There are four significant economic problems facing middle class Americans today and those problems collude to make millions of people stuck:
1. Healthcare costs. Too many people are bankrupted by such. Look no further than the actress Valerie Harper, whose husband is doing a GoFund me right now to help shepherd her out of this earth. She's a famous person who should have the means. btt least once a week, I see one of those GoFund me appeals come across my newsfeed. A girl in town with brain cancer, a dad on hospice with ALS..... as long as healthcare functions as a Russia roulette, no one will feel safe.
2. Education. Have you seen the costs of colleges these days? Worse yet--have you seen the ROI on college? I know kids out of college working at the Gap. You have companies using parma-interns. With or without a degree, upward mobility has never been harder.
3. Cost of Housing: On both coasts and in most cities, housing has become unaffordable. Nuff said on that--just Zillow.
4. Taxes: Yeah yeah yeah, the 1%. Except for the fact that people paying the highest taxes are not the richy-rich. It's the top WAGE earners. Newflash for y'all. If you have a trust fund, you are not just a wage earner. So, if you can manage to claw out of the lobster pot, be prepared to hand it all over on taxes.
All of that and a proliferation of guns and drugs and behavior from our elected officials that I would not tolerate in my kids.
The candidate that focuses on that will get my vote.
15
In order to cast himself a moderate centrist, Friedman builds a straw man and calls it the Democrats.
Please. The choice is autocratic fascism, or republican democracy. Choose wisely.
7
So spot on but so few will read and fewer will comprehend.
3
Mr. Friedman...
Can YOU please run for President?
2
"It’s a combination of extreme weather — particularly droughts threatening food security — misgovernance, gang warfare and America’s own drug addictions. Together, these are destabilizing weak Central American states."
Not to mention the covert and overt policies of the U.S. towards the people of Central American states, or perhaps I should say against the people of those states and in favor of rightwing governments or dictatorships and their paramilitaries and death squads. The U.S. has had an oversize hand in aiding and promoting the few and wealthy in positions of power in Central America, while running roughshod over the civil rights of everyone else in those countries. Instead of promoting stable democracies, we have been a major source of destabilization in Central America. The throngs you see in caravans headed northward are the wretched of our continent, desperate for better, safer, saner lives than are available in their home countries. America helped forge these caravans; we could help make up for our past sins by at least treating these people humanely. That would be a good start.
3
"That was un-American. It was something out of a 1930s German or Italian fascist newsreel."
It still amazes me that people are shocked that so many of their fellow Americans are racist.
There is no such thing as a "great melting pot" that spans the whole of the U.S. Rather, there are a bunch of smaller ones, and a bunch of places that are exactly like 1930 Germany or Italy. Americans did not invent some higher form of morality, they are just a bunch of humans doing what humans do.
3
Mr Friedman
Aren't you really making a plea for fact based politics? Which requires proper investigation to find the material facts.
And let's hope for a fact based foreign policy too for that matter. Particularly the mideast.
We can't afford to lose this election, which I believe we will if we "frighten" too many people. No matter how distateful it may be to the far left among us, we need to just suck it up and do whatever must be done to win the Presidency, the Senate and the House. Once that's done, we can begin to correct the many structural problems (gerrymandering, electoral math, voting rights etc.) that will at least give us a small possibility of righting this sinking ship.
Then, and only then, will we have the breathing room to take care of the "big" issues like climate change, universal health care, education, etc.. I know it stinks that we can't fix everything right this minute, but the sad fact is that until we win the presidency and the entire congress, we can't get anything through Congress and signed into law. Period.
There is a chunk of people in the true middle who don't like Trump, but will vote just based on whether their lives are doing "okay." Many, many people reflexively believe that socialism equals the Soviet Union -- something they've grown up hating and fearing. They'll tell their kids to believe the same thing and vote accordingly. We need to pick off enough of these voters, or at least neutralize/give them no reason to go out and vote against our candidate, to win this election. If not, we are going to lose.
And if we lose this election, make no mistake: healthcare for all, climate change, college costs etc. will all be completely untouchable issues.
3
Surveys are flawed on a regular rate. Surveys said Hillary would be POTUS 3 years ago. See?
1
It is not too far left to enforce a border without stamping migrants as evil. It's practically average to want a national health care system, like almost every developed nation on Earth. And I endeavor hard to understand what exactly is a centrist, moderate, middle ground on the caged refugees we saw just a few weeks ago.
That's just a few lines into the article.
It is vital to best Trump, but your safest option sir, is the most dangerous. Like any party, Democrats must compete. They will tack one way during the Primary. Then shift to making the case for the nation. Every cycle the process is the same, and predictably every journalist believes the said party is ripping itself and blowing its chances. The Democratic pitch cannot be we're moderate AND sane. Plus mostly not racist as a bonus. No worthy candidate will be without risk. Neither were the candidates the author mentioned as great templates. Not the inexperienced, half Kenyan black man, with Hussein as his middle name. Nor the trailer park state smooth operator introduced to the national stage denying a sleazy affair.
1
agree with him or not, Friedman speaks in terms that the Trump base does not recognize: rationality, facts.
6
Dear Mr. Friedman,
Please stop the false narrative that the views espoused by democratic candidates are espousing far left views. Your own newspaper just published surveys showing that overwhelming majorities of democrats and independents, and even as much as a third of republicans, support medicare for all, a wealth tax, and free tuition to public universities. These are mainstream views everywhere in the developed world with the exception of the U.S. And these are all policies that are sorely needed to remedy our soaring wealth and income inequality, one of the greatest challenges our country faces and one which makes all other challenges unsolvable. The left believes in remedying this underlying problem. The right believes in exacerbating it. Your "both sides to blame" line is not helping. Rather, it merely enforces the status quo, telling Americans that it is irresponsible to ask for policies that promote equality and humane treatment of our fellow human beings. The reality is that the majority of Americans share the views you deride as leftist extremism, but the establishment, which you represent, has actively prevented those views from becoming policy since at least the Reagan revolution, in order to protect the interests of the oligarchs. I agree that policy should be driven by creative solutions, data, and hard thinking. Elizabeth Warren exemplifies that approach. The republicans reject it. Today's left has solutions. The right does not. We don't need a third option.
12
Friedman's been writing strong columns lately, pleas for moderate governance. Such a leader must be close to the center and have a vision. This would require a figure who's both an awesome communicator able to tap into the best instincts of people. At the same this theoretical figure must be able to get things done. I'm not sure that's possible in this climate, but you never know.
1
Excellent column. I would add another issue that needs to be thought of without a box: the gathering and dissemination of information. As much as I admire this column, I wonder who will read it. Trump has prevailed because he has gained a foothold in the new media landscape. He's running a reality TV/Twitter show, where his true interest lies in how he's doing in the daily "ratings."
Mr. Friedman’s analysis of our current predicaments is generally on-target (except in that multi-dimensional – not merely 3-dimensional – policy tools and responses are required). However, his “binary” historical view view is grossly oversimplified.
In the 1940s through 1960s, Republicans came in liberal, moderate, and conservative (the dominant) flavors. In the late 1940s significant numbers abandoned isolationism and adopted internationalism. On domestic policy, Democrats ranged from ultraliberal to racist/segregationist until the 1960s and 1970s, and were mostly internationalist.
More details could be cited to elaborate on these points. The bottom line: until recently, American policy choices, even within each of the major parties, was far from binary.
2
It is not socialism to expect that our great economic machine that is built and sustained by all of us to deliver a more balanced dividend(services) for more Americans.
10
"maybe we should be radically incentivizing companies to go back into the education business, since no one knows better the skills their workers need than they do."
What the country needs from citizens is not the same as what companies need from workers. Companies need workers who do what they are told and know only what they need to know to do their jobs. The country needs critical thinkers who can vote intelligently, which requires the ability to do scholarship and rational thought. the Country also needs creative thinkers who will start their own companies, and compete with the currently existing ones that Friedman wants to handle education. Clearly the companies interests do not align with what we want from an educated populace.
7
There hasn't been a true progressive agenda by a president and congress since FDR. Since Ronald Reagan the right wing has been slowly moving to the right to such an extreme that many historians and political scientists are analogizing this period of time to the 1930's in Europe. A couple of candidates espousing "free" programs or "democratic socialism" does not create a force equal to 30 years of governmental policies favoring the wealthy and big corporations at the expense of the majority of citizens. The media should cease equating the respective agendas of the right and the left because it's a false equivalency.
5
Friedman writes, "Thinking without a box [is] exactly what many... local communities... are doing. In those I’ve visited you see business, labor, philanthropists, social entrepreneurs, educators and local or state governments networking together..."
Therein lies the oversimplification. In Oakland, for instance, everything ALSO needs to make it past a plethora of ideologues, racialized fiefdoms, "homeless advocates" (street-camping enablers), etc., who are all-too-ready to paint the Tom Friedmans of the world (and their desired coalition) into a "neoliberal" corner.
The city can't even fill its ubiquitous potholes without first redesigning streets to accommodate the bike lobby and would-be urbanists (and high-rise developers) who've taken it upon themselves (ignoring the wishes of drivers) to "get people out of their cars."
My point here, though, is not to advocate for one or another position on housing (or homelessness) or transportation policy, or even on urban density.
It's merely to point out that with so many forces and factors (and organized and unorganized constituencies and diverse individuals) in play, the complexities are greater than Friedman might like to (or might have us) believe.
The bottom line is that once one gets beyond the oversimplification, it all-too-quickly becomes apparent that Friedman's "without a box" solution (however admirable) comes in its own box.
3
@Mitchell, work in Oakland quite a bit as a child welfare worker. Will only say it is difficult to compare Oakland to other parts of the country. A daily drive or walk in Oakland for me, with or without a police escort, consists of public weapons in view, gangs mingling on a street corner or taking over several driveways on a street, thugs preventing cars from driving down the street, sitting in my car and find myself surrounded by police and undercover normally dressed police with guns exposed and patrol cars on a chase, different streets closed for forensics team after a shooting, etc. Realize there are some fantastic areas in Oakland, eg, Oakland Hills, but Oakland is an entire different complex area.
3
When will we fully understand that over population is THE issue that underpins every problem confronting our survival?
2
Good article. I am a middle of the road voter leaning conservative but Trump is not the guy for me. His personality has a lot to be desired. I have been very frustrated with how the Dem candidates were selected. I am partial to Tulsi Gabbard and a few other more moderate Democrats but they are down the pecking order. The front runner Dems are not my cup of tea, so where does that leave someone like myself? Is Trump the logical conclusion? I am extremely opposed to the free for all speak of the current Dem front runners. I support police and support border control.
1
Brilliant perspective. The first message that the Democrats need to clarify is how inaccurate the Slogan "Make America Great Again" really is.
By definition, America includes all of the Americas (Central, South, and Canada being part of the North America variety).
The "box "reference is awesome because it seems to demonstrate that the folks who occupy each of the states where they live are only concerned with their own boxed territory.
So Dems" feel free to use an upbeat and measurable slogan to the tune of Let's Reunite Our Greatness!
I hope we also take a fresh look at how elections are held in America, how voting and voter registration can be made easier, how the cost can be lowered, the playing field leveled, and dark money ended.
Though I am a democrat - the tendencies within the party confuses me more than encourages me. It is now safe for democratic leaders to hold on to their members as Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. What will happen, if Republican Party gets a sensible leader. The economic policies of Health care, education, social security made the American economy a typical case of nationalization of family responsibility and privatization state of responsibility - private prison, military contractors, ... The market economy of US only works for winners and devastating to losers. How the health responsibility, education responsibility, old age financial responsibility be taken over by a state and still it claims a capitalist society. It will not work and Democrats and Republicans need to think differently - this country is not for SALE. We are seeing now the twenty century socialist also trying to get a foot hold. These are wrong sign - Nancy Palosi should hold her ground and keep these immaturity out side the Democratic Party.
1
If only there were a way to hit the reset button… and forcefully say, hey! The world has changed. Period. No amount of longing for a simpler time is going to reverse changes that are upending the entire planet.
Our choices are:
• Live in denial and hope changes won’t affect us
• Get mad about it and lash out at perceived enemies
• Realize things have changed (and are continuing to change) and look for ways to not only cope, but hopefully, take advantage of new opportunities
As long as we continue to fixate on returning to the way things were decades ago, the more time we chew up while others take advantage of new realities. Potential solutions might vary, but when we’re not even seeking answers to the right problems, we’re just throwing away our future.
4
As someone who has taught for years, bring companies into education is not a good idea - why? Because then you get the split focus we see in healthcare - good for people and profits, great. But good for people and bad for profits? Well, never mind the good of people.
On a more abstract note, education should be an end in itself, not a means to an end. Education is worthwhile because to be able to think, to create, to synthesize information are not only intellectual skills of great value in any profession, but also are a joy and a way to navigate our complex world. Our emphasis on science and math at the expense of the liberal arts leaves us impoverished in spirit and unable to imagine solutions completely outside of the realm of the known. The ability to have empathy for strangers, taught through literature, is invaluable in dealing with all of life with compassion instead of with an eye only for profit. Capitalism run amuck reduces all of life, including humans, to objects to be used, and we see where that has gotten us - a living biosphere in crisis, a Congress that cannot understand or empathize with the struggles of ordinary people leading ordinary lives, a lack of ability to show mercy, understanding, and depth to those who appear to differ from us. An engineer designs a bridge that crosses rivers; an artist creates a metaphor for the transforming of the soul. Both are valuable.
5
Right on! I love your comment about literature. Our most “progressive” thinkers like Friedman are technocrats in spirit, whereas it is precisely our banal attitude towards the human condition that has led to this impasse. From this indeed follows a lack of compassion which is itself a product of a lack of imagination. And imagination about the human condition is fostered by the humanities when they are their best—not a catalogue of facile stereotypes from the politically correct left or the empty head ideologues of the right—but a truly critical examination of complex value and aesthetic choices that have no easy or permanent answers or solutions. It would be wonderful indeed if our best editorialists gave some thought to this since their influence is so great: thus far, only David Brooks holds the torchlight, and sometimes Bret Stephens. It is sad that progressives like Friedman can’t rise to the occasion. Spoken by a registered Democrat.
1
Ideology is the poison in the apple. Democrats "believe" this. Republicans "believe" that. Ditto progressives and reactionaries. Liberals and conservatives. "Belief" puts wishful thinking over analysis, rigidity over flexibility, superstition over fact. When did one's "belief" become the determining factor in who one is or isn't? What happened to the old American way of facing a problem, sitting down with one another to figure it out and coming up with some sort of plan to fix it? There are millions of us who are neither "left" nor "right" and can't understand why so many people cling to those labels as though their life depended on it.
2
What Companies want in terms of skills needed to do their jobs is quite clear, based on the job descriptions of job openings. Its not a mystery what skills are needed today!!!
1
The hypocrisy here is remarkable. Friedman rightly condemns those who chant "Send her back" at the Trump rally as resembling "something out of a 1930s German or Italian fascist newsreel", but later says "We also need an immigration policy that embraces the desperate who qualify for asylum and welcomes high-energy and high-I.Q. legal immigrants". I wonder if Friedman missed the historical fact that devaluation of those without "high I.Q." is a fascist priority. Amazing how some individual differences are unacceptable to exclude, while others, like intellectual disability, are still considered preferable to "keep out".
9
@Tintin
No it isn't. No one wants the stupid.
That is different from the undereducated, btw.
Geezie…. words words words I'm so sick of words...and also of a lack of them
Overpopulation did not appear in this essay -- as a reason for the refugee crisis nor did the phrase "income inequality."
BTW if your money comes from profits, generated by the buying habits of your fellow citizens, isn't it rather cold-hearted not to want to share those profits? Is it all dog eat dog?
IMO if you are a centrist you are NOT a Democrat. Democrats are supposed to want social justice not the approval of banksters and Wall Street. Please don't call social justice issues "left."
Misogyny -- everywhere. The "Squad" Trump's new blow-up Hillary. So much fun to pick on women. Make Americans Gentlemen Again.
5
To some extent, in the past American politics have benefited from the art of compromise. Compromise has sometimes delayed progress and sometimes set us back, but overall has kept a balance between the far left and the far right.
As Congress in general and Republicans in particular have chosen get-tough policies and stood their ground, we have seen Congress convene more and more as a do-nothing entity.
Whether it's immigration law or criminal law, we need common sense measures, neither cruel incarceration nor open borders. The same is true of abortion and other women's rights.
I hope we will soon get past the Trump era and back to a time when the parties find ways to work together.
2
Dear Thomas, you need to give historical context on places like Central America so that we know the mess corporate interests created and we never corrected. It is silly to use "socialism" and not talk about unlimited corporate money in politics and their biggest tax break in history. I've am part of the grass roots movement in America that defies "right" and "left" - Move to Amend - overturn the 2010 SCOTUS of corporate person hood. You have to talk about the corporate deep state and who is silent about it and opposed to addressing it. Otherwise - you fail to talk about the reality of our present state of "socialism for the rich." The GOP is silent and opposes bills that cal!moved to amend. But our GOP Assembly stands in the way. There is a common ground that defies your categories, but you fail to know it and write about it. I'm challenging you to know the grassroots common ground. Your home state of Minnesota is moving on this as well! By the way - I like St. Louis Park - my daughter was married there!
4
"The old binary choices no longer work." And yet, when I mark my ballot in the next presidential election I'm going to be faced with a binary choice, between a Democrat who will be a decent human being and will probably do a decent job as president in one column, and a monster in the other.
You may wish you didn't live in a binary world, Mr Friedman, and if you want to start a third party, please go ahead. Perhaps you could run for office yourself. If you're not going to do that, though, perhaps you could read your own paper, which published a chart recently about how NOT far left the Democratic party is and how VERY far left the Republican party is. Until we have a viable third party, you're going to have to do what the rest of us have always done and pick what you are choosing to see as the lesser of two evils. Welcome to the real world.
4
Until every eligible voter is required to actually vote, we will continue to see saw between left and right extremes because they are the ones who show up at the rallies, debates and primaries. Moderates, centrists, slightly left or right of center don't feel as if any politician is listening to them or cares about cooperation and collaboration. It's become winner take all, to the country's detriment.
One way to not "mitigate climate change" is to allow an unlimited number of migrants from poor countries into a country that has one of the highest greenhouse gas per capita ratios. Friedman is absolutely right that open borders is a bad idea. This is the 21st century of unprecedented climate change dangers, not the 20th century, and certainly not America in the 19th century.
2
I do not believe that MFA is an anti-capitalist or unrealistic proposal.
The simply fact is that healthcare has ceased being a commodity and has become a utility. The demand for care simply does not respond to price because of the nature of the of the need. We know how to regulate utility markets, usually through a regulated monopoly. And there is nothing inconsistent with a generally market based economy in doing that.
I also think that the support for private health insurance may not be as strong as you think. I know that people like what they have. I know that they may prefer the devil they know to the one they do not. On the other hand, the insurance companies have been systemically abusing people for years. So, there is love lost.
4
In the future, Corporations are the Government and left and right exist on the single point of the circle where they meet thereby obliterating the concept altogether.
"But maybe we should be radically incentivizing companies to go back into the education business, since no one knows better the skills their workers need than they do. That’s thinking completely without a box."
It's thinking without common sense. Of course companies know what they need. They need workers with the skills that help the company increase profits and raise the trading value of their stocks.
2
"But the answer, Gorbis says, is not socialism and abandoning markets, but a vibrant state that can use taxes and regulations to reshape markets in ways that redivide the pie, grow the pie and create more “public wealth” — mass transit, schools, parks, scholarships, libraries and basic scientific research — so that more individuals, start-ups and communities have more tools to adapt and thrive."
Sounds like mush to me, Tom, so you must be a centrist. What by the way is socialism? No one in politics Dem or Repug is talking socialism. The Bernie Sanders whom you revile or Elizabeth Warren simply want the ultra rich to pay some taxes, and use the money for child care, access to education, decreasing the burden of college debt made more onerous by your friend Joe Biden and his tightening up of personal bankruptcy laws.
Keep on being centrist, Tom. It's rearranging deckchairs on the youknowwhat.
4
It is utter sophistry to utter these words: "You have to think without a box."
This the the deepest issue confronting not only the US, but just about every other liberal democracy. People are increasingly untethered from the "boxes" that have created these societies in the first place--faith, family, laws, and social rules of courtesy and stability.
Nietzsche called the shot over a century ago in his misunderstood phrase, "God is dead." The attempts to create new "boxes" led to the bloody 20th century, which, even now, struggles to resurrect itself in the various political beliefs that have quickly reverted to cult and fanaticism.
A free-floating technocracy sounds good...to a technocrat of the Friedman & Friends variety. But average folk have seen just enough of the history of bright ideas leading to unforeseen consequences to be, shall we say, skeptical.
1
First, stop with the "both sides" nonsense.
You have Trump inciting racial hatred on one side, and Democrats advocating policies on the other. Friedman may not like those policies, but the implication that these are two sides of the same coin is brainlessly absurd. It would occur only to those who desperately want to look even-handed.
Second, this is just wrong:
"maybe we should be radically incentivizing companies to go back into the education business, since no one knows better the skills their workers need than they do."
Companies know what skills their workers need today. They have no clue what skills workers will need decades from now, so this extremely limited conception of what higher education should teach is wrong on its own completely misguided terms.
5
You're basically describing Elizabeth Warren's plans here. Hope you will eventually get around to endorsing her.
6
@Teed Rockwell
Open Borders Liz is not the way to go, even as she does have some good ideas elsewhere.
1
"The right question on education is not whether college should be “free.” It’s what should be taught there and who should teach it. "
It's also HOW teaching should occur. We need to focus much more on effective participation in education by students, and we need to dump the whole professor-lectures-students-listen approach to learning, because it is 19th century.
