknowledged in his WEALTH OF NATIONS that there were things private enterprise could not do and were the proper province of government. Of course his worshippers tend to ignore that part.
40
@Charlesbalpha
Thank you for mentioning Adam Smith. He would not recognize what Capitalism has become as being modeled on the system that he wrote about in the Wealth of Nations.
Capitalism is as far from what Adam Smith envisioned as Communism is from what Karl Marx had in mind (before he met Engels, and before Communism morphed into what we saw under Stalin et al).
When we talk about Capitalism today, we really are talking about oligopolistic competition in some cases, and monopolies in others.
21
In general, the mainstream media, in this case represented by Tom, is still trying to frame the unfolding drama with goggles built in the 19th century. Having murdered, imprisoned, disenfranchised, and legislated against. union workers, Black and Hispanic Americans, Tom is making the case the the legislative body is fracturing.
The US turned down the chance to evolve many times in the last 150 years. Having designed a system for white Christian mercantilists, the system was never designed to run a modern nation in a global system.
Tom, the day when risk takers are the drivers of the economy are long gone. As Pickett said, it is a rentiers economy, where fat cats with full pockets use the grubbilly accumulated spoils to collect more. Because they are unwilling to work for their money.
Your analysis is steeped in 19th century fallacies. There is no pie. Not for me. I get what’s given to me. Probably a donut. Fried. My heart hates me. Your economics and your politics are using formulas to describe a world that doesn’t exist anymore, if it ever did. Applied properly capitalist economic theory can explain a way to deal with greed. But the legislators all secretly believe that there is moral worth in wealth and make laws that reflect that. Very America. Except recently there has been little polity in the national chambers. One party, two tribes. Really, how long was that going to last. 200 years is nothing
9
The pendulum has swung too far right, now these proposals are swinging too far left. Let's hope voters find a reasonable candidate in a reasonable center.
4
@mzmecz
Fortunately, the pendulum doesn't swing within a fixed path. We're primed and ready for new ideas.
As a younger person, it seems like my parents generation has just lost it. They are retired, and still think the world is economically like it was when they were growing up. And to think they were known for fighting the Vietnam war and burning bras! All I see is that they have nothing to do all day except for listen to Fox News, and wonder why they can't cheat on their taxes or pollute the world a little more before they die.
This 4-party assessment isn't far off. I just see it instead as the continued unraveling of what was a country that had some decorum.
6
Congratulations, Mr. Friedman, you just lost the Millennial generation. Attacking a freshman Representative who clearly expresses the realistic concerns of a generation, larger than the Boomers, that has to live with the globalization you have celebrated is brilliantly short-sighted. And comparing the status of the two parties, when the nationwide GOP itself probably merits RICO indictments, is cognitively dissonant. News flash — you are out of touch with the American people.
15
@Patty
Realistic? Are you unwilling to work?
@Patty
Also Mr. Friedman's fantasy of a person working full time in a steel mill and then having the energy to work another job driving for Uber is perhaps a good indication that Mr. Friedman has never worked in a steel mill . . . .
1
Well, real Pro-Lifers should start their own party and break wuih the anti-life policies of Trump and the Republicans. This party should support appropriate help for the children who are born, especially the poor children and their mothers and families. And oppose Republican fondness for war, environmental destruction, deliberate starving of the government by huge tax breaks for the rich who don't in reality use their money for investing in job creation, capital punishment, and denial of health care to the sick, even to the point of death. Oh well, that will never happen. The males running the so-called Pro-Life movement want their lust for power satisfied and the well off well taken care of.
4
These are genuinely self-indulgent musings. First of all, the far right and the far-left could easily become aligned into one voting block, by the right far left candidate. Second of all, you make an unnecessary distinction between redivide the pie or grow the pie. Why not both? In precluding for only 2 possibilities your argument reads as nothing beyond self-indulgent and completely un-nuanced. You are also missing the glaring point that our entrepreneurial system is broken, by what you call grow-the-pie Democrats. The only people who can afford to start businesses or be in the business of innovation are wealthy people with fairly parochial goals and fairly limited capacities to innovate. Very seldom do scientists start companies, because they simply cannot afford it. The only people who get VC financing are people who do not care about the collective good and only care about products that increase inequality. They are not necessarily growing the pie. The better analogy is that they are cutting the pie and throwing half of it against a wall so it looks like it is growing, but you can only say its growing if you admit that the pie is broken and the distance between the pie isn’t the actual size of the pie. The growing part is an illusion, and for you to preclude a growing pie just because it is redivided only highlights your biases and lack of imagination.
4
The problem in our country right now is that extremists on both sides are calling the shots and the right wing on the Republican side falsely believes that the majority of Americans support their agenda and that their policies and agenda is what's best for America and the left wing or so called progressives in the Democratic Party are even more insistent in the fallacy that the majority of Americans support their positions.Both are totally incorrect.
The American public is in the middle and that is where the 2020 election will be won. It won't be won by Trump appealing to his never ending bigotry towards immigrants, Hispanics, African Americans, Jews, and Muslims and it won't be won on the Democratic side by people insisting on taxing millionaires 80% of their income, decimating the defense budget, and trying to ram thru an agenda that only a minority of the American people support.
Try telling either side that the positions they are taking are alienating a substantial part of the electorate and they will tune you out. The rabid Trump supporters and the rabid Sanders supporters both dwell in a fantasy where they know what's best for America when both of their solutions would cause much more harm then good.
We cannot allow the extremists on either side continue to monopolize the debate. We must try and come together for the future our country with common sense solutions and end the incivility and increase in intolerance and bigotry the madman in the White House has caused.
2
You should do your homework before you pop off. Nobody is talking about taxing 80% of anyone’s income. The proposal is that the top tax rate should apply to earnings above something like $5 million. The military budget is already bloated, defies audit, and doesn’t address the kinds of cyber threats we now face. And before you use your own values in drawing conclusions about what others will support, you ought to look at some public opinion polls. They show that among the people, there is a broad economic consensus that leans more toward AOC and her views than to Trump or McConnell.
1
Nice essay with interesting arguments......but....does anyone really believe the moneyed interests will allow a change in the status quo? Especially now that “corporations are people too, my friend”?
4
In federal politics with its current binary (not parliamentary) system there are four political parties. They are the 1) Republicans, 2) Democrats, 3) Left wing Splitters funded by the right and 4) Right Wing Splitters funded by the left. Now that Citizens United has taken away political spending limits, the 1% dominates this game of paying your political opponents to steal votes from your other political opponents, meaning Left Wing Splitters are a potent political force in this country and Right Wing Splitters not so much. A single gazillionaire can fund the campaign of someone whose only job is to make sure that the Democrat's votes are split between two candidates. And that gazillionaire can be a foreign citizen. This is why Citizens United is so toxic to our democracy. We have entered a Brave New World in which candidates have to fear the wrath of foreign superpowers----meaning if Putin does not like Clinton because she kept objecting to his military aggressions, he can pay someone to split her votes.
1
We need an independent president that has no party affiliation to break the dysfunction in our government. The two party system does not work anymore as they only work against each other and put the county’s interest last
Pure definition of insanity
2
Think about the unintended consequences. Instead of just Mitch McConnell aiming to make the third party president a one termer, you’d have both McConnell and Schumer aiming for the same goal.
The right did not increase it's hold until it had a higher profile far right fringe. It's only logical that the proven method would be used by its opponents. Hunkering down and keeping it's head down did little for the democratic party but cede ground. Only until progressives and the further left would finally not be shut up by the mainstream has there been any movement of the needle from now corrupt far right back to the middle. It's only shocking to Friedman because during the slide right, the middle moved. What could not be considered even ten years ago, like medicare for all, IS the middle for a wised-up population by the slide right. Get Woke, Friedman.
2
"Grow the pie Democrats" are really just new versions of "Pie in the sky Republicans", selling trickle down economics. The problem is that this hasn't worked for most Americans, only the 1% and Corporate America. Allowing wealth to be accumulated by a handful of people/entities may "grow the pie", but if that pie isn't shared, people starve. This is exactly what we've seen for almost 40 years.
And Mr. Friedman, you're being disingenuous to seize on what amounts to a typo to discredit the otherwise common sense approach to not only solving this four decade assault on the working and middle class, but also solving the boom & bust cycle of the economy over that time span. You betray your conservative roots, and cast doubt on your impartiality.
Sadly we can't really have more than the two parties that have abjectly failed America unless we make some foundational changes to our system. Going to some type of parliamentary system that supports multiple parties, and the forming of coalitions to gain majorities would promote compromise and democracy, rather than the two-party system that breeds "Us vs. Them" stalemates.
Our system has been broken, and undermined by foreign interference, and unless we take some drastic measures, we may soon lose any choice beyond what our "Dear Leader" allows.
4
America is waking up to the fact that while we aspire to be a democratic nation, we remain a long way from fulfilling that aspiration.
We are the only western nation that does not elect its president by popular vote.
Our bi-cameral legislature allows states with 20% of the population to outvote states with 60%.
Our Supreme Court has legalized corruption in the name of $free speech$.
Federal judges are chosen for their predisposition to decide certain cases a certain way. So much for the rule of law.
And our two parties do agree on one thing. That is they both indeed to rigidly maintain their monopoly over the entire political process.
This is why we have one of the lowest voter turnout rates for presidential and congressional elections.
The entire system is broken and yes, we need a series of constitutional amendments to fix it. And guess who controls that process?
We would be better off as a nation under a parliamentary system where political parties actually stood for something and where forming a governing coalition required compromise.
Right now we have a "winner take all" system and we the people are the losers.
4
"What if I am a steelworker in Pittsburgh and in the union, but on weekends I drive for Uber and rent out my kid’s spare bedroom on Airbnb?"
Thomas, if you are a steelworker in Pittsburgh and in the union, on weekends, you rest and you spend time with your friends and family. That's the way it should be and if it is, all the labor fights for the past century have been for nothing.
8
Unfortunately, that's too many words for a bumper sticker.
1
This is way too fast. One silly phrase from the far-left of the centre-left gets the Republicans and centrist Democrats off the hook for turning the US into a disgrace and an embarrassment? I don't think so.
Given that the government in question is the government of the United States and a democracy, historians of the future will marvel that no Americans who sung the praises of "limited government", in recent decades, were accused of being an enemy of the United States and democracy. They will wonder, too, how they avoided the accusation of sociopathy.
"Re-dividing the pie" is the point of having a progressive side of politics, and hence, being a democracy, for those who are slow. Stagnant real wages for the majority of Americans for decades suggests there's been precious little of it. Being the only wealthy country without universal health care and paid paternity leave has also got to hurt. Far too many American pundits - it seems to me - have bought the line, that stress motivates working people to improve their lot by becoming entrepreneurial, rather than developing an opioid habit or sticking a gun barrel in their mouth. Shame on them.
Ideally both sides of politics should be for both "growing the pie" and "re-dividing" it, with greater emphasis on each side for one or the other only. The wise know that the re-dividing the pie grows it. All benefit from public investment in mass transit. Today's child saved by "Medicare for All" could be tomorrow's tech genius.
5
Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution of the United States. Many of the founders were against the formation and influence of political parties. Today we’ve virtually codified a two party system and granted Super First Amendment rights to political parties, PACs, and corporations—all of which are considered “legal persons”.
Candidates today require huge amounts of money and the primary way that candidates get money for a campaign is through one of the two morally bankrupt political parties. Parties in turn rely on corporations and special interests to fill their coffers. Americans need to insist that we reduce the influences of all of these groups and publicly fund national elections. It is government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” It was never intended nor should it be government “of the dollar, by the dollar, and for the dollar.” I fear nothing will change until we figure out how to solve the funding problems.
I am encouraged to know that local and state governments are starting to lead the way. Congratulations to Virginia for getting it right!
In China, there is one main party. It controls the government constitutionally. It is efficient at developing the economy and infrastructure investment and quality far exceeds what we have in the US these days. The party is not so good at honoring human and individual rights, but then again, how good are either of the main parties in the US these days. What kind of America do we want?
Yes! This article perfectly captures how I feel. I would be Republican, but I can't stand the Republican pandering to religious fanatics and misogynists. Guess I can't be Republican.
I used to be Democrat, but these days I feel alienated by the Democrats. Giving money to people who don't want to work is offensive, as is the constant vilifying of white people by liberals. Guess I can't be Democrat. Why even vote anymore? Too many fanatics on both side.
That said, if Michael Bloomberg or any other grow-the-pie Democrat runs, I'll definitely vote for him or her (unless he/she plays up the identity politics). If a strong grow-the-pie Democrat runs in 2020, I'll vote for him/her. Otherwise, I'll just stay home.
2
Since when do good jobs not come from government?