It is dangerously naive to think the solution to climate change is "to pass certain laws". I challenge anyone who has a real interest is thinking about where the future of democracy, capitalism and society, to read the book Drawdown. Then pick your favorite solutions to get to zero emissions. Then let's have a discussion about how not only the US, but every country will actually get there. How do third world countries get there? How to dictatorships get there? Remember the Paris Accords were base on negative emissions. If we can't get to zero, we can't go negative. And how do we even get to zero, since emissions are still increasing?
2
Mr. Friedman, by saying that socialism isn't the answer and using that label, you are using the box. Don't you get that?
If it's really about looking for what works, not what is left or right, what is capitalist or socialist, then ditch those terms and look at reality.
In reality, it does matter what college costs, because it limits who can go and what they can do once they leave college. Can they afford to take a teaching job that pays little, or do they have to sign on with a mega-corporation. Can they afford to start a family, buy a home, start a company?
In reality, few people are saying there should be no free market, that the government will issue you a tv and a car and clothes. People are saying that things like health care don't function as a free market. If you'll die without a medication or operation, then you don't have a free choice, do you? The supplier can charge whatever they want and you'll pay, or you'll die. We see that starkly with insulin prices.
6
The problem isn't left and right, but the Democrats are too far to the left. Does anyone else see a conflict in that evaluation? In this column, Mr. Friedman calls for new solutions, but in his last column he quoted the same talking points that neo-liberals spouted under Clinton, and look where we are.
Friedman says socialism is not the answer as if Bernie Sanders is suggesting nationalizing all American corporations. That simply isn't what's happening. No one said we're abandoning all markets.
Create public wealth, support mass transit, schools, parks, scholarships, libraries and government-funded scientific research. You know all that is much more aligned with Amerca's socialists than its capitalists, right?
And then Friedman goes on to describe or imply an unprecedented level of government interference. Phase out coal plants and improve auto mileage. Sounds like the left to me. Reshape markets with taxes, incentives, and regulations. Again, that's the left.
Friendman wants to address what is taught in college and who teaches it. Who is supposed to decide that? Right now, it's largely decentralized. Schools decide and people apply or not. Does he want the government to dictate more in this arena? And the idea of corporations deciding what people learn in college is a terrible one. The specific skills needed to work change almost yearly. College students need to be taught to think and analyze, not how to run a certain machine.
5
Mr. Friedman, I suggest that you talk to one of the Democratic presidential candidates, Andrew Yang. You might find answers for many of your questions from him. Mr. Yang has been ignored and shunned by mainstream media, because he thinks without a box. He always says that it's not left, not right, but forward.
6
@Vic Lee Yang has hardly been shunned by the mainstream media. The New Yorker ran a piece about him last week — https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-andrew-yangs-robot-apocalypse-can-heal-a-divided-nation — which reported how Yang is attracting interest among white nationalists. Great, just what we need.
I don't see a lot of mentions of far right policies emerging from the Republican party. Far right as a concept seems to only come up when someone is being a racist, and violently so. The idea that if you're right wing, you can be as extreme as you want and it's still considered well within the Overton window as long as you don't use too many racial slurs is extremely annoying and ruins this mythological "not-center" that the author is referring to. If you only slap the left on the hand for going out of the range of "acceptability", then you're preemptively conceding that it's politically correct to be conservative economically, but everything else is up for debate.
1
The answer is Gavin Newsome 2024. Unfortunately we will have to go thru Armageddon for another 4 years.
Extremists? Pah! Compared to true revolutionaries, the social democrats who comprise the left of the Democratic Party are pussycats. The Green New Deal is a program that offers a response to the climate change that's proportionate to the crisis. The social programs are aimed at reducing our society’s extreme inequality, and would help cushion the shock of the transition from our current fossil fuel based economy. The whole package could save our capitalist system from eventual meltdown.
The real question isn’t whether the Democratic Party’s left is too extreme. It’s whether they go far enough. Can a capitalist system, based on ever-increasing consumpton, adapt to change?
See the Green New Deal for a moderate approach to the economy and the environment:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
For a look at today’s climate crisis news, see the European weather forecasts:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/24/summers-second-heatwave-set-to-break-records-across-europe
The British government is advising commuters against taking the railroads because the tracks may buckle in the heat and strand them.
When you keep your head while all around you people are running and screaming, maybe you don’t understand the situation.
2
As a bleeding heart liberal, nothing the right does alarms me.
'Cause their entire agenda is illegitimate. They want to dominate and rule everything all the time, feel entitled to power, want the right at all times to make everyone they don't like squirm (or worse). It involves robbing and dumping, and involves using fear of immigrants, blacks and browns, women, and others to keep their gravy train floating.
Illegitimate ends require illegitimate means. Hence, gerrymandering, moving federal facilities to red states, pumping up the military for no conceivable reason - among others. These folks have no hearts, but very clever minds.
But I wish democrat candidates were reading and re-reading the column carefully. Free college is nuts (Germany is not an analogy, only a select few go to college; UK charges money, and we are not Norway with oil revenues).
Free healthcare to replace existing apparatus at once is nuts. Paying off student loans is insulting; what about all those who did pay it off by making sacrifices. Letting every illegal immigrant in with free tuition, free college, free healthcare, minimum income, means hundreds of millions will show up as soon as possible. Who wouldn't want to go to college in America? This too is nuts; they have good hearts but no mind. They think the fire of hate can be solved by the cold shower of "free." Except that hate is real, "free" defies laws of physics and economics.
You tell them Tom!
261
@Kalidan Switch Left for Right and vice versa in this piece and many conservatives would agree with the first half of this piece. The Left want to rule everything and everyone, feel entitled to power, and believe they have the right to persecute those they hate. Steal from the poor, give to the rich, just so long as its untouchables supporting the privileged.
9
@John Smythe
There's only one problem with your analysis. It's wrong.
22
@Kalidan
You know the US is one of the top 3 producers of oil in the world right? We have just decided as a society that the lion's share of the wealth generated should go into private hands. Other countries have made different decisions and can thus spend the petrodollars on something else besides padding out billionaires bank accounts.
62
Perhaps those of us for whom the label "issue voter" barely rings true could more fairly consider ourselves "matrix voters" — in other words, people who try to acknowledge and assign value to their opinions and personal beliefs on a wide range of issues, and then do their best to find a candidate who offers the best match.
Doing so is difficult and imperfect. As individuals, we are complex enough — as societies, and even as political parties, these factors are multiplied even further. But life is complex, right? Some things are black and white, some actions are easily identifiable as right or wrong... but much is gray, nuanced. There is no shame in acknowledging these difficulties and wrestling with them. We just need to be willing to do the work.
Friedman's head is in the Capitalism box.
Relative to education, he shows no appreciation for the value of education that could create wiser citizens, he just wants workplace skills.
From his box he is unable to see the value
of paid parental leave, free/affordable quality childcare, free quality early childhood education, quality K-12 education for all, and tuition free continuing public education.
These policies would begin dealing with the colossal income/wealth inequality and result in a more thriving society, and a more thriving economy.
1
"The Answers to Our Problems Aren’t as Simple as Left or Right."
No, but the people are that simple. People need easy answers and slogans. Trump proved it. Fox News has proven it.
Tom may be right about this, but it doesn't matter. What matters is what happens in the election.
1
You want to think without a box? Here:
More than ever, winning presidential elections is about emotional territory. Mr. Trump controls much of that territory. He controls anger and he controls fear. To be rid of Trump and Trumpism, we need to harness the emotional strength that lies hidden beneath fear and anger. The people need to understand their individual and collective emotions so that they can manage them to higher purpose through their government.
Many of the world's problems are not susceptible to national solutions. We ignore that fact at our peril. The climate does not respect political boundaries at all. Nationalism is inadequate and to rely on it alone is ultimately suicidal. Obviously, we need some better form of world government, some way of collectively securing the future of the planet that doesn't depend upon corporate benevolence or imaginary infallibility of a single strong nation. We need international human rights and a means to their enforcement.
If not now, when?
2
What is the proper role of government? What should it not be involved in? These are key questions that need to be discussed. The US government is too big, too bureaucratic, and too wasteful no matter who is in office. We are $22 TRILLION in debt. Just because something is expensive does not mean government should provide it. Wanting to help someone doesn't mean government should forcefully take your money and give it to someone else. We need to teach basic economics in this country and teach personal responsibility. Get government out of healthcare, out of mortgages/housing, from being the police of the world, eliminate subsidies, bailouts, welfare, get out of education, out of student loans, stop excessive regulations, and stop spending trillions more than what they take in. Some proper roles of government: To provide national defense, to protect individual freedoms, to prevent fraud, to prevent monopolies and promote competition. This does not mean no government, weak government, anarchy, or completely unregulated capitalism. Government does have a role to play.
1
Tom - your next book title, Complex Adaptive Communities.
We live in an era when these communities are solving intractable problems in better and more impactful ways than seen on a national level. It's instructive and points to those elusive answers.
Brilliant op-ed, you are the voice of reason.
Excellent column! Judging from many of the comments, the first Democratic debates, and the findings in Thomas Edsall's column today, the Democrats will nominate a pure, excruciatingly high-minded progressive candidate and Trump will win by a comfortable majority.
1
It would seem the vast majority of people make up their minds about issues by applying a liberal vs. conservative filter, rather than by gathering all the facts and weighing multiple solutions. In my experience, moderates are not people who simply split the difference between liberal and conservative politics, but instead are people who practice a more apolitical, nuanced approach to the issues. I can't see myself ever voting Republican, but I'm feeling more and more like an outsider within the Democratic party, and would no doubt fail the ideological purity test.
1
Interesting that a great part of the misrule and disorder in the world come from US/EU interventions as in Syria or Libya or from IMF/World Bank attempts to foster "growth and development as in Central America.
Friedman is test driving a title for his next book: "Think without a box." Sounds good but it's empty & misleading.
Everyone carries confirmation bias. It is built-in. Everyone is already brainwashed, educated, influenced, conditioned. Call it what you will. That's the box.
At best one can hope for switching the boxes. Change one's view or perspective. It's called paradigm shift, as coined by Thomas Kuhn.
It's easy to list the issues and problems facing USA. Look deeper. They all come from the same root source: universal suffrage based democracy. It's the system, stupid.
With a simplistic two-party system, little or no regard for track record of good governance, when you ask the ignoramus to vote and choose, that's what you'll get: Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and their likes.
Yes, the old binary choices no longer work. More important, universal suffrage democracies never really worked.
1
Most of the other first world countries look pretty good to me.
(Maybe excluding Britain these days.)
It doesn't seem that complicated.
They all have some form of universal health care, better education for the working class, less poverty, maternal leave, etc.
2
A broad education that includes history, art, science and other humanities that gives one the critical thinking skills needed to adapt to changes is, by far, the best approach.
Change is normal and necessary. Adaptation is essential for survival. Chained to a time worn theology or ideology makes adapting very difficult. But, that is where many of us are. Trapped. What is simply comfortable today may mean extinction tomorrow. And, that is what we may be faced with literally.
I absolutely agree with Friedman. The Left is making all kinds of proposals to attract votes that will NEVER get past the Congress. Trump is taking Executive Actions now that he has lost control of Congress. It's almost as if he is acting like the King of America instead of the President. Neither side wants to admit they need cooperation from the other side to get ANYTHING done. We have descended into Tribalism and it's going to take a catastrophic event to shake us out of it.
Those with the least ability and knowledge of civics + the shortest attention span are who elect our government leaders, local to national. As democratic as that is, it's a steep hill to climb every 2 and 4 years.
The Framers in their philosophical genius prescience did anticipate that, believing one vote for one man as long as he has financial skin in the game would balance out, as undemocratic as that is when it comes to non-land owning and/or non-males. The nation also only had a total population of 4 million then.
What they didn't provide was a remedy when there is long term extreme corrosion of all 3 branches of government at the same time such that checks and balances don't function. Nor did they anticipate a nation of 460 million, as will be the case in another 40 years, where so many have no skin in the game or much of a clue.
"flood of immigrants at our borders"? We were told during the 2018 elections that this was a Trump-manufactured false crisis. No caravans at all. I guess Mr. Friedman is saying there has been a crisis all along? Gee, who do you trust?
1
A little confused by this post, Scott. What is there you don’t like?
Giving asylum for those who qualify?
Accepting hi-energy and hi-IQ legal applicants?
I have to assume it’s the first one, but if so, note Friedman’s words “those who qualify” in other words those who meet our law’s specifications for asylum.
Friedman could have said “welcoming all those who qualify for legal immigration” but he wanted to contrast Trump’s approach to the two kinds of would-be immigrants.
Sad you were unable to understand these not too difficult sentiments!
Another predictable column from Mr. Friedman, who resolutely believes himself above the political fray.
Have the solutions to big problems ever involved simple binary choices? No. The whole column is built on a straw man.
Today’s Republican Party is an extremist party, and today’s Democratic Party is not.
3
Brilliant article
Always Shocking when an adult appears in a discussion
1
Mr. Friedman, you are not "thinking without a box." Your "box" is your first axiom: that we must "grow the pie." But what if the issues you profess an interest in addressing -- stopping climate change, reducing wealth inequality, improving education, improving the lives of those who seek asylum in our country -- cannot be addressed if we don't relax our determination to continue to grow profits? Mr. Friedman, why do you support increasing corporate profits? Is it because you recognize that the corporate world would prefer to let the world burn than to relinquish their perceived right to increase profits?
2
"The right question on education is not whether college should be “free.” It’s what should be taught there and who should teach it. Some Democratic candidates seem to care only about the word “free.” But maybe we should be radically incentivizing companies to go back into the education business, since no one knows better the skills their workers need than they do. That’s thinking completely without a box." We have been radically incentivizing the private sector to participate in the educational process for five decades. Witness the State of Wisconsin, for example. I know this would require Friedman to do the homework he is never really willing to do, but it has had a devastating effect on the direction of education in Wisconsin, with the desired effect of turning the State system into vocational training. Friedman, again, fails to really understand how most working-class Americans see their political system as a massive failure. Sure, his needs are well-met, as are his cronies, but the reason we have Trump is because the system he so lovingly remembers was a mirage. The only needs that system met in the past fifty years are for insulated, upper-class folks like him were everything is hunky-dory.
2
The problem is that one party hates government. Those are the Republicans. The other problem is that one party thinks government ought to provide more via education, infrastructure, and regulation to provide a fair shake for all. In America there is no happy medium and the two-party system perpetuates this dichotomy.
3
Once upon a time when legislation was the result of compromise between the two parties, negotiated in good faith with the best interests of the entire country in mind, we used to get many of the types of solutions the article advocates. Alas compromise has long been a dirty word in the GOP and now it may be getting less traction with the Dems as well.
1
There was never a binary choice of Left or Right in any point of time in history of this country or any country.
2
As usual I don’t understand your comment you say a lot without really saying anything, namely that all the good stuff( parks, mass transit, education needs money) requires money. To pretend as every politician that this money will miraculously appear by “ closing loopholes, blah, blah, blah” is an outright lie; the only way we can afford to rebuild our country is through radically higher taxes on the only ones with money, the perhaps ten percent of the population that doesn’t live paycheck to paycheck. How do you propose that’s done? To pretend the rich and corporations will willingly pay more taxes is a fantasy, they will hire armies of lawyers to fight every inch of the way, on some level the rank and file understand this and is the reason “ strongmen” leaders around the world have been allowed to rise, the neo liberal model has proven to offer little other than platitudes to the masses. Unfortunately these so called strongmen are as bad or worse than what we’ve got, so the third option is voters must be honest and nominate someone who will tell the truth, there is no free lunch, you get the government and society you are willing to pay for. The only option voters have is tern limits, throw everyone out and hope what comes next is better. Bernie is the only one with an honest, consistent message over time but even he must hedge on how an agenda benefiting society is to be paid for, there is no guns AND butter without much higher taxes on the only ones with money.
1
It is hard to ignore a drunk sitting next to you who continues to poke you in the arm in the hope that he can irritate you enough to cause a fight. This is the Donald Trump approach to politics. Once he destabilizes you to the point that you want to take a swing, he wins - either way.
The national discussion need to step out of the bar and into a neutral forum where cogent and sober discussion can be held. I am not confident that this can take place at the national level. Every time it has been tried - it seems - those wanting that forum are smirked at and called an over educated liberal elite.
The states are a great place to transform this nation and until that takes place the national stage is very likely to be a place of rational discussion.
2
For a society to survive there must be some “collective coercion”. Do you believe there should be no criminal law, for example? Or motor vehicle laws or any law at all? There’s a name for the absence of “collective coercion” and it’s “anarchy”. The question should be how much coercion vs how much “freedom”? And does your freedom prevent or hamper other people’s freedom ? I’m going to guess you rather like the collective coercion that stops a person having the freedom to kill you, to cheat you, to drive when blind drunk, to ensure the bus you travel on and the food you eat are safe!
You make the two seem incompatible, yet society demands constraints on individual freedom.
4
Not going to happen this election cycle (sadly), but the ground must be laid for beyond and Mr. Friedman's insights are key for that purpose.
“The right question on education is not whether college should be “free.” It’s what should be taught there and who should teach it. Some Democratic candidates seem to care only about the word “free.” But maybe we should be radically incentivizing companies to go back into the education business, since no one knows better the skills their workers need than they do.”
Radically incentivizing companies to go back in the education business, since no one knows better the skills their workers need than they do? Sorry, Tom, that’s job training, not education. Betsy DeVos is trying to further privatize “education” for profit. We need government to step in and make critical thinking, “learning how to learn” and a love of inquiry and discovery the focus of our educational system. Oh, and college freshmen who can’t write or discuss a cogent paragraph has been a thing for decades.
1
good article, insightful, thank you.
Clearly, Arthur, you feel that the chants, are the appropriate American response to an American woman, a Congresswoman duly elected, who says things you don’t like.Did Trump encourage his supporters against, Say, Bernie Sanders? Gosh, no his a white man! Did he encourage his supporters to equally wrong remarks about a white woman? Actually yes, against Hillary Clinton! Unless you believe racism and sexism are indeed all-American, then the response to a man who is so ignorant that he believes the Constitution gives him completely free rein as President (Although the truth is Trump has never read the whole of the Constitution!) and is a pathological liar, a man who does not believe in the rule of law and is, effectively, an unindicted co-conspirator to a felony, is absolutely appropriate.
Let me be clear that I detest some of the things the “Squad” have said, though at least they have apologized on occasion. We should however expect a higher standard from a President. His actions and his words are in complete contradiction to those standards and thus anti- the kind of American leader we should expect!
1
This next election's choice is very clear...you either support the horror, gross incompetence and corruption of this administration or you don't. And by the way, the GOP has been scaring away its own centrists out of government for years...or haven't y'all noticed? What more do GOP centrists need to do the right thing? If you want some democratic candidate to offer you your world view which is where America is now...not going to happen.
2
No @michaelscody this has nothing to do with libertarianism. Just because he says he’s for approaches outside the box or with no box, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t want active government participation. When a local government tries something completely new that something may lie anywhere on the Authoritarian-Liberation line.
1
My main political viewpoint is the laws of physics. Any policy or implied 'right' that does not hold up to the laws of physics does not get my support. The planet is finite, so any policy that is dependent on the concept that we will grow forever, or that every human has a right to as many kids as they want, or that everyone has a right to everything, does not get my support. The planet's resources just cannot support it. I don't buy that idea that 'technology will save us'; historically it has only made things worse. That said, I don't show up on the spectrum of either political party.
1
The concept of left-right is an invention from the French Revolution.
It is essential to liberal (bourgeois) democracy because it gives the people the illusion of free will. It paints a spectrum of what is acceptable to manifest in the public arena.
Needless to say, the invention of the political spectrum is one of the pillars of and one of the main factors of resilience of the bourgeois State structure.
Agreed. So why does America not have a third party?
Not just a "mushy" one, as you say. But a party of radical centrism.
@Philip Geanokoplos: there’s typically not enough heat or energy around centrist ideas. This makes it hard to build a strong group or political infrastructure a year or so before an election. Moderates are too moderate! The former chair of the Washington State Republicans (Chris Vance—a smart, genuine guy, tho I disagree with a lot of his political it’s as a liberal) just gave up in his effort to create such a party in Washington. And this state is somewhat less polarized than many others.
The “thinking without a box” approach merits a lot of support. That said, I hope in subsequent columns Friedman dives deeper into his observation that scaling this approach nationally will be really hard. Specifically, how will we deal with “raw capitalism” when it continues (and probably intensifies) its pushback against what it fears is an assault by this new paradigm on its wealth and power? (See the fossil fuel industry’s well-documented, infamous attacks on climate-change science that it knew full well to be accurate.) It’s nice to envision people and institutions coming together to embrace a new pragmatism, but that is a much more wishful prescription than a sober understanding of this country’s history would seem to support.
As Major Pete said, if we promote and adopt radical changes to improve the state of the Union they are going to call us socialists. If we promote and adopt conservative ideas to improve the state of things they are going to call us socialists. So let's just do the right thing.
There is no one calling for the government to control the means of production. That was the bugaboo in the past conflating democratic socialist ideals with communism. Government creating a set of rules and regulations to insure that capitol cannot just walk all over labor was the basis of the New Deal.
republicans have been calling for the repeal of the New Deal for 80 years; calling it socialism.
Let's just do the right thing.
5
This is a really good article, a moment where I agree with the author. I, too, am a moderate, approaching from the right. I do not check all the Republican boxes. I believe that our country needs some third ‘find common ground’ party in the middle. The Republican right holds too much sway, and the Democratic left is far too extreme. We need to pull this thing together before it’s too late. Thank you, Thomas, for a solid draft blueprint!
1
It’s too extreme to make sure our planet is inhabitable and that every sick person can go see a doctor or fill a prescription without having to make a choice between that and taking out a second mortgage or eating food that day? The Republicans have moved the goal posts so far to the right that these basic issues that shouldn’t be controversial at all are considered extreme left issues. It’s as simple as that.