2
While the democratic primary battle will be bloody, ultimately there will be one D candidate. And while many Republicans cannot stomach Trump, ultimately he will be the candidate. We haven't reached the point where a third party candidate is viable. Most importantly, economic issues will not dictate the outcome of the election. America's voters, particularly Republican voters, are obsessed with social issues. Candidates stances on the economy, or taxation, or anything else other than race, religion, immigration, LGBTQ rights and the environments (which somehow has become a religious issue) are irrelevant. We can only hope, as you have called for in the past, that enough voters recognize the overwhelming need to replace the egomaniacal, unintelligent, uneducated and irresponsible person currently leading America.
1
Ah, Amazon and their great-paying jobs. Yes, I lived in Seattle, so I've seen it. Such well-paid young folk. Well taken care of, they are. But, um, what about the 'People'? The Americans of little pay jobs and no real chance. How long can we applaud the rich? How long can we ignore inequality and want? We get Trump for all the wrong reasons, for all our avarice, led from the top. The Christians voting for Caesar. Money is our madness: that's the party, and that party's burning everything down to the ground.
3
Lazy thinking by Friedman.
The idea that the fraudulent finance heavy capitalism pushed by neoliberals since Reagan, that has systematically under-invested in human capital is the way to "grow-the-pie" is utterly bogus.
"Who’s going to sign up for new taxes to support people unwilling to work or be retrained?"
I am. Advanced societies should tax capital intensive technologies to provide some kind of universal basic income to all, including those unwilling to work.
2
"Grow the pie" and "Divide the pie more fairly" are not opposites, not logically incompatible. You don't have to pick.
In fact they can be mutually reinforcing. I hope Democrat leaders realise this, and are able to explain it effectively to the American public.
Trump, an extremist incompetent bankrupt who hasn't delivered a thing on the infrastructure, education, and health care promises he made.
Ocasio-Cortez, an overly optimistic newcomer who is good with talk, like Trump, has a 'Green New Deal' that she doesn't have a clue how to implement. Somehow her 'we' are going to take over all aspects of a complex society and a bunch of political dweebs are going to run all the complex systems better than people who have spent years learning them. This should work out about as well as Maduro's political appointees running Venezuela's oil companies.
America does not need nutters on the right or the left. We need strong, intelligent, compassionate leaders who know that the center of the curve is the peak, and will take a center road that actually goes somewhere and not off into a ditch, right or left.
4
@Paul
"Ocasio-Cortez, an overly optimistic newcomer who is good with talk,"
Not that good, since a single foolish phrase about "unwilling to work" got her a lot of trouble.
As with many ideas, the left has been trying to get the attention of the political world in facing the accelerating crisis of climate destruction. There is absolutely no way the the massive fires in the west, the ravages of hurricanes Maria and others, and the humid and murky killer summer, all of 2018, were not letting us know that the planet is in deep trouble.
Our economy will continue to deteriorate, while other countries move into the sustainability forefront, until we eliminate the ignorant, anti-science bias of Trump and his Republican sycophants. It is time to understand that the existential issue of our lifetimes is turning the climate ship around- and we all have a role to play.
1
All of you commenters who are defending Representative Ocasa Cortez are the ones who are going to throw the next election to Donald Trump . Frankly, she and the left wing of the party are scary to even lifelong Democrat like myself .The most important thing for the country is defeat this
dangerous autocrat. But many of you will insist on an agenda that is unpopular with the majority of Americans. Of the declared Dem.candidates only Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar can win.
3
Democrats, liberals, progressives and other anti-Trump, anti-Republican voters need to coalesce behind the Democratic nominee - it's the only way to guarantee the end of Trump. Any other scheme of third parties and splitting parties only works to the benefit of Trump and his Republican lackeys. While those on the left will look to Friedman's ideas of party spitting with innocent interest, Republicans will wisely stick to the program and in a cold and calculated reject it out of hand. Trump proves that Republicans at the end of the day will do or say anything to retain power.
One of the Republicans most successful tactics is exacerbating the divide between the Hillary and Bernie factions. The next time you feel like you are being savagely attacked by someone claiming to be on the left, realize it's a Republican playing divide and conquer.
If only those of us left of center on the political spectrum would just unite behind reasonable left of center candidates we would easily win elections.
1
America may or may not become four party state, but it certainly has already become an international disgrace under its present administration.
3
At least AOC can't run for president in 2020. Will the media infatuation with AOC last that long or will it moved on to someone else by then?
All of what Mr. Friedman says is interesting, but I have one question. Whether the FAQ was a draft or not, rather than rage about the “unwilling to work“ comment, Mr. Friedman should have found out what that was supposed to have meant.
1
I think Friedman correctly describes the splits that have grown recently in both parties. He is very generous and kind in his description of the 2 Democrat factions. Whereas, his contempt for both Republican factions is amply displayed. I am sure that plays well with the vast majority of the Times' readers, but it also reveals a lack of objectivity in an analysis of political dynamics such as this one.
On the other hand, I think his "complex adaptive coalitions" is a bunch of Pollyanna, almost utopian, mental meandering. He is much too infatuated with the name he coined for it. So impressed with himself for creating the concept, he seems to be trying to will it into existence. But he is not doing what he claims, which is describing what now is.
But his initial point about both parties splitting into 2 factions is accurate. Perhaps there really is a path to the White House for Howard Schultz or someone like him by appealing to both the traditional Democrat faction and the traditional Republican faction.
1
Three words: Ranked Choice Voting.
3
Great article.
These fractures are necessary, and long overdue. Both parties have allowed the extremist fringe to dictate their agendas and look at the mess they've made. I haven't seen our country so divided since the Tastes Great vs Less Filling debate of the late 80s.
Grow-the-pie Democrats and Republicans can compromise. Redivide and Hoard-the-pie types are diametrically opposed. If either side wins, half the country ends up disenfranchised, and that's how we wind up with another Donald Trump a few miles down the road.
The radicalism and inflexibility of the far left and right divided our country, now the majority of Americans should unite under the banner of their marginalization.
The only loser under a grow-the-pie president is the corrupt duopoly.
1
Parents of sick children are unwilling to work-but they do.
Children of sick parents are unwilling to work-but they do.
I don't have any problem paying my taxes so the government can help support these people and others.
Mr. Friedman, the real world is much bigger than the quips you keep being able to fit inside your aloof column.
And once again your analyses mixes fantasy with reality in ways that are dismaying. To wit: In elections every party dollar is doled out to the loyal, and after the elections, every committee appointment is doled out to the loyal. This next election will be exactly the same as every other one, notwithstanding the people involved, and their views of the world.
3
He hasn't been to Pittsburgh recently.
2
The last election in which the US was a four party state was just before the Civil War.
1
There is only one compelling statistic in our madness - 90% of Republicans approve of Trump's policies. These policies include promiscuous deregulation of financial markets and environmental laws, a huge unfunded tax cut for corporations which exploded the debt, a go it alone foreign policy that has alienated all of our allies and a packing of courts with partisan far right hacks. His policies border on nihilism and are wildly popular among the unwashed. We focus on his vile character and obnoxious personality at our peril.
As for the G.O.P., it’s divided between a “limited-government-grow-the-pie” right — but one that wants to just let capitalism rip — and a “hoard-the-pie, pull-up-the-drawbridge” Trump-led far right.
Except Trump is no part of the far right?
Trump is not really even part of the Republican party. He did use their structure in the Primary (with his money), but that is about the extent of it. Trump is no more a Republican than Bernie is a Democrat.
1
Is America Becoming a Four-Party State?
No. Next question.
1
The dichotomy between “grow-the-pie” and “redivide-the-pie” Democrats is overstated. It is perfectly possible for the pie to keep growing without the vast majority of the increase in the size of the pie going to a small minority. That is what was happening up until about 1980, as various commentators have pointed out many times.
198
@Eric Latimer
Alas, the plans of the new democratic socialist making waves in the Democratic Party will not grow the pie.
1
@Eric Latimer
And there is growing evidence that the pie grows more slowly when the small minority gets a much larger share. Funny thing - the ultra-rich don't spend their money buying stuff that the working class produces.
5
@Eric Latimer
The pie growing has not been a problem since WWII. From 1945 to 1972 GNP went up 100% and the median wage went up with it.
Since 72 the GNP has gone up another 150% but the median wage has been flat. (Scroll down to the 2nd Graph of this EPI study @ https://goo.gl/w2btYa).
That 47 years and counting flat median wage IS THE PROBLEM.
It’s difficult to believe Mr. Friedman didn’t know that.
All that growth has gone to the 1% for 47+ years. That trend isn’t possible w/out complicity from elites in both parties - one would assume they all are on the take (i.e. they are benefitting). Which explains the revolt from both parties’ bases.
So that whole grow the pie analysis is bunk and has to be thrown out.
Mr. Friedman is a left of center elite. He ignored the flat median wage issue and through in all kinds of cockamany carbon fiber that sure to coddle the hearts of the 1%.
The real issue is distribution of bargaining power. The US is based upon free contract, and so bargaining power is everything. The GOP & their NeoLib Dem Elites have systematically undermined the agency of other groups bargaining power (unions=>Worker, Afford Ed=>MidClass, ACORN=>VeryPoor) while enhancing the agency for the rich (Corporations, collective ownership w/ Ltd liability, 80% owned by 1%, see Citizens United).
The solution aint wealth redistribution, its bargaining power redistribution. Funny how left-of-center-elite Mr. Friedman doesn’t address that kind of analysis.
4
Four parties? If you watched the Republican primaries in 2016, every single candidate got behind tax cuts for the wealthy, denied climate change and refused to uphold Obamacare. When push comes to shove, the party unites behind Trump. There is no alternative. It has been reduced to a hard-right faction that doesn’t believe in the rule of law, democratic norms or traditions, and is bent on proving that government is bad through its malicious stewardship. The Democrats all, more or less, believe in the same thing but disagree on how to get there. Should we fix Obamacare or fully embrace Medicare for all? Bernie Bros call Pelosi a corporate Democrat. We should fight inequality; the disagreement is over whether the party should tax the rich at 70% or finagle with the capital gains rate. I could go on. Dems are just an unorganized collection of progressive interests, while being a Republican requires blind fidelity to extremism.
135
@AlNewman
I totally agree with you.
Democratic candidates dare to have differing views from each other because they know that they will not be tarred and feathered.
People call it a splintered Democratic party but that ignores the reality that no one person has an answer to all the problems that America faces and it is far better to discuss this in public. Democrats are proud to air their diverse views.
Unfortunately Republicans have been hijacked by no-more-taxes- but-increase services and benefits voodoo economists. They cannot be taken seriously.
I think Friedman wants to maintain "balance", that discredited idea that a journalist must say something positive about each side, no matter how sclerosed one party is.
12
@AlNewman
"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat."
Will Rodgers
9
@AlNewman
I was thinking along the same lines. Democrats will fight and then go pout if their preferred candidate does not prevail, Republicans will make a lot of noise and then fall in line as a single-minded bloc because they hate Democrats and progressives more than they love any single GOP candidate.
If both parties fragment, as Friedman suggests, this will favor the GOP since their voters will hold their noses and vote for any candidate they are offered ( Just think of Roy Moore) while democrats will stay home or cast protest votes for candidates with no chance of winning just to poke the "establishment" in the eye.
5
The answer is "No" - a clear resounding "No!". We live in a 2 party system which does not change - no matter the fractures within the 2 parties. If we had a parliamentary system, which I think would be a great improvement over the system we've got, then we could have the 4 parties, and a real variety of explicit ideological representation.
@Joe Runciter
The American electorate is not intelligent enough to want or to manage a parliamentary system.
@arp
Lately there is some question in this regard with the UK electorate also.
The headline - and the underlying four party contruct- is a misnomer. There is no “Old GOP Center Right” anymore. Almost every former “Liberal Republican” has been purged from the party, and can be found among the approx. 40% of voters who identify as “Independents “.
138
Maybe it's time for Independents to get off the fence and form at least one new party, run candidates. We need to reinvigorate our democratic process.
3
"Unwilling to work" may be an unfortunate phrase, but when said in the context of "guaranteed annual income" or its euphemisms, it begins to make sense. The gigantic issues before us are technological and sociological: Millions of jobs are going to disappear and it will soon be necessary to disconnect income from work.
A lesser problem which we are yet unable to address is the need to disconnect health insurance from work because fewer people receive health care through life-long employment with a company, and many never had it. The entire social safety net needs to be revisioned and reconstructed.