2
Couple of hundred years ago an economist named Thomas Malthus confidently predicted mass starvation since the farming methods could only produce a certain amount. Happily he was wrong with new and better farming methods. Indeed in the last century we have indeed grown the pie. The planet is indeed finite. The methods of exploiting it, and of manufacturing have improved, allowing this.
@Steven C
The planet is of course finite, so when we add technology to increase farm yields, we are dependent on fossil fuel fertilizers, harsh chemicals to control pests, and fossil-fueled planting and harvesting equipment. Not to mention global centralization of farming- we have to ship food halfway around the world to countries that too arid and too overpopulated to produce their own food. One could look at it as merely upping the ante for a bigger crisis with a larger world population when we eventually reach limits due to lack of sustainability.
1
Yes, the future of the Democratic Party is change, but the primary job today is winning an election and getting a normalized White House. It is important to remember the scariest thing to the majority of human beings is "change." The two changes for the Democrats to stress and no others, is to prioritize climate change and getting those in need covered by Medicare. Once in office the other major changes can be worked on. But lets not forget taking the presidency back has to be the first priority.
2
It seems like economist would like to regard their field of study like it was hard core science - like physics. The attitude is that they have to "discover" how the universe of finance works - like it was largely out of our control.
But the laws of economics are as made up as the rules of "Monopoly" the table game.
Under capitalism, accumulated wealth is put back to work to create more wealth - theoretically. So money "makes" money. Except, really, it is mostly only transferred - usually from many points of less wealth toward increasing concentrations of wealth.
The rich get richer. The poor get poorer.
Unless a sufficiently progressive tax is in place.
That has not been the case since Ronald Reagan.
Under Clinton/Gingrich, the whole country, Dems and Repubs, move right. That's why we liberals detest the Clinton's. Obama didn't help much either. Granted, both had Republican controlled congresses to deal with.
What Friedman and all the clueless pundits, would like us to forget is the once proud American middle class that was built on a Top Tax Rate well above 70% and often into the eighties.
The Democratic Left is NOT EXTREME. Stop the lies!
2
Relative to immigration/refugees, Friedman, probably supported, and now ignored the role of US military and covert activities in Central America used to insure capitalist oriented governments submissive to US corporate interests, never allowing governments whose foremost concern would have been the well being of the people.
Mostly Friedman's head is in the Capitalism box.
Relative to education, he shows no appreciation for the value of education that could create wiser citizens, but wants workplace skills.
From within his box he is completely unable to see the value
of paid parental leave, free/affordable quality childcare, free quality early childhood education, quality K-12 education for all, and tuition free continuing public education.
These policies would begin dealing with the colossal income/wealth inequality and result in a more thriving society, and a more thriving economy.
Friedman's “complex, adaptive coalitions” are necessary in dealing with climate change, as are the ideas/goals of the Green New Deal.
2
One huge issue with this article, not a single candidate is advocating abandoning markets. In fact, Elizabeth Warren’s economic policies are all specifically tailored to get markets to work better. If you can’t highlight and champion policies you support simply because you decided you don’t like the candidates espousing them, you are part of the problem as well.
4
No, Mr. Friedman, the problem is not as simple as left and right. The problem is much, much simpler: it is the extremism on the right. Full stop. And the solution is not your centrists, which have almost no support (something like 4%, mainly the rich, and the pundits, like you). As long as you keep blaming both sides, you will actually support that extremism. Which makes you another right hack, and a danger to democracy.You dojn't offer solutions, you are part of the problem.
5
@Christiaan Hofman - No. Extremism on the left, as espoused during the last Democratic debate, with candidates supporting decriminalizing illegal immigration and then paying for their healthcare, getting rid of all private insurance that most of us rely on, etc, is also a big, big problem.
2
If Thomas L. Friedman threw his hat into the ring with these ideas, he would lose, even if voters ignore his support of the Iraq War.
Why does Friedman believe he would be better at getting funding from Speaker Pelosi for his tall border wall than Trump? Or does Friedman intend to fund it with emergency decrees?
The anti-immigrant ideology is a variety of racism, as it has always been. The racists say that they want the laws enforced. But, when you enumerate all the horrible things done legally, you might end any law worship. Even if you embrace overt racism -- no one will out-racist Trump.
Although Friedman dislikes the word 'socialism', we have a mixed economy, part capitalist, part socialist. The socialist part includes government's economic activities, regulations, subsidies, redistributions, taxes and funding.
All the candidates, except the Libertarians, are satisfied with a mixed economy, with candidates advocating tinkering with it ---they all think they can fix it and the others wreck it. Friedman is no exception.
If Friedman ran for president, even though he has some wrong ideas, he would lose badly. He might be as popular as Howard Schultz.
Politics in a democracy requires different skills than those of a NYT columnist. Look at Trump.
2
Mr. Friedman had me until his quip about welcoming "high I.Q." immigrants. Does this mean that people with cognitive and psychiatric disabilities are undeserving of sanctuary? Undeserving of economic opportunities? Does Mr. Friedman know that Ellis Island immigration authorities used to turn away people and children with physical and cognitive disabilities? By what metric would he determine the I.Q. of a Central American immigrant? Don't try to mask your prejudices with supposed pragmatic arguments for better immigration policies. We see through them. You are the other side of the same tired elite xenophobic coin.
4
For one outside the confines of a box, as Friedman claims to be, his thoughts on education seem to be formed by the view from a pinhole from within the smallest box imaginable. About the government's role, the words leapt out at me: "It’s what should be taught there and who should teach it." Josef Stalin or Pol Pot could not have stated that shared view more concisely.
4
Republicans disaffected with Trump and his take over of the Republican Party now want Democrats to be the conservative party to replace what they lost to Trump. No thanks! The future of the Democratic Party lies with the progressive young people in the Party that are pushing for policies that benefit average Americans like universal healthcare, quality affordable education and dealing with the climate change crisis. The Democratic Party has not become too far left as Friedman would have people believe. Trump and the Republican Party have gone over a cliff with right wing hateful policies that only benefit the rich.
80
@Mary
It might be that the party hasn't gone too far to the left wihen you consider your beliefs or when you consider ethics or morality. However, a stubborn holdfast to a progressive agenda by Dems will help reelect Trump faster than you say MAGA.
4
@Mary
This is a very narrow reading of Friedman’s column; you are entitled to your political views, but where the votes are will decide policy, not your particular definition of what is too far left or too far right. Maybe the Democratic party has become too large an umbrella with a widening array of serious policy disagreements among its members, and maybe a realignment will have to take place, but let’s hope the coalition holds in 2020, and Friedman is justly concerned the “progressive’ wing of the party will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
7
@Mary The reality is that the most liberal wing of the Democratic party is overwhelming white. Polling has shown that white liberals are actually to the left of African Americans as a whole on issues of race and to the left of Hispanics as a whole on immigration. As the party becomes increasingly non-white they're going to have to grapple with the fact that a lot of the groups they champion are not exactly social liberals. Hispanic immigrants overwhelmingly come from patriarchal societies where the Catholic church wields huge influence. Muslims are very conservative on LGBTQ and women's issues, etc.
Beyond that problem in their own ranks, more people identify as moderate than either conservative or liberal, and more identify as conservative than liberal. In other words, Trump can't win with the 40-45% of the public who agrees with him, but the Democrats can lose by driving away the people who don't identify either with Trump OR the Democratic party.
And even if enough people hold their nose and cast a vote against Trump, the Dems have no shot at actually winning the Senate with these policies. So they can either learn to compromise and get part of what they want - e.g. strengthen Obamacare or get none of it while arguing for the theoretical that will never pass like Medicare for All.
5
As usual, Friedman claims to be a "centrist" who thinks "without a box," but 9 out of 10 of his policy proposals are and have been mainstream Democratic Party proposals for decades.
1
First off our irresponsible media has to come to terms with it's own responsibility in all of this since they support our duopoly which is the source of all our woes. In a perfect world the majority of us would not belong to either party and allow the Dems and Reeps to be the side shows they always were meant to be.
2
The USA had a system for many, many years that provided good paying jobs in a great variety of positions in business & industry.Then the corporate profiteers dissatisfied with merely venturing overseas to open soft drink & chewing gum plants to supply the locals began moving big ticket factories & facilities off shore with the support of patriotic anti-communists & temporarily embarrassed millionaires or scoundrels, removing those jobs from our shores.
Today the tech industry has completed the task of disaffection followed by once foreign competitors locating here to colonize & produce product with American workers at wages & benefits far lower than they'd offer in their home countries.
Thomas Friedman has been one of the most vocal proponents of this process. Thanks Tom.
1
The middle of the road moved right under Clinton/Gingrich and has been there ever since. So all of this great division is all about the Republican Parhyty going to the dark side. PERIOD!
Before Ronald Reagan, the U.S. had a progressive tax system that raised row boats and pleasure cruisers alike. But the wealthy are never satisfied. That's why an 80% tax rate on them works. They never stop trying, even if they can only keep 20% of what they earn.
Under capitalism money makes money, like under gravity mass attracts mass. Which means that wealt
2
I agree that the old binary choices aren't functional. But my view is that, in many instances, they never have been.
Mr Friedman left out one important and very crucial element in the immigration issue. The third world and Latin America suffer from a population explosion. With the growing automation of the work force we have to control the population explosion. The vacating of weak countries is not the solution. Rich countries should invest in the latter so that their population stay at home. But most important is that investment should be tied to population control.
3
I'm a proud moderate - which is why I have no friends.
3
I agree with much of what you say, but it is mostly a dream. Since the 1960s the GOP political strategy has been to divide and conquer. They have very little interest in solving real problems in ways that bring us closer together because their hold on power depends upon keeping us apart. They appeal to human fears of the "other", especially concerning race, sexuality, religion, and government to win the loyalty of their base and distract their attention from real problems. For at least the past 40 years, the GOP have been advocates of government dysfunction because it leaves their rich and powerful donors and cronies the "freedom" to do as they please, without restraint, resulting in their own enrichment at the expense of the public good. The strategy has been largely successful. Meanwhile, Democrats' attempts to engage the GOP to find pragmatic, constructive solutions to problems have seemed feckless in the face of obstinate GOP obstruction. The GOP has pulverized good government to mush and continues to enjoy the sweet fruit of their corruption. Why should they change now?
1
TLF, good to read of your thinking outside the box. Too little has been written, objectively, how Trump is the anti-republican. Perhaps democrats are feeling the same; the old rhetoric, including a knee-jerk 'racist' reaction to every notion that collides with 'box-ideology'.
Most every American wants things to work and folks to get along...we have to enable thoughtful conversations to find our common agreements, rather than dwell on prejudice by both sides.
1
This used to be a republic. What happened?
If the most complex solution you can come up with is ‘markets’ good, ‘socialism’ bed you need to keep working on it.
Also the shock of a racist president and the chant does not equate to Democrats debating health care and policy no matter how you spin it.
1
Good article Mr. F.
One point - our "addictions" haven't caused the damage south of the border, our prohibition and criminalization of drugs and their users has. The problem with drugs isn't the drugs (in their non-illegal form), its the war on drugs (on citizens, actually). If regulated and controlled, ALL the illegal drugs would do a fraction of the damage they currently do. To us and our southern neighbors.
D.A., J.D. (fmr drug court defense atty)
1
Actually, things are binary.
It is, exactly, left, against the right.
The difference is the same as it has always been, clearly specified in the names of the two parties.
The Repubicans are aligned with the structure of the nation as laid out in the Constitution and view the United States as 50 entities.
The Democrats are opposed to the structure of the nation as laid out in the Constitution and seek to abolish federalism and replace it with a single national political entity.
The Democrats have been enemies of the Constitution since tehir inception.
1
This column is a good way to get people thinking in creative ways about the complex problems Mr. Friedman has described. There are some sound solutions by both Friedman and the reader’s comments that should be considered by legislators.
But these solutions need to be multifaceted as the problems all have multiple causes and conditions. And that requires “thinking outside of the box,” considering all ideas no matter where they come from. Further, that process requires setting aside the “liberal”, “socialist”, “conservative, “right and left” labels for this purpose. Labels limit our thinking and inflame our emotions. The question is what is the best current thinking and way forward for the American people and for the planet?
Now to use a label (which sometimes can be useful) the liberals of this country, of which I am one, have made a serious mistake by playing the polarizing game with Trump supporters. Blame and judgement do not help in this situation and prevent us from finding and implementing pragmatic and workable solutions.
1
"...if we want to stem the flood of immigration at our southern border, we have to understand what’s driving that immigration." For immigration, not asylum, the root cause is not climate change or food insecurity, etc.. it is that American business are willing to hire illegal immigrants with little to no consequences. If you stop that practice then much of what bring immigrants looking for work to our boarder will be mitigated. Asylum seekers are another matter with different causes and solutions. These two "groups" are a ven diagram and should therefore share some common solutions but not all.
1
Many good points here, but I do take issue with the idea of bringing business into the halls of education. The point of education is not to train good workers. It is to train minds. In most cases, this training gives the student many options. Higher education has traditionally aspired to lofty goals; that's generally not what big business is looking for in its average worker. Hard skills should be left to trade schools or on-the-job training. Trying to apply business metrics to the learning process is part of why we have so many standardized tests attempting to evaluate what K-12 students know and then bracketing them into categories. The last thing we need is big business that already monopolizes so many areas extending its reach into the halls of academia.
2
Congratulations, Mr. Friedman! At least you can honestly admit you're working on those problems. I doubt there are very many in Washington who could admit to do the saying the same. You see, they're either too busy raising money for the next campaign or denying those problems exist. If the problems don't exist, then there is no reason for the government to get involved.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm about to be interviewed on one of the cable news channels.
Friedman wrote:
“[W]e should be radically incentivizing companies to go back into the education business, since no one knows better the skills their workers need than they do.”
Down in DC, I’m confident Education Secretary Betsy DeVoss smiled at your support of a market-based strategy directed by large employers to to determine curriculum content. I can’t wait until Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, and others join her advisory committee, based on your innovative suggestion!
Friedman’s main perspective is correct, but he sometimes slips back into boxes that need shattering. But as he’s working on “the answer,” here are some pieces from someone at this a long time. While we’re kind of stuck with labels, and he recognizes we can’t stay within their bounds, don’t ignore that on any given issue a certain label might have a greater part of the solution. That’s too useful to throw away. Which doesn’t mean they have the full answer, or that a different label won’t be more right on another issue. Being a complex thinker is hard, and not just cognitively. There are emotional and social dimensions to work through, to say nothing of the “how do I make a living doing this” topic. Two watchwords that should help are “nuance” (see today’s Times obit on Daniel Callahan) and “humility.” It would help if policy-makers respond to ideas presented to them largely consistent with what Friedman is saying. I’ve never experienced that. So, while he’s largely right, to be more consistent he should rethink the preference for “high IQ” immigrants; why does he think companies actually know the skills their employees need with so much change; pragmatism has vision problems without idealism; and local “complex, adaptive coalitions” sounds great, but too often the local scale can be overly parochial, conformist, or fraught with the same ego-driven politics we see elsewhere. See my https://sustainablebrands.com/read/new-metrics/what-if-opposites-aren-t-really-opposite-part9.
We could start with freedom to make mistakes by attempting changes without being pilloried for the next quarter century for having made them. Mr. Friedman's story of the cameras in St. Louis Park that froze in the first cold snap is a good example ("what are you going to try next?"). America used to try to do big things. America used to be civil. But we will need an FAA to notify us about flying pigs before that happens.
My goodness ! You are right Mr. Friedman. As I was reading your insightful column on my iPad I get a drop down notification about the White House retweeting one of Trump’s tweets ! A distracting moment while digesting your opinions and also worrying about why those whales, sea lions and seals are washing up dead on California beaches.
I am one of those folks that is neither. But, I am extremely aggravated about Trump and everything he stands for as a human being and a politician ! The policies he is imposing, the cruelty he directs and his whole approach is rotten to the core. He is, along with his bosom buddies Kim, Rodrigo and Vladimir, a terrestrial horror show in the making.
Thank you Mr. Friedman for your intelligent awareness !
"Grow the pie." Indefinitely, on a finite planet? How will that work?
1
I apply Mr Friedman's "thinking without a box" to an immigration policy that "welcomes high-energy and high-I.Q. legal immigrants." Those high-energy and high-IQ individuals are the people most needed back in their home countries. For them personally, emigrating is a solution. I respect that. But some of them at least might stay home if they found opportunities to contribute to their home economies and societies. So I would add to the immigration policy a program to develop business and community work opportunities in the countries losing immigrants to the US. This is the kind of work both Obamas did in Chicago, America knows how to do it. The US could even ally with the EU on this and set up a near-global program that would help fifty countries energize their economies and societies. In the end, we would all be winners. Even the financial people, who cannot invest all the money there is in the real world, so it just whirls around in the casino of the official and the dark markets -- they would benefit too. But the idea of rich countries siphoning off the best people from the Third World needs to be questioned, from a macro perspective. Now, is this thinking without a box?
2
The caravan of migrants clamoring for a better life at our southern borders and arriving on our shores has no end insight. Cuban and Haitian boat lifts were prelude. Were I besieged by gang warfare, starvation, an early grave, awaking each day to fear and hopelessness I’d drag my weary bones towards a dream.
Free healthcare for illegal immigrants is not the answer nor is an idiotic wall. Are any of these Dem candidates suggesting some kind of joint alliance with Mexico? Something?
The answers to our political problems aren't as simple as left or right wing politics, the old binary choices no longer work?
That's true. But it's also true that now it's possible to imagine binary politics reduced to truly elemental frightening level. For example, it would not at all be inaccurate to characterize binary politics today as National Socialists against Socialists against Nationalism, the one a party increasingly composed of white people racist against everybody else and the other party supposedly non-racist but obviously in its Socialism conflating capitalism with white people and therefore racist as well, racist against white people.
Interestingly, although we know we must somehow transcend binary politics it appears the historical conflict between the economic theories of capitalism and socialism is gradually giving way to the triumph of socialism, but not without developments of National Socialism versus Socialisms which ostensibly are against racism but which nevertheless are because targeting the certain races, ethnic groups given to National Socialism.
Right wing phenomenons from the U.S. to Britain to Israel to Japan seem to fall in line with National Socialism, and are accused of being insular if not racist, but then we have Socialisms targeting these phenomenons in what in return appears to be an uncomfortably racist sense. It's almost as if capitalism is receding and socialism triumphing, but it's a battle of types of racist socialisms.
The Kabbalah and most esoteric branches of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) advise that the Center path is the most difficult path. The extreme ends want to kill you or dismiss you without thought, but if you don't hold true to the needs of everyone (and what does that distribution look like for any given social concern), destruction is the result. We have to hold regardless of what the extremes say or do and we have to be the integrators we have always been. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(poem) It won't be easy and it never has been.
20
@TDHawkes The only issue with this is that there is only one extreme here. Having looked at American politics all my life I can only see one extreme position and that is conservative movement that is trying to push things into a world ruled by mega corporations. Until I see the american left pushing for policies or acting in a way that would hurt or weaken democratic institutions, I could not call them radical or extreme.
8
"You were either with capital or labor; for big-government solutions or small-government solutions; open to trade and immigration or more closed to them; prioritizing “green” over growth and embracing new social norms, like gay marriage, or opposing them. "
He leaves out the biggie, which right here, says where his heart "really" is: individual freedom versus collective coercion. He clearly believes in collective coercion, as long as he is doing the coercion.
The same old same old stuff the NYT loves.
If the subhead reads: "The old binary choices no longer work."- the article's not worth my time. When did a "binary choice" ever substitute for informed decision making? When I see an article about how "Pragmatism No Longer Works", maybe I'll read the first paragraph.
Elizabeth Warren has spent her carreer studying and advocating for middle class families. Friedman has spent his being wrong about the Middle East and misreading globalization. She is no radical and he surely is no expert.
2
Even if Mr Friedman has been consistently wrong about the Middle East and globalization, which I would dispute, to me this article is about neither but about a subject that I believe he, as an intelligent, educated and well-read man, has valid and insightful views.
As for Senator Warren, I have no dispute that she has worked hard for families. I would, however, assert that her plans are among the more radical of the 382 Democratic candidates (slight exaggeration in the number!). I would also feel that some of them are infeasible in the real political world.
"...“complex, adaptive coalitions”...
Meh. Sounds like someone likes things to stay just as they are — thank you very much but no.
1
Not exactly a myth when one or the other party will compromise our government. That a large percentage of the population chooses not to participate does not negate the above fact. And lest you imagine this is a modern thing, there has always been a substantial block of the citizenry that wouldn’t vote.
1
Right. I think of myself as a "practical liberal" because I am always asking, can we get it done, how can it be done, and how will it be paid for? Some of the current Democratic crop of candidates do answer the last, i.e., they offer plans to pay for Medicare for all or child care for all or "free" college for all, though whether that payment system would be sufficient and workable long term remains to be seen.
The question they do not answer, though, is if and how it can be done - whatever it is. Even before the last decade when the country and the Congress have become increasingly polarized, it was often challenging to get bills bringing social change through Congress. In the current climate it would virtually impossible to get a go-for-broke law (Medicare for all) though the Congress, even if the Dems managed to keep the House and take the Senate (a real stretch, but possible).
I prefer candidates who offer plans which might not be the ultimate dream, but which have at least the possibility of actually passing and becoming law. Let's move the ball; let's get something done; let's (in terms of healthcare) increase the number who have access and find ways to lower costs for all so that 4 years from now lots of folks think that they are better off than they were in 2020.
1
In stats, "dummy" or dichotomous variables are independent variables that denote whether a key condition is present (its value is 1), or not ( its value is 0). For example, if a retailer wanted to predict my future consumption behavior, whether I owned a car or not would be helpful. Also, my income, as well as, the number of individuals in my household are critical. Very simply, a stat model that predicts my consumption behavior based on these data points follows:
My Consumption Spending = f(My Annual Income, the # of People in My Household, and My Car Ownership Status).