2
To fight partisan gridlock, more political parties = MORE COOPERATION, not less. Having to form coalitions is the key, as you must be constantly reaching across the aisle to woo votes to your arguments. It is easy to thoroughly corrupt TWO parties, but not 10 or 20 specialized groups with very different, avid constituents. Some may be 'single issue' parties like the Greens or Libertarians, but by an large everyone would have to start talking TO each other and sell their proposals with logic and facts instead of posturing to a base. More parties, open primaries, term limits and public election financing will bring us back from the zombie show that is our current Congress. More ideas, more points of view, more constituents represented, more horsetrading and less posturing will bring our democracy closer to the vision of our founding fathers. One only has to see the raucous, loud, passionate but effective Parliamentary debating system that funnels most legislation toward the middle and isolates the extremes.
1
Building a new foundation for the middle class and not going the way of the government providing income for no work requires the workers to be looked at as an important part of the process. When you are looked at as expendable and as a drag on profits, what do expect people to do in response? When Amazon is looked at as the community savior when the existing residents of that area are viewed as expendable and not deserving of a seat at the negotiating table, what do expect them to do in response? When the party in power is , above all, trying to prevent the demographic shift away from being white and male, what do you expect the rest of society to do in response? When regulation is viewed as entirely bad at the expense of the people and the environment, what do you expect people to do in response? In all of these areas when the one common theme is the concerns of those on one side are ignored and they are not offered a seat at the table, what do you think will happen? You can have all the best ideas and all the common projects you want, but if those being impacted are not all respected, welcomed, and included and their concerns and needs written out of the equation, expect conditions to remain exactly as they are today.
1
Yes, the "good old days" when we had two political parties - with one generally serving the interests of labor, the other of capital, one generally open to new ideas, the other generally closed to them are gone. And they are not coming back.
Friedman lays out a landscape of where we are as a nation, an electorate in trying to figure out new choices of what "works." The problem is, how many of us, how many voters, have really thought through choices. Certainly, the 2016 election was decided not on a range of thought through choices but a range of fierce and often cruel emotions.
In any event, there is no way we are going to have four parties qualifying in enough states for any one to come up a winner in 2020. The two basic parties will have to fight it out internally and field two candidates who espouse whatever new and old ideas each has mixed together.
The one central goal in the 2020 election process ought to be, must be to rid us of Donald J Trump and his merry band of enablers.
And take it from there.
1
In re to "unwilling to work."
There are many people in our country that can not afford to work. The costs (provision of child care, transportation fees, loss of health care supplementation, etc.) are simply greater than the benefits (as little as $7.25/hr., depending on state of residence). These people are, consequentially, "unwilling to work," because it does not benefit them. These should be the first people that come to mind when you say "Inequality is too great now. There are too many people too far behind." Instead you are casting them aside. Shame on you.
4
Great names for the new 4 parties. There is one party that was not mentioned: The" never voted and don't care" party. This fifth party represents way too many people but has not influence in anything.
The four or N party system would have a tough time getting traction merely because so much of our political and voting infrastructure is aimed almost exclusively at handling only two parties.
Friedman, who has long been a Neoliberal Democrat, provides a description of progressives that makes us sound unintelligent, stifling, and too extreme. Then he paints the center left as the only faction that really promotes business, and as the solution to our ills, failing to acknowledge that the Democratic centrists’ policies failed to support the poor and that the solutions he is now proposing are the very forces that created the problems to begin with: neoliberal capitalism.
By contrast, progressives are not stupid and do not want to stifle business - we just want more infrastructural support for those currently exploited by the system. This is not redistribution - it’s using government to support people who, despite their hard work, are punished by the system. This can work in tandem with the coalition-building Friedman proposed.
164
@JS27 Yeah, just like he promoted the Iraq war and more recently identified Saudi Arabia's prince as a proponent of an "Arab Spring"
3
The pie growing has not been a problem since WWII. From 1945 to 1972 GNP went up 100% and the median wage went up with it.
Since 72 the GNP has gone up another 150% but the median wage has been flat. (Scroll down to the 2nd Graph of this EPI study @ https://goo.gl/w2btYa).
That 47+ years flat median wage IS THE PROBLEM.
It’s difficult to believe Friedman doesn’t know this. It makes this piece look like deliberate deception.
All that growth has gone to the 1% for 47+ years. That isn’t possible w/out complicity from elites in both parties - Which explains the revolt from both parties’ bases.
So that whole grow the pie analysis is bunk & should be thrown out.
Mr. Friedman is a left of center elite. He ignored the flat median wage issue & threw in all kinds of cockamany carbon fiber thats sure to coddle the hearts of the 1%.
The real issue is distribution of bargaining power. The US is based upon free contract, and so bargaining power is everything.
The GOP & their NeoLib Dem Elites have systematically undermined the agency of other groups bargaining power (unions=>Worker, Afford Ed=>MidClass, ACORN=>VeryPoor) while enhancing the agency for the rich (Corporations, collective ownership w/ Ltd liability, 80% owned by 1%, see Citizens United).
The solution aint wealth redistribution, its bargaining power redistribution - which implies exchange of labor or value, so that no-work stuff was just a bunch of fear mongering from a left-of-center elite.
4
Here is what Tom ignores. There are facts, data, history, reality. Many people thru ignorance, a fanatical belief in some ideology or plain mendacity, ignore these.
For example, Mike Bloomberg says MFA "would bankrupt us for a very long time"
1. Since the federal gov thru the FED can create as much money as it needs out of thin air, it can never go bankrupt.
2. Just to our north there is a country that uses MFA and not only is is not bankrupt, but it provides better health care for ALL of it people at at a cost less than HALF per person of what we pay.
What Tom fails to realize is that the policies what he calls Redivide-the-pie are exactly the ones necessary to GROW THE PIE.
Look at post WWII. The policies we followed then were the policies the AOC's of the time wanted--very high tax rates on the Rich, huge expenditures for government projects (think interstate highways), strong support for unions, the start of government health insurance (Medicare), lots of government jobs, etc., etc., etc. Inequality was very low. What happened?
GDP growth averaged 3.8% and real median household income surged 74% in the Great Prosperity of 1946 - 1973.
Since 1973, we tried the Grow the pie theory. What happened was the evisceration of the middle class and the increase of the poor. It turned out that a rising tide did not lift all ships, only the yachts.
5
I have a psychological explanation for why the traditional parties are fracturing in this way - I will call it faith in the future (or lack thereof). The centrists of both parties think that the economy of the future will work much like today's economy. These are the folks who say "with the advent of the automobile, some people worried about all the jobs lost by buggy whip manufacturers, but look at all the jobs created by the new auto industry". Whether on the left or the right, they think all we need are tweaks to solve the challenges facing us.