Annual Income and # of Household members are both quantitative independent variables that are combined with a qualitative independent variable, car ownership. All are used to predict the dependent variable: My Consumption Spending.
The quantitative variables are more precisely measured and contain more information than the qualitative variable. The next iteration could be refined as follows:
My Consumption Spending = f(My Annual Income, # of Kids in My Household, # of Adults in My Household, and whether I do not own a car (0), or whether I own a Ford (1), GM (2), Chrysler (3), or Other (4) brand of car).
Like our frustration with limited political choices, data vending firms expand the use of our data to study our past consumer choices, and then they can precisely target future ads based on them. Cost effective ads have higher ROIs because of this more exact targeting.
[7/24 W 11:03a Greenville NC]
You have eloquently articulated what I have been writing ever since Trump first appeared on the scene and when Obama was putting himself in the box:
We need an Independent Party where rational thinking alone, not box checking, is the sole criterion of membership. Let professional, non political academies, like NAS, AAAS, etc be the arbiters who is rational and who is a loony and thus can be a member or not.
Every time, I was crucified for subverting the anti-Trump movement, nevermind that getting rid of one idiot may mean replacing him with another.
Right now, the selection of our leading politicians is determined by who can screech the loudest or who is the best known, often that means the same, not by who is most qualified. Inconceivable in a time where one needs a diploma for many low level jobs, but apparently not for leading a country.
1
@Kara.
I have no dispute with your preference for a more reasonable third party, our political system won’t allow for a viable third party.
The sheer cost of operating such a party is against it. As is the specific cost for elections.
Clinton spent, according to reports, a billion dollars and I assume that Democrats down-ticket spent as much in addition to spending by the DNC and PACs. Then the two established parties would, we can expect, make it as difficult as they could for the third party to register voters and even get on the balance.
We could use a third party but getting a viable one, there’s the problem. Last time a third party candidate came anywhere but a very distant third? 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran against Taft , his successor, merely letting Wilson.
1
How is this for thinking out of the box? If we start worrying about these issues when students are college age, we have already lost. Why do students have to be 18 or 19 before we start teaching critical thinking? Of course, part of the issue is that families are in trouble. It is very difficult to prepare students for anything--work force or college--when their parents are addicts who do not bring them to school. Teachers have become so overburdened and insulted that only missionaries and those who can't do anything else go into teaching. More affluent families, of course, find the resources their children need.
While the solution is not entirely government, part of the issue in rural communities is that government supports many, many of the middle class jobs. Teachers here are not overpaid, certainly, but good benefits have encouraged young people who wanted to stay home choose teaching instead of more lucrative careers. Now, in my state, even that is being wrenched away.
Before "free" college, we need to make sure that the students who want to come to college are prepared. We have students who do not know how to read a ruler and cannot find a main idea in passages lifted from this newspaper. Astonishingly, many of them learn quite well when they are taught. I suspect that many Americans have never actually believed in education beyond "common sense" and, as the President often says, his "gut." If we don't get in gear, China and India will.
1
The left/right dichotomy was never the only division and, in my opinion, was the less important one. The more important division was the libertarian/authoritarian one.
The traditional left and the traditional right were always on the authoritarian side if that divide; the only difference was what parts of the citizen's lives they wanted to control. What Mr. Friedman seems to be proposing is a movement to the libertarian side of this axis, giving citizens and local governments more freedom to try solutions without the left or right hands of an overriding Federal presence pressing them down.
1
"The old binary choices no longer work."
Until we get proportional representation, binary choices are all we will get. A two-party system is a political version of a binary device. Left or right, Republican or Democrat. Hillary or Trump.
America was an early adopter of modern democracy. We got that part of it wrong, and it's destroying us. Since we're not going to get proportional representation, our only hope is for the moderates to take back the center stage. Otherwise the pendulum will swing too far to one side or the other, and the system will break down while we watch it on the evening news.
1
Israel has proportional representation. Hasn’t stopped essentially a binary result. Originally Labor party led governments, now rightist ones. Italy has proportional representation and has had....well actually normally chaos (nearly a Government a year)! But now they also have a rightist Government.
1
@Steven Chinn: The proportional representation makes a non-binary result possible. It doesn't guarantee a non-binary result. Smaller parties align themselves with larger parties to form coalitions; this ensures that the smaller parties get some of what they want.
It isn’t that hard, we simply need evidence based solutions. We know the answer to most of the big problems, we just need competent leadership to implement the solutions. It only seems hard because one party has ceased to have any interest in governing and has morphed into a criminal enterprise.
@John Stroughair
And the other party has embraced ideological purity over practical solutions.
You clearly have not looked at the myriad of bills passed by the Democratic House, but totally blocked by McConnell. Practical legislation. Just because a number of the candidates are more radical than you’d like (and actually than I’d like also) does not mean they’ve followed the lemming-like Republicans throwing themselves off the cliff!
Thomas: So is the takeaway from your piece this morning that thinking with no box is going to miraculously increase the willingness of citizens including corporations(as they are now considered people)from both the right and the left to pay much, much higher taxes or is your solution for those “box less” thinkers to radically curtail spending on, take your choice, the military or social benefits, namely Social Security(which is self funded and should be off the table unless of course the good rich folks want to throw their investment portfolios into the pot)and healthcare. You muddle the waters as much as those on either side do, it’s great to talk about what is needed, “parks, mass transit, education etc.” , it’s something entirely different to secure the money to pay for it. Nothing’s changed in the fifty years of Milton Friedman Economic since we went off the gold standard and allowed financial engineering and leveraging of other people’s money to replace manufacturing with a service based economy insuring all profits rise to the top. You mention philanthropy Thomas, which is where we are at now, no longer having tax dollars to support libraries, parks, mass transit etc. we look to The Uber Rich who want their name on a building or private financing for infrastructure as Kushner was pursuing in the Middle East before the MBS/Kashoggi affair. The “mushy middle” is more Neo clap trap from both sides allowing the (very profitable) for the rich status quo to continue.
2
Gee, finally someone considering “MY” approach.
Discuss ISSUES, not labels.
Thanks Mr. Friedman for opening your eyes.
2
The title of this piece should have read: "There is a Third Way and it's name is Joe Biden!"
Transparent work.
1
There is no left and right, just the Right. Everyone else including the middle is evil to them. It’s their perverted religion and you’ll never convince them to work with the “Devil”. The only choice we have is to defeat them out of government and then the rest of us can go about making logical, pragmatic decisions to address these serious problems in the world. Everything you just cited as your moderate solutions is ungodly communism in their eyes.
1
I’ve not read all the comments but suspect that my response is being shared repeatedly. What you’ve shared seems sooooo obvious. Yet sadly so unattainable. Now what? Can I cast my vote for you?
1
The key word is pragmatism, about finding solutions that work rather than are based on ideology, or worse, on notions that somehow the past is the key to the future. Conservativism in the Trump era has come to mean return to the land of the 1950's (without the taxes, of course), where white men ruled, where religious bigotry, especially from Ma Church, was often the law, and where corporations ran the country (in their view, of course they leave out the 1950's was the height of the power of labor). The left is regurgitating the same old tired socialism of the past, the equality of Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" and throwing around all kinds of stuff that may be important (I am no social conservative). No one is looking forward, how do we provide good paying jobs in a world where more and more is being automated, or sent to third world countries? Do we go to Star Trek world where people are freed from labor and can do other things they wish to do? How do we convince the stock based, hyper capitalist economy of the high tech world and Mckimsey consulting that the interest of shareholders cannot be all, and that if you produce more and more with less and less labor, who is going to buy their goods or services? Or will we have a world with a 100,000 Dow when all that matters is the fictions that the stock analysts work out? How do we break the fossil fuel monopoly and their vassal industries, once and for all so that all benefit?
1
Funny - criticize people for saying “Send her back” by calling them “un-American”. Seems like the pot calling the kettle black.
1
@Arthur: You're right; calling them "racist" would be a good deal more appropriate. Then again, Americans supposedly believe in the Constitution which says nothing about forcing people to return to their places of origin if they decline to salute the flag or support the policies of a given "president."
1
I'd like to think that Mr. Friedman simply misspoke when asserting that we need "to tighten rules on who can seek asylum;" anyone should be able to seek asylum, whereas not everyone should have it granted them. In any case, there IS one Democratic candidate whose policy proposals are not too far to the left of those of most Americans. His name is Joe Biden. A Biden presidency would give progressives approximately 4/5 of what we want. Four more years of Donald Trump would, on the other hand, deplete much of what we already have (It's the Supreme Court, stupid!). Democrats should support whomever they wish during the primaries, but when Biden wins the nomination, as he most likely will, he'll need to have the firm and active support of every American with a heart, a brain and a conscience in order to spare this nation from the ash-heap of history.
comment submitted 7/23 at 10:56 PM
2
The way to comprehend Trump and his methods is to understand that he understands that there is no meaningful difference between the two parties beyond slogans. So he has shifted the slogans into territory that polite people prefer not to enter, as a tactic to whip the mob into a frenzy. It was a technique much used in the first half of the 20th century in Europe.
"Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.” — Joseph Goebbels
1
Newsflash. "Free College" isn't free. It will cost billions of dollars in continuous funding that cannot be solely hoisted on the backs of the ultra-rich or corporations. You know what happens when you create a corporate "speculation tax", as Bernie has proposed? Corporations will put their money elsewhere, or lay off workers in favor of automation to compensate for the lost profits. Inevitably, the tax revenue will fall short and middle class Americans will have to pay in.
Of course, the other less discussed outcome of "free college" is the inevitable decrease in value of a degree from a free college vs a private institution. The gulf between public and private institutions will increase, not decrease, as the best faculty, professors, infrastructure and academic options will flow directly to private colleges.
Newsflash! Remember the Republicans saying the cut in Corporate taxes would cost nothing!
Guess what part of Trump’s humongous deficit comes from reduced revenue from...corporate taxes! What a surprise! Not my slanted views, this comes from official Treasury Dept figures!
1
Mr. Friedman, please run for President. WE need you.
One of the major problems not addressed is balancing the expectations with gov't funds to work them. The gov't has lost ability to work problems. For example, folks have been noting the need for transportation infrastructure repair for years. The source of funds for this is the gas tax of a few cents per gallon based on gas consumption of vehicles twenty years ago. Fuel economy has improved substantially (doubled?) while the tax rate has remained constant, not to mention folks driving electric vehicles not paying anything, but no one has will to fix it. Meanwhile politicians keep promising more "benefits" without addressing the cost and the current deficits are at unsustainable levels.
Tom -- what you are really saying is that our collective thinking requires nuance, something that few politicians promote due to the difficulty of getting such messages across to voters.
1
Mr. Friedman is spot-on about a number of points. Discovering how a party might speak without LR orientation is crucial to saving the country.
We have millions of white men (and women) who are disappointed by a loss of purchase on the wheels of their own lives. Maleness is no longer a sinecure. Nor is whiteness. Nor is entrepreneurship. Nor is any traditional role still adequate to make a fulfilling life.
People who have already peaked in their professions are learning they have to go back to school. Where's their promised land?
Poorly educated people are discovering that seizing power as a mob is easier than reading and studying. Demagogues and their props have a clear road ahead.
The nation's grasping at straws. Red or green straw? Left or right? But that's not a real solution.
1
Well put.
Michael Bennet.
As usual, Thomas Friedman wants to stand in a middle that doesn't exist anymore, scolding "both sides" as if they were an equal threat.
2
Tom, I hope that if called on, you will accept a position as advisor to the President. We need you.
I’m pretty sure the phenomenon you’ve just described, Mr. Friedman - is Pete Buttigeig ...
1
I trust the American political system to keep things centered, so to speak. The President is not Maximum Leader whether Democratic or Republican. He or she governs by giving leadership, not orders, and the result is always a compromise.
The differences between high and moderate taxes, between one-payer and private-insurer health care, between strict and broad interpretations of asylum, will work themselves out. The one thing that won't work itself out is the difference between general basic honesty and total dishonesty and corruption. That's the only real issue in this election.
Either term, moderate or centrist, incorrectly, but emotionally, implies an unwarranted indecisiveness, a derogatory sense of wishy-washiness.
It is nothing of the kind, but is simply a realistic acknowledgement of a statistical reality: most of any population are going to fall in the middle of a graph that plots the range of their opinions. This is where Bugs Bunny says, “That’s all folks.”
Somehow it has become a requirement to seem to be an outlier, as if that magically endows one with some special sauce. It is the outliers, not those in the center, who are, to use a fraught term, “weird.” Everyone thinks they want to be unique when in fact the human conditions is a strong desire to belong, to be included rather than excluded.
My advice is for everyone get it over themselves and accept reality: most of us are average, not exceptioinal.
It is about left and right! Dems need to embrace the new reality:
1. tell rich people they can be rich and get rich in a still free world
2. tell pro choice advocates that we must get past ripping unborn babies out of wombs and help women get access to birth control, morning after pills, early pregnancy abortions, etc...
3, tell gun advocate that they support the 2nd Amendment
4. be the party of non-racists and pro-diversity
5. develop clear pathways to implementing a plan for healthcare, humanitarian border control, and climate adaption (ie New Green Deal)
I can not support the radicalizing of the Democratic Party by the militant Squad...they must go or I will be glad to vote against the DNC.
2
@Charlie: They're four individuals who have minimal influence over their Party despite what Republican politicos have to say. The represent the DNC to the same extent that Steve King represents the RNC.
1
Tom - Any chance of you running? Please!
The answer of how to overcome the appeal of Trump's racism is to nominate a candidate who speaks positively of unifying the country. Trump's words and actions have worked to separate the country into two diametrically opposed political camps. Whichever side dominates creates an equal and opposing force that becomes the resistance. The resistance then works to stop any progress in the country. Stagnation is the result. And that is where the country is now.
There is a long list of problems that Trump has failed at resolving. Infrastructure rebuilding, doing something to mitigate climate change, passing meaningful gun controls, an effective immigration policy, an exploding federal deficit, the ever worsening unequal distribution of wealth, etc. In the end it will be up to the American people as to whether keeping America white dominated is more important to them than acomplishments that actually move the country forward to overcome those problems.
Friedman proposes a market driven/government partnership to solve our problems. But how to overcome decades of Republicans indoctrinating the masses that government is the problem? How to overcome the base racist appeal of Trump to a white population that fears their influence is waning due to immigration? The answer is that it will take a great Democratic orator, an inspirational speaker to make the case against Trump, but does that person exist today? The Democrats have nominated people like this in the past. But who now?
Friedman may call himself a "centrist", but I call myself incredibly worried. Back to Central America: The other piece of that issue - and looking just at Guatemala - Guatemalans living/Working in the United States send back an estimated 9 BILLION dollars in remittances Every year. Forbes even argues that the Guatemalan govt. factors this money into it's budgetary projections and encourages people to leave Guatemala to work in the United States (one way the do this is by putting zero dollars into any kind of social anti/poverty programs). The 180 Million dollars the US gives/gave to Guatemala is nothing compared to the 9 Billion dollars sent back. Can you imagine if we made it possible for these people to reside and work legally here and had them contributing to social security? Not one politician has talked about this or what a possible solution might be. Where are the real discussions? The actual attempts at problem solving? I agree our problems are not simple - and unfortuneatly I have yet to hear a candidate speak to this.
2
Finally! Tom Friedman said it, wrote it down, said it loud and clear: Trump and his Base act like fascists.
The rally, writes Friedman, where The Base chanted “Send her back,” was like “something out of a 1930s German or Italian fascist newsreel.”
From history, infamous fascists—Italy’s Mussolini, Germany’s Hitler.
Wait! It can’t be true. But, yes, Friedman does compare a Trump rally to the rallies of Mussolini and Hitler. I pause. I shake my head. This cannot be true.
The Presidential election of 2020 is not about health care or jobs or immigration, it is about tactics, how will America fight a fascist and his fascist loving crowds? Fascists have always lost but the battles to contain them are always harsh and ugly.
4
'...welcomes the high-energy and high-IQ immigrants' sounds very eugenics-y to me.
I was with you for a while there, but that whole paragraph slid right into alt-right.
2
Friedman hits upon a key issue today. The old definitions of each party no longer fit many voters or the key issues of today. The Republican party is growing the deficit fearlessly and rarely talks about it and the Democratic party is being hijacked by politicians who seem to want to buy everyone's vote without regard to any economic logic.
1
It's no longer between the left and right, but between racist and nonracist. While we don't want to admit it, racism got Donald Trump elected, and will get him re-elected in 2020. Sad as it is, we have become a racist country.
While praising the intelligence of the American electorate, Trump secretly knows that they can be led around like bulls with nose rings - only instead of bull rings, he uses their beliefs and prejudices to lead them wherever he wants.
If DJT doesn't destroy our fragile democracy, he has published the blueprint and playbook for some other demagogue to do it later. If a democracy like America's is going to exist, there will have to be a paradigm shift in human thought throughout the world.
In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds see the survival of a particular belief as more important than the survival of us all. When we understand all this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
3
In answer to your last question, what is missing is an attack dog wing to directly challenge Trump’s bully pulpit. When he claims they hate America, he should be immediately accused of hating America - free press, fair elections, independent judiciary - and a narrative should be established debating how much he hates America. That should become an active discussion in the news media. Epithets need to be repeated and repeated so they imbed in the public’s psyche - e.g. sleazy con artist. I have compared the current situation to a boxing match where one side enters wearing brass knuckles and swinging a baseball bat while the other side has its head buried in the Marquis of Queensbury rulebook - hello Mueller? The opposition is at risk of reprising Neville Chamberlain as they consume themselves with the letter of the law and procedural technicalities. You don’t win a street fight that way and that is where Trump prevails unchallenged. Going down while waving the proverbial paper in our hands will be of little solace when a demagogue who kept a copy of Hitler’s speeches on his nightstand and whose best buddies are Putin and Kim Jung Un continues his destruction of our country.
5
@victor - revise last sentence to read....continues to remake our country in their image.
1
TRUMP'S FAMILY CAME FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY. Germany. So will the Democrats start a chant, Send him back! Send him back!? Me, I'm a political agnostic. I'm interested in effective problem-solving. But what trumps (pun intended) problem-solving is that any efforts to change must run the gauntlet between the two Houses of the US Congress, both of which have been locked in a battle to a slow, agonizing, necrotic struggle to the death. It used to be that there were certain things that could be the focus of the national good. Say, the national highway system. The transcontinental railroad. The building of the electric power grid. Overcoming the Dustbowl to restore US farming. Now all we can agree on is that everyone spends too much time on the electronic media. Twitter, Facebook, surfing the Internet. Who would have thought that the Information Superhighway of the Internet would end up being the universal time suck that is eroding our social interconnectedness. Like families who have dinner together while each member sends messages to others not present. Left? Right? Nothing matters until we can agree to start talking to each other and solving problems together..
1
You seem to be asking: what do we do about an ignorant electorate when it falls for the lies of an unscrupulous would-be dictator who exploits hate and resentment?
The only solution I know of is the solution Germany found in WW II: when citizens are sitting in the rubble of their lives and cities, they finally see that they have been conned.
You know more history than I do, Tom: can you point to another solution that worked?
6
Extraordinary that a well educated long-term New York Times columnist can write "the answer, Gorbis says, is not socialism and abandoning markets..." as if any of the top choices that the Democratic Party might make have proposed socialism.
The models that all but Biden seem to be using are provided by countries such as the one I write from, Sweden, that are not socialist.
Let's use Sweden to take care of this misrepresentation, Implied that Universal Health Care requires the absence of private health insurance. Sweden has true UHC yet private health insurance is available and care provided by private physicians is available.
Perhaps some candidate needs to present a health care proposal by teaching people how UHC works in a real country, not a fictional socialistic country. I try to do that in comments.
And finally, Thomas Friedman, President X does not talk about "race" but he does engage in multi-reason racism looking down on individuals because of their nativity, their religion, their culture, their skin color and on and on. Belonging to Islam is not to belong to a fictional "race", being Somali born is not to belong to a "Somali race". President X is a racist who very likely knows almost nothing about the terrible American system of classifying people by "race".
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
5
"But the answer ... is not socialism ... but a vibrant state that can use taxes and regulations to reshape markets in ways that redivide the pie, grow the pie and create more “public wealth” — mass transit, schools, parks, scholarships, libraries and basic scientific research — so that more individuals, start-ups and communities have more tools to adapt and thrive."
Um... isn't that Democratic Socialism?
2
No, it is social democracy. Not the same thing as far as I can tell. The whole conversation about this needs clarification. The terms and examples people use are thrown around interchangeably and they are not.
1
It is every man/woman for themselves.
It has been like that since the 70s when environmental and animal abuse became so overwhelming that it became politicized. It took me no time at all to realize that I needed to plan a future that gave me a chance, in the face of an environmental catastrophe.
I came to rural MA as one of the best places to ride out the coming breakdown. Plenty of solar/wind energy and lots of ground water and seafood.
The destruction of democracies throughout the world over the last thirty years was disheartening but when the 'weak fascist' arrived as leader of the USA in the form of Bush/Cheney I knew the 'strong fascist' was not far behind.
And, here they are Trump/Pence, ignorance and superstition tied up in one bundle. The fascist's ideal group to manipulate.
The irony of coming to the USA thirty years ago - as a haven from fascism - is not lost on me.
However, where I live is the best place in the world.
3
There is a presidential candidate who is running on a platform of using solutions from across the political spectrum: Andrew Yang.
His slogan couldn't be a better match for this article: "Not Left. Not Right. Forward."
You may know him as the candidate proposing a Universal Basic Income of $1,000/month for all Americans, but he has so many more policies that cover a lot of the issues raised in this article.
He is trying to address the issues caused by automation and globalization before millions of Americans suddenly find themselves replaced by robots and AI (truck drivers, call center workers, retail workers, and others).
Unlike several of the other candidates, he believes in the power of capitalism, but wants to change to a "Human Centered Economy" that values the measurements that show how people are doing (life expectancy, median income, standard of living, and others) above the measurement of how corporations are doing (GDP).
He also supports expanding educational opportunities and using markets to help fight climate change as Mr. Friedman suggests in this article.
His pragmatic proposal are winning over not just democrats, but also people who voted for Trump in 2016. If you are looking for a candidate who cares more about solving problems than playing political games, I strongly encourage you to learn more about him:
- 3 minute introduction: https://yang.video/
- 100+ policies: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
- In-depth interview: https://yang.video/joe-rogan
9
Sorry Mr. Friedman the two party system is a myth.
That’s why 108/ 125!million eligible voters stay home.
1
If Friednman doesn't like either candidate, then we've done something right! Finally the wealthy class has nobody to vote for just like the rest of us! Is it any wonder why so few people vote when the whole system is geared towards pleasing people like Friedman?
1
Any constructive thinking and actions, whether in a box or not, first has to abandon overt partisanship. When most of the loud voices, and even more of our leadership, are concerned first with winning, then any chance of objective, effective outcomes is greatly diminished.
Plenty of comments here provide evidence, with writers who reject Friedman for defying their party lines.
1
"Only by reshaping markets — with the right incentives, taxes, standards and regulations, as California has imposed —"
Amusing.
California ... the most radical left wing out of touch state that radically IMPOSED their solutions ... is presented here as .... moderate.
You start by saying the old labels don’t apply and then you use the oldest label of all. The opposite of the word “moderate” is “immoderate.” That’s what you imply that everyone who disagrees with you is. Instead of the labels you smirk at, Mr. Friedman, just analyze concrete policies and positions and the economic and social interests they are meant to serve. Explain what each position aims to achieve and what it does not aim to achieve. Go ahead and point out the limitations and obstacles to each position, but please analyze your own position with equal critical integrity.
Oh dear, Mr McGee.
You don’t seem to understand that “moderate” is merely the more centrist area on the political spectrum, and the two parties range outward from there toward their basic philosophy. In politics the opposite of moderate is a specific viewpoint Conservative or Liberal. In baseball a Right Fielder can play close to center and a Center fielder position himself in Left Field and we know what that means.
I’m sure you thought you were making a clever point but in reality you clearly weren’t
What he’s looking for are answers that are not tied to a rigid political viewpoint, but are pragmatic and, if need be, innovative.
Are you opposed to looking for new solutions when the old ones do not fit our needs? That’s what your post sounds like. It matters not if Friedman calls himself a”moderate,” a “centrist”
or Cap’n America. The question to answer is
Is approaching our many problems from the hymn book of either of our parties without deviation the best way to solving them?
Well, Mac, is it?
Moving forward in a way that "lifts all boats" requires higher level thinking and a world view that replaces the current fear-based scarcity narrative with one that recognizes that the pie is big enough for everyone if we make wise decisions that may require some compromise or "no box."
We need an electorate that evolves away from "either/or" polarzed thinking to a "both/and" approach for the common good.
Keep pushing Tom - there's always hope!
3
The "mushy middle" insult hurled around by the ideologues on both extremes shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why increasing numbers of voters reject the two major parties. Moderates supposedly don't believe in anything, but right now the only thing the two parties appear to believe in is destroying the opposition, convinced that the other side is objectively wrong about simply everything.
The far right under Trump is morally repugnant, yet obsessed with imposing its "superior" Christian values on every American. But the far left is just as self-righteous, brimming with pie-in-the-sky ideas and solutions, loath to consider that other Americans might find some of those solutions...unrealistic? Ill-advised? Insane?
At the moment being in the "mushy middle" feels like the only rational choice.
88
@Patricia I couldn't agree more but my fear is that "moderates" are a declining part of the politic. I hope I'm wrong.
5
@Patricia:If u had to define the "far right" under Trump, would you be able to do so? If u mean by "far right" then those of us who believe that citizens come first, that illegal aliens are p.n.g., that we reject socialism , welcome legal immigrants but oppose decriminalization of border crossers, then count ABH as far right as well as tens of millions of other Americans.President Trump is earnest, seeks to clean up the mess of the 0bama years,when "what the heck let 'em all in "was the prevailing, general philosophy.No fair minded person would maintain that Christian values r superior, but this was the religion that our founders embraced, and still is treasured by the majority of citizens. Problem with Dem. Party is that there r few politicians of stature, no Daniel Patrick Moynihans,no Tip O Neills, no Fiorello Laguardias, Vito Marcantonios inter alios, only charlatans who r anti American, anti the rest of us, and who rely on identity politics to remain in office.Were it the Dem. Party of old, it would have my vote, but "helas,"nothing is as was. Could Jimmy Breslin, if here were still alive, write a sequel to "How the Good Guys won?"Doubtful!
@Patricia
Only in the US would healthcare for all, paid parental leave, free/affordable quality childcare, free quality early childhood education, quality K-12 education for all, tuition free continuing public education... be considered "unrealistic? Ill-advised? Insane?"
What do you know about the colossal income/wealth inequality in the US?
Do you prefer pitchforks rather than working towards a more equal society, by providing all with a solid base for a decent life?
recommended reading:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/the-fed-just-released-a-damning-indictment-of-capitalism.html
4
that's why Mayor Pete is the answer.
1
If Mr. Friedman would actually listen to Senator Warren, he would find the kind of complex solutions he is looking for.
2
Sadly Julie, complexity in and of itself does not make a policy the best approach to solving a problem. While I accept Senator Warren has thought long and hard about her policies, I fear that in some cases what has emerged is impractical and likely to exacerbate our problems in total.
One’s ideas are based on one’s entry viewpoint.
If your views are really fixed then any solutions contrary to that viewpoint will be dismissed, any contrary factors inputted into the thinking diminished.
The ultimate example of complexity for its own sake was brilliantly demonstrated by a funny guy named Rube Goldberg, who delighted in deliberately designing incredibly weird and complex devices to solve simple problems (for which simpler solutions would work as well or normally better) . First I urge you, if you’ve never heard of him to google him. Hopefully you’ll get a chuckle or two. Second I don’t accuse Warren of producing political “Rube Goldberg “ devices, but merely suggest that complexity is not necessary or sufficient for the optimal solution.
We don't need to understand what is driving the illegals to flood the country, we just need to stop it. That is what the law demands. It is up to these countries to reform their governments and societies. We are a country in debt, are we to borrow additional money to pay for this illegal activity? That is insane, and how many people should be take in? Chinese could provide us with 50 million people and wouldn't miss them, Central and South America, another 15 million, yet all taxpayers feel they have been paying enough. Open borders in a path to oblivion, is that what the liberals what?
1
The two-party system is as dead as the Soviet system that gave rise to one of our major policy influences, Vladimir Putin. He and the other astute Russians see the opportunity in our decayed system where idiocy of all kinds is rewarded and intelligence is swiftly punished. Putin has puppeted the current dim bulb we have for president, having invested resources in his installation on the throne. Change will come only when the several hundred million people addicted to social media put down their toys and realize how extensively they have been done out of a decent life by the plutocrats and folks overseas like Putin...
3
Conservatism is a fraud cloaking racism. They are exposed.
Free everything is not a plan. We should begin with steps that make life more equitable.
Tax all income as ordinary income
Public option buy in
Zero interest on student loans
Protect consumers
Protect elections
Regulate the internet
Auto register to vote
Mandatory e verify
Weed out fraud and tax cheats
That’s a good start
3
Friedman exposes a raw truth here. American politics is sadly polarized in 2019, and both sides feed off it. Liberals are supposed to be open to new ideas. Yet the same left that celebrates non-binary sexual identity shuns anyone who strays from the liberal orthodoxy.
Contrary to pundits, the election next year is a rather simple choice: you can vote for a lawless, reactionary, racist and crony capitalistic and yet fascist party or you can vote for a party that has kept its promises with respect to economics and healthcare and law and order.
That’s it. That is the choice. Robber Barons redux or Teddy Roosevelt.
I am assuming, of course, that Republican voters actually understand what the references to racism and fascism and lawlessness and corporate plundering are all about. But judging from the response of those at Trump rallies, sadly, they seem to have become America’s equivalent to The Good Germans, who never saw and never heard and never thought . . . .
4
"The old binary choices no longer work."
thanks, mr friedman! what we need is to vote, and vote for those who can stand at distance to erase damage done to us and the US by the current administration, and go forward as problem-solvers without bias, party stamp, or discrimination.
it's really simple.
1
There are no moderates anymore. There are conservatives, and continuing to the right, fascists on the other hand with liberals and democratic socialism when continuing to the left. Due to the definitive tribalism now rampant nationwide, there is very little common ground anywhere. The chance for partisanship is virtually extinct. This foundational positioning is Trump’s gift to our Nation’s political being. Exacerbated by a growing lack of civility among the different groups, there is no chance whatsoever to establish a common direction within the Nation. Our new stultification.
1
Um, sorry, but the core metaphor here is a tautology: thinking “without” a box is precisely thinking “outside the box”. These binary oppositions don’t go away that easily, and an example of this is in his comments on education: by “incentivizing business” he only deepens the problem academics faces of being “run like a business”. The means/ends continuum he’s alluding to by making “education” and “skills” nearly synonyms is precisely still in the (tool)box.
1
How can you teach people to think without a box if you turn education over to business to determine what skills their workers need now?
How can you use immigration to encourage innovation when immigration is determined by “IQ” a measure of intelligence established by existing measures?
How can you pretend that a perfectly reasonable response to a Democratic candidate mentioning “free college” in a debate in July 2019 is to vote for Trump (Have you seen the Senate map? Do you actually know that the President cannot simply declare policy and make it so?)?
How can you pretend to be a serious political commentator?
2
Plain spoken abd convincing diagnosis, Mr. Friedman. "Thinking without a box." Doing wat we have to do to fight our way out of the traps we have created for ourselves. These are unprecdented times and conditions, for us and for the whole world. We --the largest nations with the most people and the most total resources -- have to be the Last Best Hope. We mustget away from left-right thinking and from doctrinaire ideology in general. Otherwise it's all over. We -- the world --already have only a diminishing chance for correcting our destructive course.
"Only by reshaping markets — with the right incentives, taxes, standards and regulations, as California has imposed ..."
Amusing. Some how Mr. Friedman takes the policies of the most radical, left wing state.. IMPOSED radical leftist taxes and regulations ... and presents them as.... moderate.
I do not know whether to laugh or cry.
Two big shocks, the Dems went left and the Repubs went right?
The only shock to me in this, is that this is somehow worthy of an op-ed. The solutions you mention should be attainable if our politics were functioning properly, which they are not, largely due to the distortions of money and special interest influence. We need to fix our democracy, and ranked choice voting would be a good start.
I agree with the main premise of this article - our current dichotomous system contributes to polarization. We must be more flexible and adaptive to handle the wicked problems of this world. Binary thinking/approaches are not part of the solution - they are part of the problem.
As long as materialism is the true religion of the world there can be no hope. Friedman alludes to this in his editorial but doesn't dare think it through. The changes necessary to have a stable climate and less income inequality cannot co-exist with rampant consumerism. As just one example, mass leisure travel to air conditioned destination resorts results in immense emissions and environmental degradation, yet no editorial sage has suggested the necessary dismantling this industry as a required step to greenhouse neutrality. Even the simplest solutions to climate change such as massive reforestation projects are not being implemented forty years after the scientific community concluded that humans are the problem. The worst problem of all, overpopulation, cannot even be discussed within the environmental movement.
Face it, as Marx said : "Capitalism will produce more wonders than the world has ever seen and it has only one flaw. It will drive out all values not based on money." Without non-materialistic values our supposedly advanced civilization cannot stand and, given the current direction of world politics, there is no reason to expect change. Humanity is cooking itself for profit and until people like Freidman lead by example things will only get worse.
5
Before Gingrich, there was a time that the all-boys Legislature worked together. Once elected, legislation was proposed, modified and funded by cooperation. This has died because the Democrats and Republicans could no longer work together. Now, worse still, the Democrats are labeled as unpatriotic and treasonous.
This was before the control of the Executive and the Judiciary were prizes in the game of total control. The devastating effect was that the public good was destroyed in the process.
Therefore, how can we think out of the box and truly resolve dangerous issues if we can't listen, learn and compromise? Even to gain the knowledge to understand that if something doesn't work as conceived we can revaluation and modify again. This is an ideal that is good for America and good for the World.
3
Mr. Friedman,
As a journalist, and a very fine one, you are trained to very rapidly obtain and organize a news story, assess the veracity of your sources, and reach fast conclusions. While not contesting your right to conclude that no Democratic candidate represents your moderate liberal views, I disagree. Right now, the Democrats are publicly debating a range of issues and policies in an open and useful process. Whoever emerges as the candidate will have a solid, popular, and workable platform as a result. As to temperament, we have a number of viable, realistic and sensible possibilities including Biden, Klobuchar, Bennet, Bullock, Buttigieg, Hickenlooper, Inslee, and Warren. Any one of them, or the others, will if nominated, be villified by the Republicans, libeled by Trump and the Russians, and subjected to horrifying accusations. Your journalistic judgment that none appeals to moderates is seriously premature and based on a too quick journalistic overview.
4
This is quite true but let's bring back the fairness doctrine and see where the chips fall. It is a commonly accepted truth by those on the left, but we still tend to under estimate the damage that was done in the late 80s by Reagan's FCC head when it was nullified by veto. We as a country need to study 3 important areas:
1. The history of Joe McCarthy
2. The early 80s "Nightline" programs featuring Vladimir Posner and Ted Koppel
3. The complete history of The Fairness Doctrine including it's predecessor "The Mayflower Doctrine"
These are frustrating times.
2
Like many other Democratic "centrists," Friedman has fallen for the red scare tactics of Trump and other GOP McCarthyites. Universal health care, free education, a safety net for the sick and unemployed, humane treatment of asylum seekers, a science-based climate policy and protecting our environment and public lands are not "socialist" but sensible. Even the opiated masses in Trump country would appreciate free clinics, a decent education and water uncontaminated by coal dust if offered.
3
True, Mr. Friedman, but this hardly a shattering or new insight. Extremism or blind dogmatism, either left or right, is how people like Trump or Johnson or Pol Pot or Hilter come to power in the first place. Those leaders exploit or exploited fear and counted on sheepish followers to follow blindly. As Aaron Sorkin once wrote, "People are so thirsty for leadership that they will drink the sand if someone tells them too." This can only be solved by breaking the thrall of FOX and social media and to a lesser extent, political organizations posing as religious ones--not going to happen--and teaching all Americans to think for themselves starting at a young age. That's one reason why so many white, non-college educated males are such Trump followers-they really haven't ever been taught there is strength and value in learning how to look at all sides and then deciding on their own what they believe. It's also the real reason why politicians on both sides decry the so-called "elite," which really means they don't want anyone to be so well-educated that they feel "entitled" to make their own decisions. And our Electoral College only reinforces the politicos wishes.
"For decades our politics — and that of many industrial democracies — were defined by the same basic grid of left-right binary choices: You were either with capital or labor; for big-government solutions or small-government solutions; open to trade and immigration or more closed to them; prioritizing “green” over growth and embracing new social norms, like gay marriage, or opposing them."
I have no idea what time period Tom is referring to here. We haven't had a President that seriously supported Unions with policies since FDR. America has been an incredibly anti-labor country for over half a century.
The reason "Centrist" is such a sneer is that it takes this kind of historical ignorance to be a centrist. Tom's political prescriptions are based on a make-believe worldview.
Just to be fair, the Republican Party in America has an even worse understanding of history than Tom does. They take us into the realm of fairies and unicorns--where the only truth that matters is that The State is PERFECT if their partisans are in power, but that The State is a dystopian hellscape if anyone else is in power.
4
"thinking without a box is the right approach to governance because it’s exactly what many of the local communities in America that are thriving today are doing"
What Mr. Friedman is describing is a situation where power is shared - balanced - among the various entities involved: "business, labor, philanthropists, social entrepreneurs, educators and local or state governments".
This is still possible at the local or state level but it's not at the national and certainly not at the international level. At these levels business has almost all the power and controls governments as it exploits labor.
The only real hope is that international business will begin taking its responsibility to people seriously and start advocating intelligent policies that spread the wealth and enable labor to grow in influence and for the environment to begin to recover. They are the new royalty and no one can challenge them, whether they be Apple, Exxon or Bristol-Meyers or the Chinese government, which is essentially a proxy for and consolidator of Chinese corporate power.
The other alternative, revolution, will only put a new set of power-hungry people in control, who don't have the experience to govern effectively and will quickly devolve, Venezuela-style, into anarchy.
And don't forget, politics in the US remains "the entertainment branch of big business". You can elect all the Warrens and Sanders you want, it doesn't mean they'll be able to get anything done.
1
In his book Factfulness Hans Risling talks about the “Gap Instinct” and suggests we look at the internals of polls rather than averages or anecdotes He says “ see where the majority is”
On even the most partisan issues, republicans, democrats, and independents are more in agreement than the broad headlines suggest.
On abortion there are some people who say there should be no restrictions and others who say never under any situation. But most conservatives see a case for abortions if there is rape or incest, or to protect the mother, or if the fetus is fatally flawed. And most liberals see the need for sensible restraint.
The majority is in the middle
You could choose every example—climate change, animal rights, taxes, state borrowing, regulation, etc.
The politicians feed the extremes, and the press acts as a megaphone
Can a candidate win with an appeal to the majority view? I do not know Most people over 35 just vote their tribe no matter what the candidate says. Trump is exhibit one—he could have as easily run as a democrat with his push to protect American jobs, his guarantees of social security and Medicare, his reluctance about globalization, and his concerns about uncontrolled immigration. All historic Dem issues. Democrats in Congress were also considering corporate tax changes before Trump
It was only Trump’s overt racism and xenophobia that make him a Republican, and his hatred of Obama. But his policies are closer to the mddle
1
I'm not sure what thinking without a box means, but I do know that we're hard-wired to organize our worlds within categories to make sense of the blooming, buzzing confusion of life.
The primary box in politics is political parties, which have dominated US political life from the beginning. We'll no doubt see that box in operation in today's Mueller hearings, where you can tell which side the inquisitor is on simply by the questions they ask.
As the D's try to recover from their recent Squad vs Pelosi self-immolation, I hope the lesson learned is that this is the time to stay within the box of their own party in the interest of defeating Trump and Republican box in 2020. It can be a large box that includes different views and policies, but it does have very real boundaries defined by this general goal.
Logically, I think most people in Congress understand these concepts. It's not a lack of understanding, it's a structural degradation that forces candidates to appeal only to their rapid, dedicated base. Gerrymandering and the party primary system are the true culprits. If candidates had to appeal to the middle to win, we would be in a vastly different place. For real change to occur, we have to change the structure of our political landscape. Unfortunately, our politicians see their jobs as careers. They have a vested interest in maintaining a broken system.
The divide is less left-right and more hubris. It is composed of a young generation (of which I am a member) that are convinced they hold all of the answers to the questions millennia of humans could not solve and an older generation who discounts the younger at every turn. Our discourse won't get better until more people are willing to acknowledge the fact they don't possess all of the answers nor do they have a monopoly on the "right" answers.
3
"globalization can enable companies to be winners-take-all across the globe"
Modern globalization is the latest form of corporate exploitation of the working class. You're seeing it now even in white collar jobs in high tech and health; doctors, for example, are now essentially employees of corporate hospitals. And it's unfettered access to labor markets everywhere that has enabled corporations to grow exponentially in wealth and influence whereas labor has been stuck in a nationalist, consumerist, xenophobic mindset for a century.
We have to keep our eye on the prize, which is a global world without borders. But this requires that working people have as much power and influence as corporations - worldwide. A worker in China has to have the same rights and political influence as a German worker. That's when globalization starts to be internationalism and not neo-colonization.
So, in a sense, it still is the same old dichotomy - capital and labor. It's just working itself out on a global scale and labor, for various historical reasons, is way behind capital in terms of power and influence.
1
Thought experiment - let's say it were possible to split the country into two separately governed "nations", with a border between. I suspect that, after a few years, those in "Republistan", at least the working class, would desperately try to enter Democrastan". Would they be allowed in? Should they be? If so, on what basis? And would either nation prove to be more economically viable? Could either be sustained in the face of climate change?
Interesting to consider, at least for me. Because we are now clearly of two diametrically opposed ideologies of government, and of life.
2
I think another term for the binary thinking to which Tom alludes is "false choices" (e.g., Love it or Leave It!, Open borders or concentration camps on the border), which has sharpened into a high-powered political and rhetorical weapon. Socialism v. capitalism is another false choice. Market forces can be used to further goals beyond simple self-enrichment if the value proposition is changed. If enough mega-scale institutional investors began rewarding sustainable growth, instead of this quarter's growth, that market power could be harnessed toward positive change, rather than remain an obstacle to it.
2
Never forget that Friedman is a very wealthy man. Of course he will demonize Socialism or Democratic Socialism, or whatever you want to call the proposals of the 2020 Democratic candidates. The proposals of universal health care, raising the minimum wage, combating income inequality by raising taxes, etc. are not far left ideas. They barely make it to the left side of the spectrum. The Green New Deal is pretty radical, but we have pushed the solving of climate change so far down the road that, at this point, we better do something radical, or we are all toast. The truth is that we have had years of far right government, and we need a real push left to balance things out, and to begin to solve all of our problems. If the Dems win with some centrist, incremental change candidate, NOTHING WILL CHANGE. Then the American people will vote them out of office again!