The extremists believe in a radical transformation of the earth this century - not enough resources to go around due to population growth; tremendous job loss due to automation of manual and mental labor; mass migration due to hundreds of millions of climate refugees. The response on the right is to fortify our borders, and at all costs not to share our dwindling wealth. The response on the left is to try to imagine a radical restructuring of society to cope with the challenges ahead. Hence the idea that scarce jobs should be allocated to those who want to work.
I think that work is essential to personal well-being, so I don't like this particular proposal, but I find myself falling into the camp of those who believe we are facing a "singularity" sometime in the next 80 years, when the old rules will have to be rewritten for humans to survive.
4
Reagan laid the groundwork to over 30 years of conservative destruction of American institutions. Instead of growing the pie or divide the pie. The far left is tired of playing a game of pick up ball with no referees, while the far right is busy firing all the referees and closing the schools that educate them. The rest are stuck in the middle, trying to figure out where the free throw and 3 point lines are located, since no one has the will or authority or strength to make the decision.
3
Nobody on the business side cares what happens to people left behind by automation and globalization if they make more money.
Too many liberals dismiss people left behind if they are also white, rural, and conservative.
The left behinds are not going to go gently into that good night. Abd the people who've ignored them are not going to be happy about it.
2
I’ve long been appreciative of Tom Friedman’s views on “third ways” and now I guess “fourth ways”. But right now we need to deal with a harsh reality – the vast majority of republicans, of all shades, still support a man who is morally unfit to lead our country. That he was elected in the first place was evidence enough that the problem is not finding common, middle, or new ground. The problem is that we have a morally bankrupt party and an insidious right-wing media vehicle to peddle their lies in order to play on the fears of millions of Americans. We need a unified effort to combat this danger to our democracy, and musing about a potential spectrum of political parties is detrimental to meeting this challenge.
4
Unwilling to work? How disappointing to see that in the progressive platform. I've been "unwilling to work" since I graduated from college 30 years ago, but nobody handed me a free ride or paid my rent, so work I must. I am a progressive democrat and I support the Green New Deal, but it is just wrong to support people who are unwilling to do anything to take care of themselves. Caring for people who CAN'T care for themselves, on the other hand, is a completely different ballgame. Do your best, and if you need a hand we'll be there to help, but if you're lazy and just don't feel like getting up in the morning, well, you can always dumpster dive for scraps.
1
@Blinky McGee the "unwilling" line was struck from the final draft of the GND proposal. Sometimes bad stuff gets into the meat grinder before it becomes sausage.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ocasio-cortez-aoc-green-new-deal-controversy-unwilling-to-work-line-faq-2019-2
2
False dichotomy, Tom, and it's not binary on the left side of the spectrum. Growing the pie and reallocating it are not exclusive. The policies that are developing from the left, including the wealth tax, higher estate taxes, and larger high-income rates, will put money into circulation that is currently stagnant or wasteful.
5
Of course the line between "unable" and "unwilling" if drawn by someone like Bernie, AOC or their friends is really not meaningful. She can backtrack on 'unwilling' but it is meaningless and only semantics, the people covered will be the same.
2
@John
Perhaps she is thinking of a future where, because of A. I. and automation, there simply are no jobs for millions of people?
Seeing the radical right win on thin margins, sometimes even losing margins, by weaponizing the gerrymander and safe districts has energized the left. If the right can do it, why can't the left?
One answer is that Americans fall more conservative than they do leftist. We are the nation that in the 30s figured out how to maintain the status quo through government intervention, while Europe split into leftists and fascists, to the detriment of western civilization.
We need to grow the pie, and we need to set the rules so that the pie is split more evenly. People need healthcare, and some sort of job security - the ability to work, the opportunity to work. And that opportunity doesn't exist if you are asking out of work New Yorkers to flock to farms in California, or asking people jettisoned from corporate desk jobs for hitting age 50 to unload trucks. They don't have the resources to move or the backs to break. Work has to match the population.
But if it comes to only redistribution, the country will balk. And if it comes to only chicken-in-pot politics - free healthcare, free college, free everything - the center, people like me, will balk. We learned well that there is no such thing as a free lunch; someone has to pay. And we have also learned well that usually that someone is "me" not "them" regardless of who you define as "them."
2
"Many of the old binary choices simply do not line up with the challenges to workers, communities and companies in this age of accelerating globalization, technology and climate change, but national governments are so paralyzed by partisanship that they can’t adapt. "
This points out that you see part of the problem at least Mr. Friedman. Estimates from within the industry point to up to 40% of jobs, all jobs, will be animated within 15 years. If turned out to be accurate, then having a job will be a luxury that almost half of us will not enjoy. The only way that the wheels of your lovely capitalism keep turning is a citizen wage. Otherwise, who is going to buy all the needless junk those fantastic robotic factories spew out into our stores and malls? At that point I don't think it will matte much if you are willing to work or able to work. If you have a job, you will be one of the lucky ones.
5
I believe in a flat tax rate for everyone except the poor (tax free) and tax incentives for individual and corporate behavior toward a greater good.
Yet, I also believe that there are certain necessities of life that no one should be denied even if they are “unwilling” to work; and they are food, shelter and emergency healthcare.
A society that is fair to everyone, encourages desirable behavior, punishes undesirable behavior, and ensures that everyone has the basic necessities of life.
What’s wrong with that?
3
I believe we always have been a 4 party state, but now the divisions are becoming too great. Some of us tried to create the Whig Party to hold the center but there is no drive for a center party and maybe that isn't possible. We want to be Something, not in a state of suspended animation. We want our point of view represented, not melded into the larger whole. It is deconstructing Nationhood. There is a carful balance in statecraft to maintaining diversity and still coelessing on a common group of principals. We seem to have lost that as a Country. Maybe 4 parties will help, but it will destroy how the legislature works.
@Anthony Mazzucca The legislature hasn't "worked" since Citizens United, as bills are written and sponsored by industry lobbyists and ushered to the floor of Congress without being read by the legislators, who are just errand boys for the multi-nationals.
I certainly hope the U.S. breaks into 4 or more parties. You see this in European countries, where views are more widely represented.
I worry, though, that the 2-party system is too embedded in our country's psyche and its systems. I was recently at the Pennsylvania house, and I saw the desks inside the house chambers. Each desk had only 2 voting buttons: "D" and "R." No room for anything else, no other option, except to abstain.