2
If our old system of binary responses to problems is not working any longer, then Trump is definitely the wrong president for the time. He is strictly binary. He sees no color (and I don't mean skin tone). He expects blind obedience, or "loyalty" as he calls it. You're either for him or an enemy. You can't get much more binary than that. He has attracted a certain kind of person and painted himself into a corner. Since he's made no attempt to bring anyone new on board his wacky train, he can't afford to take a chance that might upset the base, so he's stuck with the same old tropes and arguments he's been making for three years. There can be no innovation, no non-binary answers, no deviating from his norm, or he'll lose the supporters who demand he stay the same. Even if he wanted to, which he doesn't, he can never be an effective leader. He's boxed in, afraid to lose and desperate--and the result is North Carolina. Expect more of it in the future.
1
I agree that our problem is not left versus right. But I don’t think it’s as complicated as you say.
When I was a little girl, in Sunday School, I was taught the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” As I’ve gotten (a lot) older, I’ve learned how difficult this can be sometimes - and how important it is. It’s really the basis of civilization. Altruism doesn’t come naturally to us humans; we have to practice and cultivate it. But when we do cooperate, when we compromise, when we give up something for someone else, we can achieve wonderful things. When we don’t, we are back to the law of the jungle: eat or be eaten.
There is a large group of people in our country today who don’t believe this. They don’t think altruism is real, and that civilization is based on selfishness and striving to be superior. (Ever read Ayn Rand?) Many of them are Republicans. That is, I believe, what is going on now. We can work out the details of education, health care, etc. later. Cooperation and negotiation is what us altruists are good at. What we need to do now is decide which principle we want to follow: the Golden Rule, or the Law of the Jungle.
2
One of the strengths of education in this country is the extent to which it is not controlled by corporations, but by educators. It should not be thought of as a business: its purpose is not training skills to workers, but rather the opening of minds. What should be taught and who should teach it are questions best left up to universities. That education has become more infected with corporate thinking lately is a liability, not a strength. The right question is how to make education available to all--subsidized or free.
2
Thank you once again, Tom. You give a voice of reason for those many, many of us who want to think without a box at all. That sounds more Progressive to me than what our candidates are raising their hands for
2
If you combine the lesson of this op ed with Edsall’s, the answer seems to be for the less radical Democrats to vote in primaries. Yet few do. Voting takes effort in most states. Voting is often inconvenient. But it’s the only way to give candidates who you mostly agree with a shot.
Friedman describes a "without a box" mentality. Its not so new or special, but rather, its thinking about problems as a *community*--looking at problems and solving for the interests of everyone. Today's world is tilted towards corporate profits and individual wealth, while ignoring the community and infrastructure that makes those things possible. The future will be about what we can accomplish together.
The underlying issue of our time isn't box vs no box, it's a communal failure to agree upon objective reality. Tribal filters, lost trust in experts and bots borne from both amoral money grubbers and covert statecraft all play a part. But the biggest failing lies with everyone who seeks a short cut to knowing what is true - in other words - all of us.
How does any of us know what is true? Before "liking" blog posts or tweets that confirm our biases we should, each of us, spend a moment two confirming that the posts and tweets are based on objective reports from credible sources - at least objective and credible in our own minds.
In that manner, bit by bit and anti-bot by anti-bot, we can find an agreed upon objective reality that will form a foundation for honest discussions of problems and public policy solutions.
2
Here's outside the box thinking - cut the DOD budget by 50% and use those funds to invest in humans as opposed to killing humans and to protect the environment as opposed to decimating it.
Neither party will touch the military so neither party is of use to me.
3
There are currents which have originated on the so called right which the Democratic candidates have overreacted to as you so properly state. I've been a proponent of partnerships between businesses and colleges to establish Centers of Excellence to effectively deal with real local, regional and national problems while training young people with the required skills to address those problems. I believe these actions tied to a market driven energy policy which recognizes an unsustainable current policy of heightened fossil fuel consumption will produce sustainable businesses which will need people in the US. Developing and deploying a comprehensive infrastructure plan and actions will bring the US into the 21st century, again a competitive issue. Every time I travel internationally now it feels like I'm checking into the 21st century from the US which seems to be locked in the 20th. And finally I want and expect our government to protect our borders but do so in an even handed, non-racist dog whistle and compassionate manner. If we address conditions in Central America and our own backyard (drug use) we can stem the flow of people from there. We need someone who can articulate those policies and others to set a vision desperately needed now.
This reads of a man who has been beaten for 12 rounds of the fight and just hopes Mills Lane will call it so he can grab his face saving TKO.
No. No to this "sitting down for compromise" with republicans that this article is suggesting. There has been no compromise from the other side that libs have been asking for. Why should we compromise to NO compromise.
Sorry, if voters have learned anything from the 2016 election is that polls still are not correct. So this assumption (since no one asked me) that the candidates are further left than their constituents strikes me as "easy essay material".
The worst candidate we put forth in years (sorry, the most qualified, vilified) beat the current lump in office by over 3 million votes. That's my poll.
There are Americans out there who do not freak out when the idea of raising taxes is put forth. We've seen bridges collapse and people die, in this country. We've seen humans walk, hundreds of miles, to live, to live here (I was raised to embrace these people, and it's etched on our most famous monument).
Sorry Tom, you can mush around all you want in the center and feel good about being "the reasonable" person in the room. The many rest of us know a bad deal when we see and hear it.....we're having none of that.
We've got fantastic women taking charge, and we've had them before. (she would have been fantastic....yes, the bar is now nice and low to say that without debate).
1
It seems we approch the presidential election like we were electing a king as we forget about congress. Most of these grand, very left, ideals will never come to pass so don't get hung up on them. Just look at Obama and Trump, they both had their first two years with all three branches of government and still couldn't get most of what they wanted. I am looking for a candidate who is reasonable and inclusive who can get along with all America and the world. I would also like a women and someone younger than 65+
1
'The fluttering of a butterfly’s wings can effect climate changes on the other side of the planet'—Paul Erlich
Call it The Butterfly Effect, call it Chaos Theory, call it Fractals, call it whatever you will, it’s all about the interconnectedness of our planet and ourselves since the beginning of time. Ironically, it’s the acceptance and/or the denial of this principle that’s driving us all apart while driving us all crazy. We're all the same, with differences. We're all different, with similarities. Why can't we all get that commonality through our thick heads?
2
I often nod along with Tom until the empty catch-phrases catch up to the ideas and flatten them into intellectual road kill. "This era calls for a different approach — one best articulated by Linton Wells, the defense analyst and expert on resilience. Wells argues that to find the solutions to today’s wicked problems you should “never think in the box and never think out of the box. You have to think without a box.”" That doesn't mean anything, actually.
3
Why is so hard for someone to step forward and tell America what it needs to hear like Tom so eloquently does? Why is so easy for Tom to step back and look at the big picture, but politicians need to get all up in your face and get you to follow them into a dark place? We need a Linus to stand up after the country yells out "Isn't there anyone who can show me what America is all about?" And calmly, assuredly say to Americans "Sure, I can tell you what it's all about. Lights, please."
1
U.S. politics in a single image today?
Reminds me of a marble. The right wing is composed primarily of white people, but more accurately, whites and significant elements of those races and ethnic groups who fit in fairly well in a competitive, actually rather ruthless, capitalistic environment. The left wing is composed of those people who feel on the outside of the marble for one reason or another, and the further outside they feel the more left wing, Marxist, anti-capitalist they become.
It's in the interest of the right wing, capitalists generally, to get as many races and ethnic groups on their side as possible or risk capitalism associated with white people and being a racist phenomenon. On the left wing side economic theorizing, Marx derived view, is dangerously close to making a direct connection between capitalism and white people which is a racist process in itself, so it needs as many races and ethnic groups on its side as possible to paint the capitalists and white people as the true racists against "progress".
So you have the U.S. this largely white marble, and largely capitalist phenomenon, trying to incorporate as many streaks (different races, ethnic groups) as possible, and altering in color/marking/size with every successful incorporation, but also threatened with different races and ethnic groups not sticking to the white core of society and imagining an economics which whatever else it is cannot help but also be anti-white marble society.
1
Where to begin with this?
1) Medicare for all is not wild-eyed "socialism" - unless Harry Truman was a closet socialist. It may or may not be the right solution (see Krugman), and it may not be smart electoral strategy, but it should be possible to discuss it without being tarred as a "socialist".
2) “Send her back” has dangerous overtones of 1930’s fascism. Medicare for all doesn’t even come close to totalitarian communism. Please.
3) Our borders do not have a security problem. The vast majority of immigrants come through ports of entry. Only Democrats would address the underlying causes in climate change, violence in the northern triangle, etc.
4) Why is K-12 education free and public university not? It was once adequate to have a high-school diploma in order to have a future. Those days are long gone. Free or very low cost college is the norm in Europe and elsewhere. Why not here? Seems like a reasonable question.
5) As far as I know, nobody on the Democratic side is talking about "socialism" - whatever that means - and abandoning free markets. Elizabeth Warren, perhaps only a little less left than Bernie Sanders, has proclaimed that she is a capitalist to her bones. I believe her.
6) How about reshaping markets to address climate change through incentives and taxes. Did I miss a Republican proposal for cap and trade or a carbon tax? Please remind me.
This kind of easy centrism is an intellectual crutch. I expect more from Thomas Friedman.
169
@David Wallance
Incorrect on so many fronts.
Support for Medicare for all hovers around 25-35% when voters are informed that they will have to give up their private health insurance AND pay higher taxes to fund it.
Our borders do have a security problem, as evidenced by the caravan of migrants that recently tried to cross illegally. Suggesting that we don't need to protect our borders is an electoral college loser. In fact, a recent Kaiser poll shows that 56% of DEMOCRATS want more border security and that support GOES UP among POC.
Free college is a pipe dream, because again, taxpayers would have to foot the bill. News flash, Americans prefer lower taxes, even Democrats. Good luck convincing multiple generations that have paid for college themselves to want to forgive college debt for millennials.
Believing that Elizabeth Warren is a capitalist is like believing in the tooth fairy. It sounds nice, but in reality it's your parents putting that dollar bill under your pillow. Warren's policies are so far left that they are significantly out of step with what most Americans expect or want.
In sum, while your points clearly represent your perspective, they are not representative of how most Americans feel.
12
@John
Depending on when you graduated, you likely went to college essentially for free. Baby boomers pulling up the ladder . . . again.
Even Republicans support taxing the wealthy more.
And Warren IS a capitalist. She actually understands the regulatory underpinnings of capitalism and advocates a return to a form of capitalism that results in a large and prosperous middle class over a form of aristocratic capitalism that funnels money and benefits to those born wealthy. The U.S. is no longer the nation where you have the best statistical chance to rise. Why is that? Because Europe and Canada run their capitalism better than we do.
Capitalism hasn't failed: Reaganism has.
Medicare for all? Not necessary at this point.
Border security? Yes. But we also have to address the global inequalities driving immigration Northwards here and in Europe.
24
@Stewart Winger
Millions of Americans, including Baby Boomers and Gen Xers have paid off their student loans, including for masters degrees, law schoo, medical school, etc. I'm not sure how you argue that those folks went for free.
Yes, a majority of Americans favor increasing taxes on the most wealthy. But you can only squeeze a lemon so much before you run out of juice. Expecting the super rich to bankroll everything via higher taxes very quickly runs into a $$ problem. There just aren't enough to cover all of the programs progressives say should be standardized.
Elizabeth Warren is NOT a capitalist. Warren’s economic policies bespeak a socialist’s ambition to empower government and the elites who control it, rather than an understanding of capitalism’s potential to create opportunity and reward individual achievement. And her platform, including eliminating private health insurance is as far from capitalism as you can get.
4
Give us ranked choice voting so we can vote without fearmongering of spoilers or wasted votes.
64
@Hmmm
This. 100% this.
Our first-past-the-post voting system will always find equilibrium with 2 and only 2 viable parties. But then again, this may be a feature and not a bug...
2
I am disappointed that Mr. Freidman and many of these comments fall right back into another box. First, the "shock" of the comments in the debate about borders and undocumented immigrants. These are not the existential issues that the current Administration and the all-too-accommodating media is making them out to be. They are actually rather easy to address and fix (unlike as Mr. Freidman later points out, the true existential threat of climate change). Mr. Freidman then places all the Democratic candidates into a box of being two-far left because they believe immigrants should have access to health care? Do you want to sit next to someone on the Subway with a contagious disease that has been untreated because they could not get health care? You will get sick, even if you are a legal citizen. Staking out positions that require bold change is not a bad thing. They are not laws, they are starting points for change. For too long, we have been mired in the mushy centrist positions of getting nothing done, kicking multiple cans down the road. Let's have a debate about college costs, health care, financial regulation, corporate greed. Does that mean we trash capitalism and make wholesale changes? No. It's a starting point and when we legislate, we meet in the middle. Equating cruel, racist ideology with progressive ideas that may need some reigning in does a disservice to the process. Don't put the Democratic candidates in a box because you disagree with one or two policies.
3
Many years ago in a place I no longer recall I read of an encounter between Howard Fast, the Communist/Socialist/blacklisted author of “Spartacus” and many political tracts and H.L. Mencken, the great newspaper reporter and social and literary critic, who met at a Progressive Party political convention in 1948.
Fast was approached by Mencken -- who had liked one of Fast’s books -- who advised him to stay away from the Progressive Party because he believed its policies and practices would destroy him. Fast, not wishing to hook up with either Democrats or Republicans, replied the he had no better place to be than with the Progressives.
Mencken’s rejoinder to Fast has stuck with me all of my adult life. He said the best political place to be is always by yourself, as a Party of One, making your political mind up about things one day at a time, essentially participating in politics as an observer, without ever making a permanent commitment to either of our major political parties.
Fast never took Mencken up on his advice, but I did, leaving me free to get off the Republican train as soon as the Trump train came along; and here I am today a registered Democrat and full-time believer who is still looking forward to a future of something better than Democrats if and when it ever comes along.
35
@A. Stanton Couldn't agree more---though Fast, like any good novelist, actually did understand the nuances in shades of gray. Any narrative storyteller knows to his or her bones that individuals are far more complex and contradictory than the media or politicos would have us believe. Menken in his own way was just as dogmatic as Fast. But still your point is a great one!
3
@Sandi Sonnenfeld
"Men(c)ken in his own way was just as dogmatic as Fast."
True, but he was also funnier.
3
@A. Stanton
I agree, though I am a registered independent, simply because I don't like the concept of party. My local town government is republican, but it is not the GOP of the national party that became hijacked to be the New Confederacy, they are fiscally prudent (and somehow managed to give us decent to great services while keeping property taxes relatively low), they don't issue proclamations that the Bible should be law, they don't support white supremacy, and they are delivering on a quality of life that I approve of (well, okay, other than some of the idiotic town codes, like insisting houses have large lawns, or some of the other things).
The real enemy of solutions is ideology, because ideology often looks at theory rather than practicality. For example, the whole concept of reparations, instead of looking at what they want to achieve from that, and finding ways to achieve the goals, they go back to 40 acres and a mule (when perhaps, a truth and reconciliation approach, with targeted ills and how to address them, would be better than giving out X tends of thousands). Global warming? Perhaps building a true national power grid, and also maybe a crash program to obtain fossil fuels from algae (carbon neutral) until we can transition to full renewable energies ).What we need are ideas, not ideology, something both sides seem to be doing. I would rather they do what FDR did, take an idea, try it, it works, do it, it doesn't, move on.
2
Friedman wrote:
The right question on education is not whether college should be “free.” It’s what should be taught there and who should teach it. Some Democratic candidates seem to care only about the word “free.” But maybe we should be radically incentivizing companies to go back into the education business, since no one knows better the skills their workers need than they do
Q. Since you disagree that the right question on college tuition is it should be “free,” why don’t you think they should at least be “affordable” to most or everyone?
Q. I acknwledge that it s a good idea to consult “companies” on college curriculums, but your wording implies consulting with corporations. I agree—good idea to consult with major corporations about this.Do you favor consulting also with small businesses? If so, would that include businesses with at least 20 employees, or perhaps even 10? Any reason not to mention small or even single proprietor businesses? I ask b/c there’s a lot of media attention toward startups and entrepreneurs.
Q. Do I intuit accurately you favor emphasis to a technocratic society, while letting anything related to the visual and performing arts and other liberal arts aspects of education that do not have a primary focus on future employment prospects atrophy? Are you concerned that the market-based solution you offer might contribute to a decrease in college to provide an experience where people learn new ideas and ways of thinking?
21
We, as a nation, have large existential problems to address. I agree with Mr. Friedman's analysis on how we might address them. However, our nation is currently being led by a racist demagogue. Our President, rather than addressing problems, focuses on blaming our problems on immigrants and non-white racial groups. Anyone who has studied history knows how this approach plays out. The next step will be the Capital burning down under mysterious circumstances and the blame being cast on The Squad. The sine qua non for solving our Nation's problems is casting out Trump. Without a new President we will repeat the 1930's, world at war, holocaust and all.
Journalists should look to their own profession for "the answer". They have created a pretty stiff-sided box: preoccupation with the president -- the leader who just executes the laws. This has pushed the leaders who make the laws off-stage, even as we are congratulated for being a society of laws. I have concluded, reluctantly, that journalists are secret monarchists, and I think I've figured out why: kingship stories appeal to an audience of all ages. Real democracy, though, is strictly a grown-up affair.
37
Thinking without boxes necessitates thinking without circles. The racial fabric of our country has changed so much over the past 50 years, and that has to be fully respected and embraced in making our country even greater than it already is.
1
The MSM is to blame for the problems we now face, they should be called the news/ entertainment industrial complex.
Never heard of red state blue states right / left these concepts are fairly new, clever marketing by the media invented within the last twenty years by the media.
According to Tom, Democratic "candidates were considerably farther to the left on some key issues — borders, national health care, treatment of illegal immigrants — than many mainstream Democrats, not to mention independents and moderate Republicans looking for an alternative to President Trump."
Tom, two things:
1. Other than you and your brethren in the media pundit class, where exactly are the "moderate Republicans?" Trump's approval among Republicans is at 72% and went up after his latest racist tirade. Apparently, Republicans love racism.
2. National polls on major issues like health care, gun control (remember that?), taxes on the rich, minimum wage, and immigration all show a majority supporting the "far-left" positions as you call them. If the majority supports those position, how can they be far left? By definition, they become mainstream...the dominant position. Conservatives like yourself tell people they're extreme because you don't agree with them.
1
Thomas Friedman, as usual, speaks clearly and honestly about most of the issues confronting America, and reasonable solutions to those problems. However, he does not address America’s most intractable problem: how to function as a Democracy when half of the voting population is uneducated, bigoted, or both. Gun control, health care, education, environmental protection, voting rights, civil rights, and human rights are all issues whose relevance is denied by half of American voters, the so called “Right”. What was on display at Trump’s rally in North Carolina was hatred and ignorance. I doubt that any of those Trump supporters will be thinking “out of the box” any time soon.
1
@Stu = "when half of the voting population is uneducated"
Let's not pretend that all Democrats are enlightened, educated and worldly. Far too many vote D because they never want to escape the social walfare web Dems love to keep those voters caught in.
1
Mr. Friedman, you are probably correct in your analysis, but if things have gotten this complicated then it becomes easier to see why Trump has strong appeal to so many. He keeps things simple, way simple.
I think most voters just want someone they can be simple with, and so far, the Democrats polling the best for the nomination are not going to beat Trump. As revolting and disgusting as he is, he has tapped into the well of discontent that has become "I deserve mine but you don't deserve yours."
The "Send her back" chant will be heard again and again as an expression of that discontent.
2
Tom, please run for president! You may not have ready-made answers to all of this country’s issues, but your thoughts and ideas are what’s needed to form approaches to get us on the right track.
The great scrutiny we are all applying is beginning to make a difference. We have driven the Republican & Democratic parties to re-examine their missions.
We should all double down on hypocrisy, to continue driving change for the better. Let’s look at some current ‘hypocrisy’:
1. Stressing A. Hamilton; if they respect Hamilton more now, great, he was a genius. But remember then not to work to thwart his limits on executive power, the impeachment process, and have the guts to follow through. It for example could exonerate Trump, leading to a stronger figure or it could eliminate a bad president, thus protecting the American people.
2. The Republicans still promulgate ‘Cato’, who was the antithesis of Paine’s ‘Forrester’ pseudonyms. They advertise ‘Tea Party’ and the flat tax, when this was the primal cause of the Boston Tea Party (imagine if the rebels’ had only faced a means-tested tax, would they have ever rebelled?). They line up to Edmund Burke, who was admonished by Paine in “The Rights of Man”. Paine was a Founder, Burke was not.
3. The Republicans now wish to stress the people’s rights to survive more, rather than corporate rights, excellent. But they thwart at every opportunity ethics laws on genomics Preservation, because that would get in the way of corporation’s interests in genetic re-engineering of our food system.
4. They refuse to embrace Eisenhower’s U.N., which could prevent the next genocide by adopting the international doctrine on human rights.
It's all very simple. Trump hit on a winning strategy with no fuss or muss, appeal to the racism and anger inherent in human beings. Certainly if he stood up there and said we need to raise taxes to reduce the federal debt and to give all Americans free health care, nobody would be cheering. The republicans want to hold onto power so kicking all problems down the road and saying they love America and stirring up hatred of illegal aliens is obviously working for them. The fantasy they are creating in the minds of their supporters is so much easier to sell than reality.
Your column stimulates a lot of discourse. Thanks. it gives many of us an opportunity to vent and also to contribute to the debate.
When you say "I don’t have the answer, but I’m working on it!" makes you sound like a defeatist. Time is of the essence. I don't believe that the U35's will stay so cool. There is revolution in the air. You can smell it. There are about 76 million voting age people in this 17 -35 group.
138 million voters voted in the 2016 election or about 58% of the electorate. It is no secret that if there were a 100% turn out of the U35's that the Dems would win.
They don't vote because of Nancy Pelosi. She is just not COOL. Even Bernie is cooler than Nancy but he is still a dinosaur. None of the Nursing Home Dems and Republican leaders think "in the box" "out the box" or with no box at all. They just don't see that their aging party politics does not reflect the very youth that can swing them to a "blue wave victory".