2
What we really need is a truly ecological party that could easily do two things at once: SHRINK the pie and divide it up more equitably. The younger generation might think of themselves as radical, but they’re still caught up in the old growth mania. What is needed is for the country as a whole to decide it can live on LESS. Then it must figure out how everyone can get enough even with this smaller pie. Neither of these two things is difficult. Perpetual growth is impossible. The only thing that grows for growth's sake is cancer, and even cancer ends up destroying itself.
4
@John R. They're suffering from the consequences of too much sex, drugs, and rock n' roll.
In the meantime, surf's up. Gotta go.
I'd like to revisit "unwilling to work."
I work at a low-paying, soul-destroying job that requires me to sit all day long at a time of life when it becomes harder to maintain good health anyway (I'm 61 and used to physical activity). It's having a negative impact on my health, including mental health. I love meaningful work and am known for doggedly working as many hours as needed to get a job done. I chafe because as an hourly employee I'm not allowed to do that—OT is limited. But I feel anything but willing to work right now.
I had to take this job when a previous avenue of opportunity fell through. Now I'm stuck. For a couple of years, I've had a plan to start a co-op organization in my town that I know would not only thrive and become financially sound, but would also contribute to the community in meaningful ways. If I weren't a wage slave, if I had guaranteed income for a year, I could make this happen. I have the knowledge and connections. I don't have the time, energy, and money right now because I am "willing to work." I have a job—a useless job that offers no advancement or future opportunities.
I would love the option of a guaranteed income so I could say no to being a wage slave and choose to work longer and harder to accomplish something meaningful. If lifetime benefits were capped (say, at five years—I'd take even one), a guaranteed income would be a boon not only to entrepreneurs but to families in lieu of patchwork corporate policies on family leave.
5
@C Wolfe "I would love the option of a guaranteed income" And who would pay for that income? Others who WERE willing to work? Why is that not exploitation?
2
Of course everyone would enjoy “free money” without having to work! But who pays for this? What are the ethics of taxing people to pay for those“unwilling to work”?
@Ludwig We are merely asking for the redefinition of what "work" has value to society. Teaching and caring for children has value to society. Meals on Wheels has value to society. Dishing out food at a shelter add value. Teaching people how to make an urban farm has value, as does collecting trash, gathering rain water, coaching kids, driving seniors. We need to reflect on what we as SOCIETY value and not let it be driven by the dictates of billionaires whose only definition of value is dollars and share price.
2
It's pretty clear that the more parties we have the more likely we will wind up with someone who is less representative and more unqualified, divisive and dangerous. Ranked choice voting is one way to partially mitigate this eventuality, but it is a long way from being adopted. My conclusion therefore, is that the two party system, however flawed, is our best insurer of reasonable governance. Well, second best, after a well-educated populace.
9
@Catracho If I were a lobbyist with unlimited cash peddling influence, I'd prefer there were only TWO parties because it's easier to get my bribery candidates into a room and pitch them TWICE instead of twenty times. Americans are not horses and counting past 10 is something any 4 year old should muster. Americans get 300 choices for PEANUT BUTTER yet we can't get 4-5 for fundamental views on the world and directions for society?
2
@Catracho How are you going to have a "well-educated populace." when literacy tests are illegal? People who cannot read or write are of necessity going to outvote those with doctorates.
The US has too many dogmas and not all of these dogmas are conservative. some are liberal, or even embedded in our system.
Krugman who is a Nobelist can write for the NYT, but two people without high school education can outvote him. So why should these two bother to go to school?
Pkease tell me how we are going to have this well educated population.
There are so many things that need to change that I can't envision a rational future.
Tom gives it his ideas for adapting, while in all
frankness, he, me and ye really are
too perplexed about what our nation is and ought to be.
This feeling of ennui is merely and hopefully mine, and somehow there'll be a decent
outcome.
But right now, imho, dooms day I feel.
Thanks, Tom, yet we are so d divided
that I do fear the worst by way of chaos and discord.
Everything is disputed/disputable.
We've been falling apart, and I can't see
what optimists envision.
5
I think this echoes what I have heard in my conversations with young people around the country today. These are people who are new to voting and politics. Some voted for the first time in 2016, some did not. While they of course are not going to articulate the depth of political discourse discussed here, they just simply were saying that they think there should be choices that they relate to. They simply did not like either of the two candidates chosen for them to vote for. My guess is they will do something about this when they can. They may not get it right, but neither are we.
2
The other possibility is a large coalition in the center spanning from what you call "grow the pie democrats" to pragmatic republicans (socially liberal, fiscally responsible, accepting science, etc.) and 2 extremes with one side the nativist republicans and the socialist democrats. This is what we have now in Europe; in France, President Macron was elected thanks to a large centrist coalition, and, in Italy a unprobable alliance of the 2 extremes (Lega Nord and Cinque Stelle) was elected in the last election.
3
@FCH. I do believe I saw a pragmatic Republican riding a unicorn down Michigan Avenue in Chicago.
The economic binary choice we face today is the choice between laissez faire regulation that serves the interests of the 1% at the expense of the 99% and sensible regulation that serves the interests of the 99%.
The issue we face today is whether our politics and government will be controlled by, and serve the interests of, 150 wealthy families. That issue still presents a unambiguous binary choice. Vote Republican to continue the march toward oligarchy. Vote Democratic to restore freedom, justice and equality.
The choice is just that simple and it is binary.
6
@OldBoatMan We have a heavily regulated capitalist economy not a laissez faire system.
3
@John - you are right: a heavily regulated capitalist economy that heavily favors the 1%. Doesn't change the binary political choice in front of us.
5
There is only one political party here in America - the party of Reagan, although with two branches known as the GOP and the Democrats, both with the identical credo.
The old actor gave us the ever-lasting performance worth of the Oscar for lifetime achievement – the masterful rant against the socialism while simultaneously implementing its essence.
What is the core of Reagan’s socialism? The notion that somebody else should pay our taxes.
That’s the very idea behind the chronic federal budget deficits.
Don’t you remember the fundamentalist Reagan idea? That not paying the taxes would fill up the federal treasury because the revved-up economy would generate the colossal tax revenues?
Thus he instantly implemented the first part of scheme by dramatically slashing the taxes.
We are still waiting on the fulfillment of second part.
However, we have to admit that Reagan was partially right regarding the second part of equation.
His tax cuts and the skyrocketing national debt have invigorated the local economy, but in China, Mexico, India and elsewhere, after the easily-created capital looked for the better return on investment and cheaper labor.
Now you know why we have $22 trillion in debt without anybody even thinking about balancing the budget.
Welcome to the American interpretation of the socialism under different name, thanks to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and co!
8
@Kenan Porobic Considering the debt was created from money printed out of thin air, with no value or backing except FAITH, the debt we have supposedly magically manufactuered can be just as easily magically disappeared. Until currency has actual, non-faith based value, it is just an accounting trick. Audit and nationalize the federal reserve and take control of the printing presses, and within a few hours the debt becomes a moot issue.
"What if I am a steelworker in Pittsburgh and in the union, but on weekends I drive for Uber and rent out my kid’s spare bedroom on Airbnb Monday to Friday I’m with labor. Saturday and Sunday I’m with capital."
People driving for Uber and renting out rooms with Airbnb are not not with capital. They are clearly with labor and being exploited , because their "independent contractor" status leaves them with little legal protections.
10
@Jeffrey - pretty sure capitalism doesn't care about legal protections.
they are with capitalism when they are investing capital, both human and financial. An Uber driver and Airbnb landlord is doing both.
@alan
“Commerce and manufacturers can seldom flourish in any state which does not enjoy a regular administration of justice.”
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
2
You forgot a really important set of dichotomies, democracy vs. autocracy, which impacts creativity versus feality which impacts equality vs. extreme hierarchy and so on. The more money, the rich amass, the more they can control our government and the less democracy we can share. It’s nearly gone already.
4
The problem with the "unwilling to work" theory is that it simply doesn't make any sense in the real world.
Philosophically, no human being is "willing to work". That's why we invent things to make our lives easy. That's why we seek to exploit each other (so we don't need to work ourselves). Dialectically, you could say the dominant classes only exist because of laziness; or that laziness generates more work (since, to invent things, we need to work; for one not to work, another one has to work for two).
So, the question is not that human beings are lazy or not; but whether they can save more work with the work they do now.
1
Great column, but two points.
First. I'm a "grow-the-pie" Democrat, but I'm fed up with public money giveaways to the largest of the businesses while all others pay full price. Giving $3 billion of public money to someone who has $135 billion is outrageously wrong.
Second. Regarding complex adaptive coalitions, I recommend nixing the wordsmithing and use existing language, like community or communitarianism, which is precisely what you're describing. We're already hybrid of socialism and capitalism. It works. It only works when it's paid for. We need to explain the role of the public sector and how the public-private symbiotic relationship works to a country whose minds have been poisoned to hate it.
That is a tall order. Most people don't even know civics.
10
@Schaeferhund
Love the article and these comments. Lifelong Dem but yearn for a parliamentary USA to force compromise in challenging times. Cannot be worse than the tribalism we have here now. Building cooperative communities is a great start.
3
@Schaeferhund
Excellent comment. Straightforward and true.
And I agree there's no need for Friedman to coin a new phrase. Beware the ego....
1
@Schaeferhund
Not teaching children civics is a feature of the Autocracy, not a bug. American mediocrity is shown with all Americans so clueless about governing and how the capitalists exploit Democracy to ruin it for you and me.
2
Agreed that 4 parties is a reality... I’d love to see candidates(us) recognize this by endorsing the elimination of antiquated primary rules that restrict voting along party lines. Changing your party affiliation simply to pick the candidate of your choice is onerous similar to gerrymandering that parties use to control the vote. Recognition of the 4 party reality could also have the benefit of allowing a better representation of “real voter sympathies” earlier in the election cycle, which might eliminate the “surprise” factor when the results finally come home in the general election.
“Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work.”
The excuse that this statement was in a draft does not release the Democratic Socialist movement from the fact that there’s a mindset present that led to it being written at all. If they want to ensure the re-election of Donald Trump and the continued relevance of the cult-like and oligarchic Republican Party, they should proceed exactly like they have been.
10
You can have 5 parties splintering the votes two main parties into 4 with the remaining 5th party keeping the remainders. But look back when we had Anderson or Perot running as independents, the net effect was as spoiler siphoning away votes. Their candidacies had no real chance of winning. The problem with multiple parties is perhaps multiple runoffs will be necessary to determine an outcome. That could be very contentious especially if states like Fl corrupt polling bosses force recounts. Ultimately 4 parties are really just factions that counter the extremism parts of the other side. The current far right forces the the left to be ultra-extreme - ultimately citizens will gravitate sooner or later to the middle parts of both parties - everything else then is noise.
I don't see any fourth party scenarios shaping up here.
About 37% of Brits are hard-and-fast No Deal Brexiteers, just as about the same percentage as Americans who support MAGA.
In Britain, that plurality is the all-powerful deal-breaker that makes it impossible for Parliament to vote for the May Plan. The only (and somewhat fantastic) option for the tiny groups who hope for a long-shot 2d referendum or a general election is to go for No Deal right now in hopes of opening an alternate window. Among the general population, the attitude has set in that endless negotiations of the same trade deals will follow both No Deal and May Plan, making the matter very center-friendly.
In the USA, the MAGA plurality prevents Congress from embracing any decisively anti-Trump agenda. Just as in Britain, if extreme Democrats repel moderates, the result will be a new GOP -- one formed of the old moderate Democrats, whom they joined in response to Trump. The new third party would be the rump Democrats.
The reorganization direction in both the UK and the US is toward consolidation of the center, not another split-off of an extreme.
1
Willing to work where? Willing to work how? These aren't tests for political candidates but Republican talking points and the reactions from grass-roots Americans who increasingly see their survival chances eroded. Georgia, a state governed by a Republican who won with ads showing him with a loaded shotgun pointed at a young man, requires "work" of some indefinable job as a condition for even being able to apply for food stamps that have been downsized to starvation levels.
American history chronicles the impact of radical parties on the process. Abolitionists took over the Republicans and produced Lincoln. Socialists who long advocated a social safety net, were absorbed by FDR and the New Deal.
Listen carefully and you'll hear the whining about a Green New Deal and Medicare for all; increasing the contributions of the wealthy by forcing them to pay their fair share of taxes; erasing income disparity; outlawing Gerrymandering and voter supression and more. These are hardly threats to a democracy, but ways to save it and make it better.
8
Being "unwilling to work" is not acceptable for the poor, but it is perfectly fine for the super rich. Playing the stock market is not work and is certainly not productive labor.
18
@Phillip Parkerson Being wealthy and not working doesn’t create a burden on society to take care of you.