What does Nancy do when she has a chance to listen and learn from the younger more racially diverse new congresswomen about how to stimulate the 76 million young voters to make a stand and vote ....... she trashes them and sides with the Donald because it is her generation that is being attacked and Donald is one of her generation.
They are just the right wing and the left wing of the same GOP. The Geriatric Old Politicians. It is a generational conflict. Soon they will find a leader to coalesce around and then there will be a revolution.
1
Analogizing complex issues thought in, thought out of, or thought without, is classic HR speak. It is the currency of those who can only understand cliches, and is useless.
3
While the complex problems, especially the natural world existential threat from climate change and current economic development, do not divide as the author states, one most immediate political issue does reduce itself to a simple divide. This is the reality of a of a Republican Party and a presidency taken over by a George Wallace style racism and a Mussolini style doppelgänger authoritarian Trump. Defeating this extremism most importantly at the polls in 2020 is the number one priority that unites all clear thinking people who retain even a modicum of decency. Otherwise we risk an imminent descent into trench warfare motivated by the worst of human impulses this time amplified by modern technology and a very complex world.
1
This is the result of a public “education“ system that does everything and anything except educate.
2
The first order of business is to end the deliberate cruelty at the border. It will take longer to adopt policies to mitigate climate change in Guatemala, corruption in Honduras and gang warfare in El Salvador.
15
@EAS ... The U.S. is an attractive destination because of its *much* higher wages, regardless of the problems you mention in Central American countries. If those problems were fixed, you can be sure that millions of their citizens would still be trying to reach the U.S. ... In Cuba, many people find the social order to be stifling, and what is their solution? To go to the U.S., of course. In Puerto Rico, many people had their lives turned up upside-down because of the recent storm, and what is their solution? To go to the U.S. The U.S. cannot fix every problem in the world, and even if it did, millions of people -- of all social classes -- would still be trying to sneak across the border. If the communists had won control of all of Central America, the entire population would be clamoring to get in to the U.S.
Here's another one: nuclear power. It's an essential part of any realistic climate change solution, but opinion leaders of the liberal tribe declared it taboo decades ago. Ideology, left or right, is more about group identity than reality. Conservatives only swung hard against abortion after their opinion leaders declared it evil. "Oh, we're against that? Well, alright then!" should be the slogan for group thinkers of every stripe.
17
@BarrowK I have become leery of nuclear power because, using current technology, there is simply so such thing as a minor nuclear accident. I have heard of promising theories using thorium. But that is not here yet.
‘The fluttering of a butterfly’s wings can effect climate changes on the other side of the planet’—Paul Erlich
Call it The Butterfly Effect, call it Chaos Theory, call it Fractals, call it whatever you will, it’s all about the interconnectedness of our planet and ourselves since the beginning of time. Ironically, it’s the acceptance and/or the denial of this principle that’s driving us all apart while driving us all crazy. Why can’t we all get that commonality through our thick heads?
The traditional left-right partitions have become both antiquated and anti-productive. Instead of providing balance in a complex society, they have operated more like a political civil war. There are no longer boxes, which is a blessing and a curse -- less confinement, but also less clarity about how to function without guidelines.
Markets will be in our life for some time. But they should work for the people, and not dominate them and reward the wealthy while penalizing the poorer. Greed and relatively unchecked markets have allowed our economy to be steered by fewer and fewer hands, and into the pockets of an elite.
The same elite would profit if business were to sink even more teeth into education. Technology made a huge killing initially on education beginning in the 80s. Pushing education in the direction of more job creation by encouraging business to dive into that pool would only further decimate the liberal arts and drive more graduates into business, finance, etc. -- overloading the field and further upping the greed quotient.
We do need creativity, an entrepreneurial spirit, and the like -- we also need civility, cooperation, understanding, diversity, and the like. Whether we can get even a few of those things before climate change and Trump change kills us -- up for grabs.
Had a great talk with my grandchildren last night about the race for president, and what I learned is that patience is not a virtue for them. I call them my “don’t like what life is telling you then change the channel.” My grandchildren are very tuned in on gun violence, the climate, AI (felt the school system left them totally unprepared for) and race. They are both voracious readers and just finished Nietzsche the Gay Science and we discussed the Eternal Recurrence. What I learned is that they are not sitting around waiting for the world to change but to change the world, and the ideas coming from the youth of today especially the coastal educated one’s and the European youth is that the rest of us better get on board.
32
@CathyK
What exactly is "coastal educated"? It sounds like a tall stack of snobbery covered with a fine nonsense syrup.
Maybe the coasts need to be educated on what great colleges and universities we have here in the middle of the country. And for the most part they have been here much longer than any you have on the West Coast.
“complex, adaptive coalitions” to manage all the accelerating changes in their communities
Hmm.
Replace “manage” with “cash in on” and it might be closer to the truth.
Everything Mr. Friedman talks about as a solution to our problems has been discussed by guess who? Democrats. The republicans deny the reality of climate change, cut support to primary education and universities across the land. They hand out massive tax breaks to the obscenely wealthy, and to top it off engage in outright bigotry, misogyny, and demagoguery. This is the worst sort of analysis that asserts that "both sides are to blame". Good grief. The republican party is nothing more than a white supremacist party that survives electorally by inflaming racists and reactionaries and exploiting gerrymandering and the undemocratic Senate and electoral college. That party has no interest in solving real problems. The big problem we face is that just enough grumpy, old, white, bigots have just enough votes in a few key states to stand in the way of progress. That is the problem.
1
Two Hands on the Wheel
We need the left hand for societal goals, and the right one for pragmatic means of achieving them.
Inequality: Early childhood education and child care and national service to break the cycle of dysfunctional families and endemic poverty. Also,
Climate change: carbon tax and federal R&D to harvest the largest job creating and profitable business opportunity to come along since World War II.
Health care:. competing regulated single payer systems like Kaiser integrating insurance premiums and total healthcare delivery without inefficient third-party insurers, modeled on the telecommunication industry.
Replace ineffective "safety net" welfare programs that alleviate without fixing poverty with more robust "rescue ladder" programs that actually shrink it.
We need a real problem-solving leader. It's a shame we can't get a president and Congress like Mike Bloomberg...
Nobody on the debate stage wither night was advocating the abandonment of capitalism and it is disappointing to hear you imply such a thing. Also since when does a Democratic Primary care what Republicans think about anything?
What is wrong with America is corporatism and the disease exists within and without both major parties. Mr. Hope and Change turned out to be Republican-lite in disguise and the endless wars, national security state, and captive regulation continued just like a third (and fourth) Bush term. Note Mr. Holder did not prosecute one bankster.
For all your hand wringing and whining, polling shows America is by policy far more leftist than self-anointed "centrists" like yourself are comfortable with. The problem is that Americans have been trained to recoil in fear when the tropes of socialism are invoked by writers and pundits. All nations are socialist to some extent - even The University of Alabama in that deep red state is a socialist institution, subsidized by the taxpayer and owned by the state.
1
I'm with Greta Thunberg with regards to global warming. "I don't want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if the house was on fire—because it is."
If something doesn't happen to ameliorate this, the rest of the discussion is pointless, much ado about nothing.
Mr Friedman
You are correct in many suppositions, for that is the common sense path.
But you're doing the same thing, you have done multiple times before, laying your case in front of the progressives and liberals, where you know many will listen, agree and even be willing to accommodate.
Where is your appeal to the conservatives... if there is such a thing as a true conservative even left in US?
Well, GOP is no more a conservative party, it is a cult, it is a hoard of marauders bent upon inflicting pain on the poor, on minorities and the disenfranchised. Haven't they done that already, so many times in the past?
You can't push anything through the house all the way to a law or result, without meeting the grim-reaper of Senate, McConnell... but do you see him being removed by GOP because anyone with eyes can see, he is a burden, a roadblock, an embarrassment at this point... but blind loyalty and self-interest holds all Republican Senators in check.
This I know, coasts are moving on ahead and they're not waiting for the middle America to catch on anymore. What you see in rural US, is frightening.
The next generation is riddled with drugs, smoke, alcohol and ever increasing poverty and ill-health. And that is not just blacks but a lot of poor whites... same people GOP and that mad man are whipping into angst against an unknown enemy, forever crouching around the corner.
When the truth is, the enemy is within.
1
this is a decent column and you would almost need a benevolent dictator to implement these suggestions so wide ranging they are. However, unless the left center begin to address the 10 trillion or more that is owed to the public sector including education in pensions and health care I can't take it seriously. You can't honor this dollar amount AND invest in all the items mentioned. I have never heard Friedman, Krugman, Leonhardt or others address it and it will prevent implementation of any of these recommendations
"Thinking without a box" = Pete Buttigieg. This is why he gives me hope.
3
Friedman correctly states that our country and the world face complex problems that have unnerved the voters. These include climate change, automation, digital takeover of our lives; mass migration from failed states etc. Into such troubled times steps two demagogues with no interest in telling the truth but loads of false promises: Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. Comparisons to fascism in the 1930s are dismissed by their supporters because of lack of an economic cause. However the appeals to the masses are the same .
Most alarming as to Trump are two statements he made yesterday and today. First in discussing peace rfforts in Afghanistan he suddenly said if he wanted to he could wipe Afghanistan off the map. Today he said that under Article two of the Constitution he can do anything he chooses as President. These statements couple with his never ending racist comments about the "squad" should convince anyone that Trump is unfit as President. His fascist tendencies will become more pronounced as 2020 election approaches.All the topics Friedman would like to see discussions on by the candidates are irrelevant with a fascist leader of a democracy. Impeachment is the only answer.
Let me help you out with some other binaries: Right v. Wrong; Democracy v. Authoritarianism; Legal v. Not.
1
"For instance, if we want to stem the flood of immigration at our southern border, we have to understand what’s driving that immigration. It’s a combination of extreme weather — particularly droughts threatening food security — misgovernance, gang warfare and America’s own drug addictions. Together, these are destabilizing weak Central American states... "
Thomas, we know you know better. The same thing that is behind climate change is the same thing behind the massive emigration, which is population.
In one of your articles you pointed out correctly that in 1900 Africa had a population of 140 million. Today it is over a billion and by 2050, a quarter of the world will be African, when their population rises to 2.5-billion.
It's the same story in Central America. And they all want to be middle class and live in Europe or America.
Do you think the million a year we take in will make a dent in the 30 million a year increase in AFrica's population.
And the reason you won't find the Dem's talking about it is because of the quotas within the party. They reserve seats based on identity politics 50% men, 50% women, etc.
IN reality there are not enough normal women who are interested in politics enough to get involved. (same for minorities) The result is the most ideological of these groups gain power. And they are not about to let things like population be discussed because that would be 'racist'.
You can't begin to discuss solutions when you can't discuss the problem.
4
What Mr Friedman suggests here requires that both parties or a majority of citizens agree on certain facts. For instance, approaching the problem of immigration and migration would require more than just demonizing those who are fleeing their own countries in search of something better. Mr Friedman gives a nuanced understanding of the factors causing these migrations. The President and his cohort have merely deemed them criminals, drug dealers and rapists. Similarly, with the complex issue of climate change. One party simply denies that it's a reality at all. And the cost of education - yes, we need to look at and address all levels of education as a nation in an effort to improve its efficacy and access to all, but it must be acknowledged that the cost of higher education for the majority of Americans is ridiculously high and that many are overburdened with paying for it. And then there's health care. The Republicans have spent decades trying to simply stop any kind of change or improvement in health care in the most obstinate, adolescent way. The Democrats have been the only party willing to acknowledge the problems existing in our current health care system and come up with one that works better for a larger swath of the population. Mr Friedman's argument here relies on the notion that both parties are working equally to acknowledge and address the countries issues, when in fact, one party won't even recognize or admit that these problems exist.
2
Hello? Is Friedman aware of Andrew Yang's platform? "Not left, not right -- forward"? And if you have listened AT ALL to any of Yang's appearances around the States, from New Hampshire to Portland, OR, you would already know he tackles all the problems Friedman mentions and provides solutions.
Precisely why you should endorse your former home state senator, Amy Klobuchar. She is one of the few adults in the room.
2
In order to elect leaders who can think outside the old left-right box there has to be another, simplistic I’m afraid but better choice based on a different narrative. That narrative is about economic class; Billionaire and billionaire- wanna-be’s vs all of the vast rest of us. With that point of view in hand Trump is transformed from a Right wing ideologue into a divider of the middle class and I think, into an entertainment (give them circuses) whose value to the Republicans is to distract from the Republican legislative agenda which must be made more clear, hurts the vast majority of us. Before we can begin to implement more realistic and less simplistic solutions to our problems we (the middle class) must get our leaders elected and that means winning the battle of the narrative to replace a simplistic left vs. right one with an equally and I believe necessarily simplistic but better for the vast majority of us, class struggle narrative.
1
Thanks, Tom. As usual, spot on. Anyone who has worked on "wicked" problems and practices design thinking knows the possibilities for change/solutions. However, most people (companies, and governments) are binary and short-term problem solvers. It doesn't help that the populace has been "dumbed down" by the media, stressed by the financial crisis and dismissed by those in power. Boards of directors require constant and immediate returns rejecting the R&D and time needed for real change. Voters latch on to the one or two issues that matter to them without thinking about how everything and everyone is connected. Add to that, nothing is free. We could all be living in a society in which no one looses their house because of a medical crisis or long-term illness, but we don't care until it is our family. Many parents choose not to or can't save for children's education thinking that their kids can borrow the money, not realizing they are dooming their children for decades of credit crisis and stress. The environment is so abstract for so many until their house floods, and even then refuse to accept what is really going on. We need a LEADER who is charismatic, brilliant, innovative and refuses to be labeled or reduced and doesn't promise what can't be delivered. Most of all we need someone to call "The Occupant" out, loud and proud, on his failed policies, the debt he is racking up, and his den of thieves. Our lives depend on it.
3
I was with Friedman until..."But maybe we should be radically incentivizing companies to go back into the education business..." That is simply nuts. The core of our problem is that our educational systems have never taught people HOW to think. The purpose of a general (secondary plus college electives) is to broaden the mind and give people the intellectual tools to participate in the "good" life. What values should be extolled (honesty, care for others, humility) and which condemned (greed, money, self-promotion)? The purpose of this type of education is NOT vocational. Corporations are among the most egregious of offenders: undemocratic, monopolistic, and entirely devoid of considering externalities of their products and services (e.g. fossil fuels, health care, agriculture, and more). They are the LAST organizations that should be involved in the education "business".
3
If any one of several Democratic candidates wants to break from the pack, they should heed your cautions. The truth is that we need a new third party. It may be that the candidate is within the Democratic party but their constituents are from disaffected Republicans, Independents and “centrist” Democrats. Let the Trumpists and far left fight it out at the margins. The only way to move forward is by shedding the extremes and regathering those governed by reason and not dogma.
4
Andrew Yang has been working on figuring this out for a couple of years. Check out his ideas: yang2020.com
The solutions do not come from left or right and they are NOT an average of the 2 options. We need evidence- based policies.
2
Tom is focusing on Democrats but the key to America's future is in the hands of Republican lawmakers who have given a blank check to Trump to do whatever he wants. If Republicans stay together as a group and support Trump policies with or without him, America will be doomed and there is nothing that Democrats can do will make any difference.
1
In order to think without a box requires a discipline approach to learning about the issues presented in this article. Democracy, as our founding fathers often wrote about, is not for lazy intellects---which unfortunately the American public has become. A public who read less than one book a year, sends 1/3 of their time in front of some type of screen, and when they do seek out the news, it is on a channel whose ratings soar when they present dualistic "news" reports. Our slippery slope into a lazy democracy began with Reagan and now we finally have hit hard bottom with Trump.
The problem is size. Most countries can contend with extreme political views because they are dwarfed by the overwhelmingly large moderate group. Today, extremists are no longer small and they seem to be growing. Thomas, you are in danger of becoming part of the minority. Good news for Mr. Trump.
Uh... the right question on colleges IS should they be affordable. If not free, then affordable. Yes, what they teach is also important, but affordability IS the key.
7
Newton's law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. While the further left views are all based on good intentions and commitment to the greater public good from a political strategy their reaction is evidence the Democrats have taken the bait and are at risk of embracing a losing strategy. Please rally around progressive goals with more moderate implementations for example aggressively pursuing a Medicare option and preserving pre-existing conditions vs. single payer which would need to be implemented in phases anyway. And keep it simple, explain that tax breaks already subsidize private insurance and that a simple needs based tax credit to help pay for either private insurance or Medicare will be provided to everyone. The same common sense plans applied to ambitious goals for the public good can be laid for many of our larger progressive goals.
2
The problem of climate change will not be solved by improving auto mileage. Unless we stop producing autos that release carbon dioxide, climate change will extinguish life on earth .
2
Friedman wrote: "But maybe we should be radically incentivizing companies to go back into the education business, since no one knows better the skills their workers need than they do. That’s thinking completely without a box."
I'd argue it is thinking simplistically. Yes, job skills are important. So are the skills necessary to be a functioning adult in a mature democracy. Simply teaching the skills to better augment this or that automated system assures those workers will never be more.
If we are truly repulsed by a stadium full of people chanting "send her back" then we have to recognize that education is the cure. If we worry as demand for public services grows while twitchy numbskulls demand ever lower taxes then we have to recognize that education is the solution. If we sink to despair as the consequences of climate change become ever more palpable while our president demands rollbacks in environmental protections then we have to realize that education is the answer.
None of these are particularly difficult to understand. But true understanding requires historical perspective, meaningful understanding of economics and an appreciation for the stunning power of the scientific method. Education can deliver those. But not the "this is the best way to insert tab A into slot B" sort of education.
1
You have stated the problem as it exists. Whether people can embrace the possible answer is yet another problem. For too many, In the box is easy. Following the leader requiring no judgement is easy. Accepting sound bites, no challenge. Group think, so attractive.
When we analyze our motives and those of the candidates, simplicity fades. Our era of “quick fix” reigns. Can we change this?
3
Kudos to Tom Friedman.
You have latched onto something important. For the past several years you seemed to have been floundering around looking for an appropriate topic on which to expound - often I found that I either totally disagreed with your opinion pieces or found them irrelevant. But your last two columns have struck a cord.
The confluence of Trump's increasingly immoral rants and the major lurch to the left exhibited by the candidates during the recent Democratic debates has created fertile ground upon which Americans need to think - and Tom Friedman recognized it.
I too am finding it extremely difficult to find a candidate of my liking. Amy Klobuchar and/or Mike Bennet have impressed me with their seeming pragmatism, but they get so little coverage by the press, it's not difficult to see how these two will be lost and never to be found by the electorate.
So, what is the message? The Press, while raking in record profits with sensational headlines generated daily by Trump and the pie-in-the-sky pronouncements of the left wing "progressives" will, I believe, be its Achilles heel. An ill-informed electorate will be left with little to choose from. An irresponsible Press that perpetually chases profits in lieu of educating its readership will serve to hasten the demise of our democracy, and in turn, those profits.
We are at a critical juncture for the country. Please, Tom, reach out to your colleagues and owners - plead with them to see this light.
4
Dear Mr. Friedman. You are right, it isn't about left or right anymore.
It is about right or wrong. Inclusion or exclusion. Voting rights or voter suppression. Ordinary Americans or Billionaire donors. All colours or white. Hope or fear. Health care or bankruptcy due to illness.
The GOP is on the wrong side of history with their decades of racism, failed trickle down economics, and corruption.
The choice right now is not hard at all, whether you all yourself a centrist or not.
5
Yes. Oh beautiful. Spacious skies. Don’t fence me in. A giant step. All part of our heritage. We can do this. America began without a box. We made the box. And now the binary boxes of rigidity. I’m hopeful, though—that enough of us desire something truer now. Actually, a true-ing to our original purpose. Life. Liberty. Pursuit. No boxes there. I, for one, am interested in rolling up my sleeves and leaning in. With love. And curiosity. Thanks Tom—-deboxing and detoxing needed now. And, don’t ever underestimate a bunch of Americans nor say something is impossible. We’re just a little (or a lot) stuck—-but we can harness our collective wisdom, desire, knowledge and compassion—-and that’s an ignition of potentiality we’ll all stand together to watch. Just like that beautiful blast-off and accomplishment of 50 years ago in space. One giant step. The unifying, trustworthy voice at the helm will make all the difference. We’re listening!
You so eloquently wrote the challenge we must solve to dethrone Trump. That as he has created an enemy of the “radical left” he has immediately reframed all of their future arguments into automatic hyperbole.
I believe one way we change the narrative is by dismantling his greatest con — he has convinced his base that he actually cares about them, that he is one of them, one of the people. It’s not just about policy, but more that he is exactly what his base is against an elite class of politicians. How do we convince the world Trump is indeed a politician whose personal benefit comes at the detriment of his base.
6
The current crop of Democrat presidential candidates all endorse America as the land of the free - free health care, free college, free entry into the country for all comers. They also support unreasonable energy policies. Wind and solar are nice but unreliable and expensive. Nuclear power must be part of the equation. Until it is, Americans will be saddled with rising electric bills and rolling blackouts as out-dated power grids struggle to keep up with demand.
4
@Collie Sue The claim that wind energy is too expensive is out-of-date propaganda. According to the US Department of Energy, the average levelized price of wind in the U.S. during 2014 was (2.35 cents per kilowatt hour. This was below the price of wholesale power from the grid during that year, and competitive with electricity from natural gas. The cost of wind (and solar) has decreased since then. If you continue to adhere to and spread this propaganda, you become part of the problem. Take a FAIR look at the presidential candidates' policies. Many of them go way beyond your over simplified versions of them. We need serious thinkers and serious voters.
2
You could not be more wrong about wind and solar. Their “unreliability” disappears when they are part of a network of smart grids and linked with battery technologies — both of which are developing rapidly. Traditional sources will fill the gaps pending wide spread deployment. The cost for maintaining the status quo is incalculable — the collapse of environments and modern society world wide.
1
@Thomas E Beach
Until recently, I too eschewed the idea of nuclear power, but having read books like "A Bright Future" and "Energy," I feel it has to be part of the solution. We already have the necessary nuclear energy technology, whereas, at least according to the authors of these books, the necessary storage capacity that we would need from batteries is too far on the horizon to deal with the immediate challenge of decarbonization. Yes, solar and wind are needed, but so is nuclear. It's the only scalable solution.
Recently I sparred with others who despise Trumpism over their turn to identify politics. The far Left in academia, often riddled with white guilt, offers no effective opposition to the menace of the far Right.
I am an old School labor Leftist of the 1930s sort. I respect the Second Amendment, the military, immigration reform but not Trump’s racist version, and I support most actions by law enforcement. I feel that we need urgent action on climate change and national health care. Yet I may as well be from Mars, around the modern Left.
I am also a first generation college kid. I grew up with the sort of folk who support Trump. To unite the nation, let’s not forget the white working class. Workers of all races and ethnicities are being oppressed by Corporate Capitalism and its cronies in government. A Centrist policy will peel some of them away from the evil man now in the White House.
7
Interesting article. A lot of what it says is very clear and well written. The one thing I see missing is that every government feels the effects of corruption. This solution needs a very robust anti-corruption piece. With Trump, corruption is right out of the open. In many societies this is not the case.
Trump announces his tax overhaul as benefiting the poor and middle-class, while hurting the wealthy. In reality, it benefits the rich much more than anyone else. What happens when someone else paints the next tax overhaul as benefiting the poor and middle-class, and it does. However, it benefits the wealthy much more and sells the economic future of the country down the drain?
Thinking without a box is difficult and has definite benefits. But it also makes finding and rooting out corruption much harder. Trump is not even a good flimflam artist, and over third of our population is taken in and believes so much of what he says. What happens when the “without a box” leader is also a flimflam artist? It will be so much harder to figure it out.
3
Thank you Thomas Friedman for “ditching the box” the odious. I wish you have mentioned the presidential candidate Andrew Yang who’s platform is what you call for.
Not left not right but forward. His pragmatic vision deserves at least half the attention that the young progressive congresswomen get. He might be ahead of his time and the bickering in the democratic hen house is not over but his ideas should be heard. Sooner or later there will be a shrewd frontrunner who will adapt them as his own. Give him a chance.
5
Remember that this is the early stage of a prrimary election, and since the candidates agree on most everything, they need to find ways to differentiate themselves in ways other than the sheer force of their personalities. So out come ideas that may seem bizarre to you, but are really hooks to get blase voters to notice them. This happens every four years for the party out of power, and it is entirely normal. Don't be scared until front-runners start emerging and grow even more radical, finding that they like the attention it gets them. We are not there yet.
4
You still have the box in your thinking. To get rid of that proverbial box you have to question the very basic aspects of social structure and systems. In education, we must question the relationship between student and teacher, the assumptions about measurement and learning given all the advances in knowledge. In business, you must question the very structure and relationships among the ideas of markets and laws of economic theory. Everything is up for questioning, all assumptions must be re-evaluated. Culture must be remade around more tenable and productive ways of thinking. We are simply mired in past thinking that hampers all we do.
2
I think Mr. Friedman is mostly correct here. A key for mitigating climate change, which is all we can basically hope, is to use capitalism to advance wind, solar, nuclear and water power. Our energy secretary did it as governor to Texas, thus it can be done. There is a lot of money to be made in clean energy. That is an idea that should attract most politicians and voters.
5
Thank you so much David for articulating exactly how I and a lot of my friends feel. I am opposed to extremism in any form, be it left or right. There is so much we can agree that needs to be accomplished to make are world a better place but labels get in the way. I am willing to listen to any idea that can be backed up with facts and am tired of sloganeering that is so much a part of today’s politics and am ready to put a mentally healthy president in office. So I beg the candidates to read this piece and use it as a guide.
11
The right question about education is how did college become so dysfunctional. When Mr. Friedman was a young man headed to college, state schools such as the University of Minnesota were affordable by almost everyone. Well-paid, full-time summer jobs were plentiful. Those summer jobs, combined with part time jobs during the school year, provided enough income for students to attend college on a pay as you go basis. Almost all students graduated without any student debt.
Tuition increases have been breathtaking. Summer jobs, when available, do not pay enough to cover tuition, let alone the cost of living in a dorm. Some part time jobs are still available to students. However, not many employers are not willing to accommodate student schedules. Student debt is the norm.
Mr. Friedman, look into education. College affordability cannot be neatly circumscribed in a box and analyzed like a thermodynamics problem.
The true wealth of a nation is found in its people, their health, skill, knowledge, creativity and work ethic. We can't leave it to the market, as you suggest, to fix education. That makes no sense. Your notion that all problems can be left to the market is what created our dysfunctional college education system.
13
The right answer to Mr. Trump and the left-leaning Democrats is the same thing and it is pragmatism.
Those who favor Trump's bloviation need to answer one thing: to what purpose is he leading us? Presuming I hate the Squad and non-whites and everything President Obama did, what do I get for this? It cannot just be a MAGA hat. And if all the undesirables were "sent back", who will do the jobs that need doing in the country? I do not see anyone wearing a MAGA hat picking crops. It is not feasible to expunge 40-50% of the population and expect our country to be great again.
For the Democrats it is just the same. Each constituency in the party is valuable and valid but how will you pay for free college or Medicare for All or justice reform or any much less all of these things? It is specious to believe any politician will vote to end gerrymandering or enact term limits or real campaign finance reform when their very positions depend on supporting these things which put them in office. Their is a vanishingly small set of politicians who would vote themselves "off the island"--George Washington comes to mind--but they are few and far between.
But, if we keep Cicero's maxim in front of us--Cui bono? (who benefits?)--and seek results instead of unalloyed tribalism, we might just have a chance.
In the next 3 months, Britain might show either the right way or the disastrously wrong one to progress.
3
Interesting to witness the one sided exacerbated nationalism of Americans.
All the major US corporations are fiscally based outside the USA in Europe in order to cheat and pay zero taxes while dishonestly invading the European markets .
That is Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Yahoo, Google, Starbucks, Netflix, and many others. All fiscally registered in Ireland, in the EU. Google just repatriated 20 billion cash dollars from its European business back to the US without paying 1 $ to the EU budget.The US fiscal fraud in Europe causes a 20 % deficit yearly to the EU budget .
5
For those facing addiction problems,moderation doesn’t work. A complete change in life style is the only answer. A realization that a change has to be made if the addiction is to be conquered. Trump has a strong base of support and the electoral college could give him another victory yet his administration has shown no interest in Looking for new solutions or even acknowledging some problems exist. Could it be that many are not ready for new approaches and simply what to send those who do back to where they came from?
1
Yes. Very scary that some Americans feel it is patriotic "to send them back" and, I like the approach of thinking without a box. And, you are also right about "free" education. I will add healthcare and, housing to that.
It is not that those basic human rights have to be free. It is that everybody should have access to them as a right. It is the moral and right thing. It would be very difficult to have a functioning sustainable democracy without those.
3
Answers to our immigration, climate, poverty problems exist. The issue is finding a candidate with a compelling message that people will follow.
Trump, love him or hate him knows how to deliver a compelling message and has voters that follow him enthusiastically.
The Democratic party hasn't yet, that I can see found a compelling candidate. I would have like to have seen Bloomberg run. They need someone like that who can has a solid record of accomplishment, integrity and solid ideas.
The current group of candidates are lackluster and some of them are going to scare off mainstream, "mushy," voters with their proposals of free healthcare for illegal immigrants and wiping out of college debt.
2
@A P This sounds good, but...human beings are not primarily rational creatures and in spite of our (possibly unique) ability to think counter-factually, there is little compelling about a rational approach to our problems, primarily, the increasing impact of global warming. Careful and factual explanations of the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't sexy enough to focus attention, especially in our culture which caricatures serious science as stuff for nerds.
A very, very slow-motion train-wreck rouses little in the way of reaction and a willingness to take radical action, since the actual moment of carnage is some years or decades off and thus easily put out of mind. And that radical action could well entail utterly new concepts, a revaluation of values as profound as the one which set us on our present path 10,000 or so years ago, the development of agriculture as as alternative to nomadism. Is any such a revision possible short of a global human and environmental catastrophe, one that reduces our population to a fraction and destroys most of what we call "civilization"?
1
The Dems are already in the weeds putting forth solutions when they should be giving us context; that is, an overarching strategy for the country. You wrote in the past about the five pillars that made America great. That's what we need someone to be annunciating. Big picture stuff. (China, by the way, is doing that better than any other nation at the moment.) We have long-term issues, but a short-term-fix culture. America works best when the federal government is operating on a grand scale...creating the infrastructure for "free" markets to operate and leveling the playing field for opportunity to exist.
4
The Big Box we find ourselves in is the one that assumes that economic growth is a given, that we all need more and more stuff, and that we all need to work endless hours in order to get that stuff. My sense is that if you asked voters if they would be willing to have more free time in exchange for less stuff we might be surprised. But we aren't asking that question... and we should.
8
Change is something everyone wants, but few are ready to embrace.
In order for any change to occur given our media rich world of how we get information, the one area that has been left out is the media.
I’ve watched countless hours leading up to a congressional event. News media’s broadcast days before a hurricane and days after the event, good or bad. Imagine if we took that time to really inform the public. Imagine if we had a real discussion with leading scientists about events, imagine if we meet some of the authors that you provided, imagine if we met real economists and not ones playing on television.
If we really want to drive change, we need to broadcast the message, and not just in 30 second sound bites.
3
The real divide in the country is cultural, with secularism on one side, a doubling down Protestant version of nationalism on the other. While I agree with most of what you're saying, it places you within the secular camp, not within the theocratic camp.
3
Great article!!!
We are mired in the past, while some of our competitors are turning their countries around. For example, instead of going to the usual places when visiting China, go instead to their great western desert. You will see mile after mile after mile of windmills already connected to a giant electric grid. We could do the same thing if we had the willpower. Do we have that willpower?
6
Answers left or right, are choices, There is a way to come full circle. The liberals and right are ignoring another choice. Sanders, Warren, want government to limit corporate power, tear down the monopolies, and legislate liberal agendas.
Don''t leave workers out. their best vehicle is through unions, organizing, working with the 1% for that piece of the pie. Elizabeth Warren could have a plan for that, Bring back the power of labor to save the country. Have a plan that labor can play directly in the say of how the work place is run, coop ownership in spirit to the benefit of both. America will win. And that socialist agenda Trump hates, will transform voters to believe it isn't socialism but labor power to lift America. This is how you unite the democrats and bring the middle to support health care for all, global warming, immigration.
3
Since when were our problems ever as simple as left and right? Since when can we or do we understand some of the complex problems we face?
We are ruled by hyper-partisanship and wedge issues. With all our media outlets we are easily excitable--something used by Trump on nearly a daily (or certainly weekly) basis. We ignore expertise--and mistakenly think everything can be simplified to a personal level--or worse yet actively fight the advice.
How can we get to sensible compromise and tolerance in the current environs? Saying this is difficult is an understatement. Legislators are castigated for compromise and may lose their jobs. Legislators who might be inclined to help the situation are actively reminded where their loyalties should lie.
2
Tom Friedman in this op-ed says he's not a mushy centrist then proceeds to demonstrate that he is. When he describes what the best solutions are, he makes sense and describes things a bit to the left of what Obama managed to pull of, and yet complains that Democrats are too far to the left. He should know that people heard about the Democratic debate through the media, and what they heard was the media saying the Democrats are too far to the left, just as Friedman is. Then he complains that the Democrats appear too far to the left. But there are very pragmatic solutions being proposed, for example to climate change, that use market solutions, as Friedman suggests. Why doesn't he say so? Because he needs to use both-siderism to complain about both sides so he can feel he's proven himself to be objective.
3
@Mark Wegman - " and yet complains that Democrats are too far to the left."
Supporting decriminalizing illegal immigration, free healthcare to illegals, slavery reparations are all policies that are way too far left. It simply boggles the mind..
1
I agree. However, while I'm sure reasonable and sane Republicans or former Republicans still exist, few are vocal on the national stage and none of the current policies that carry the right wing (Republican) tag benefit anyone but the wealthy through business as usual and deregulation. Where else to go but left?
4
Spot on. I applaud the efforts by the Times to address the real issues instead of oversimplify the matters just for the sake of winning the election. Granted the issues and the solutions proposed here are far from perfect or can appeal to everyone. For example, we all have different understandings about what education should provide: simple job-training or holistic citizen-cultivating or both. But it serves as a good starting point for us to think about real issues and real challenges our society currently face and real solutions we can collectively deliver and can individually contribute. Kowtows to this noble effort.
9
Why must we "understand" issues to have a sane, well managed border? I would argue that what isn't understand is the importance for a sane, well managed border.
4
@AACNY
It would help if we had sane, well-managed leadership in the White House. Right now, we don't.
All very excellent suggestions Mr. Freidman.
Unfortunately we now live in a post-truth society wherein the better the idea, the quicker it sink’s to the bottom.
Im with ya though, and will advocate for a return to common sense and reason.
3
I wish we had an out of the box candidate who incorporated all of the good ideas of the left and right with none of the baggage that comes from association with a political party. Maybe it's time for an independent, an unknown. A total anti Trump who like him is beholden to no one but who is rational. We need someone to save us. I had so much hope going into the democratic debates, but the lack of political acumen among liberal candidates is disappointing. It's not the lack of brains, or ideas, it's the unwillingness to get down and dirty as politics demands. Trump, was elected because people were tired of the status quo in politics. And to some extent they were right. It's all about money. If we can ever get money out of our political campaigns we could get somewhere. But as this will never happen, we need a rich person who can out Trump trump, and who will run as an independent with ideas that are palatable: Pro legal immigration, pro environment, pro infrastructure and job creation, pro public health care with private option.
1
"Pro public health care but with private option". In the countries with that system, private option is non-profit. If health insurance companies had remained non-profit as they used to be we might not be in the fix we’re in now.
1
I agree heartily with Friedman's basic point. I would add that the media including the Times needs to do a better job of reporting beyond cliches and binary options. Replaying the binary dictums of politicians as news with enticing headlines to sell ads only exacerbates the binary culture.
8
For all the people who want to work together to solve problems, there will be others that want to get in the way of solutions so they can be bought off, those who will pretend to work together while using this working together to advance their own interests, those who insist on their solution and work to block any other, and other groups that are toxic to solving a problem.
The first thing the people who want to work together have to do is to decide how to deal with those who wont (many of whom will be pretending to work together). Without this, solving any problem will be prohibitively expensive and slow and complex.
The answer is to cut down on corruption, and it will demand extensive violations of privacy and pressure on people to accept the same set of facts. Both socialism and capitalism are done in by corruption. Some of the answers from both Column A and Column B are dishes that appear to exist but in reality dont. They are the emperor's clothes, widely admired even though they do not exist.
Imaginative problem-solving is impossible for problems that remain hidden or denied or disguised behind false appearances. Our immigration problem is only one manifestation of the world's having more people than it needs or can support, particularly in the light of what is happening with our climate. To talk about immigration but leave out this context is a main reason why the problem is so intractable.
5
One would have thought that the Democrats by now would have figured out the best way to fight fire is with water. Going to the further left of the spectrum is only taking on Trump at his own game. It won't work and the little that remains of civility in the process will become the first victim, and Trump's laughing stock America will manifest in full. Push back to the center, get the independents and Trump-weary Republicans on board and wake up from this nightmare.
6
I agree with most of this It is a refreshing effort to break free of the box and re-think. We don't see enough thinking of it, and pundits are the people who can best do that.
However, this thinking needs sound data, and here Friedman displays some unsound data that lead astray. This is the big danger of re-thinking, it can go radically wrong without data.
We need data, and we need an open mind to accept that data, as the basis for re-thinking.
For example, here Friedman makes factual errors about Central America, that are too much the right wing assumptions about it.
Central American agriculture collapsed before the drought. Yes, the drought is making it worse, but two earlier things had already begun a widespread collapse.
First, after WW2 fertilizers became much more common, and they were applied in this region without needed training. The soil was "burned" with too much of the wrong sorts of fertilizer for its specific needs. Small farmers destroyed their farms, trying to do the right thing.
Second, NAFTA flooded that market with cheap American food. The decline of those small farmers struggling with damaged land became economic collapse.
Then drought finished off any left.
They flooded into cities without work, long before they moved on the border.
Helpless vulnerability fed bad government, gangs, and addiction. 19th Century NYC had the same.
Heal that and the immigration problem will be fixed.
"Improve policing" would just attempt to repress the helpless.
9
The Democrats at the debate were shocking? I can’t believe someone like Friedman falls for this. Americans want affordable health care and education. Not a one calls for open borders. And he is dismayed that there is not a candidate to appeal to moderate Republicans? Why don’t they fix their own party for gods sake.
Bold brave ideas with genuine ideas can win this. He objects to the word centrist as mushy. Well moderate can mean the same. In that NOTHING ever gets done.
9
@LFK
Since when is "wanting" something complete justification for it? It often seems as though progressives use "want" as justification for just about anything today. More rational Americans understand that every want has a price, and they can see past their wants to the point of having to pay and/or to the never mentioned consequences.
Unfortunately, too often these very real concerns about consequences are dismissed or denied. For example, when people warned democrats they would lose their doctors, they were dismissed with the "Lie of the Year." When they talk about the rationing, the number one way to reduce costs, used by all "for all" health care systems, they are met with arguments and denials.
Consider that NOTHING getting done might actually be a better option for many Americans.
2
@AACNY
Your comment I respectfully say says nothing.
I disagree. At this point, the GOP is actually bad, and the Democrats, warts and all, are our best chance of salvaging what’s left of our nation. I hope they can unify and support a candidate who can defeat Trump, and that Trump doesn’t try to scuttle the election or its results.
17
@Mark
So a voter doesn't like Trump and wants him checked. There's only one way and that's to strengthen his opposition. It's simple: Vote Blue no Matter Who.
5
I believe that a big part of the problem now is that we allowed our political world to be binary for so long when the reality is that it really wasn't even 50/60 years ago. We went along just like lemmings. No different than the beliefs on sexuality. We are much more complex than we have been prepared to admit.
Government will be shown to work when people making $100K a year can find satisfactory housing in the Bay Area; when public transit is clean, dependable and on time in NYC; when lawmakers in IL and NJ and CT grasp that taxing fewer and fewer more and more is not "progressive" at all. Forget Iran, forget Brexit, forget the pending alliance of Russia and China...the government we encounter is simply not working to address the problems we see every day.
3
Unfortunately the reality is a two-party system who are so embedded that is difficult to work around them. Our laws enforce the two-party reality with regulations on elections, districting, and voter registration making it difficult if not impossible for new ideas and new voices to gain momentum to make a difference. The party apparatchiks on right and left have proven useless in ensuring the best, most capable, candidates rise to the top. I agree with everything Friedman says, but wonder about the reality of escaping from this box given the realities of the institutions that control what we are allowed to see and hear from candidates.
4
We’re allowing people with immoral values to change the political system to reward people with immoral values.
Complex solutions will never reach consensus among people with opposing purposes. We must find a common purpose. Only then will pragmatism help. Solutions are not binary, but people are. To promote the common good, it must become part of what we want for ourselves. Do we actively work to promote the common good or do we only work to promote ourselves, in a narrow sense. The latter path has given us the unresolvable division we see, the lack of common purpose.
4
@Tim
The ultimate clash of world views: to save the commons by taming our consumption or to destroy the commons by caving to unbridled consumption. The growth of GDP and the policies of government toward such depends much more on the latter. In this, few are inclined to label this behavior immoral. So, the almost universal endorsement and pass to grow the human enterprise at the expense of the commons. A tragedy we cannot get our collective mind about.
2
@Tim Well said. Further, we'll never find solutions if we can't define/admit to the problems/challenges. What no successful politician (or columnist) can just say: THE PROBLEM IS US (the American people).
We (at least in democratic theory) have the power to take back our politics, fire the major political parties, control corporate greed, start caring, stop hating, start thinking/learning and come together. Sorry but waving flags, standing for the Anthem, "support our troops" stickers, or 'love it or leave it' shibboleths are simply NOT going to do it!
The 3 inter-connected mega-trends Tom cites are real and to a great extent impact all modern economies (while climate change impacts all). Being a moderate independent, I could actually support, say, Elizabeth Warren, even though I'm not on the "free" (vs. freedom) bandwagon. But regarding the other 20+ candidates (Dems or Repubs), I'll once again sadly be forced to vote for 'none of the above' for President next year.
I worry about large meteors/comets/asteroids, pandemics, nuclear holocaust, overpopulation, climate change, civil unrest/inequality, A.I./cyborg rule and other calamities... none of which I believe Donald Trump nor Joe Biden will solve (although Joe may at least try... or appear to try... some).
1
No problem with idea of centrism. Balance is in the center when you have a diverse , multitalented, free thinking, democracy. Too much weight at either end is destined to failure. In this great, diverse democracy, we should be focussed on justice for all, and constantly seek balance. To achieve this, everyone needs to give a bit, and sometimes a lot (from the extremes). Does anything else really make sense in this country. Too bad the democratic and republican parties can't understand this.
3
I have no idea what Friedman is talking about. I have no idea what an industrial democracy is. I don't know what extreme is because neoliberalism itself is extreme. If you think that lemmings stampeding over a cliff is somehow a political act is jumping over a cliff in an act of self sacrifice left ot right?
The opposite of liberal is authoritarian. The opposite of conservative is progressive. There is no such thing as a middle there is balance which is dependant on time and place and America is out of balance.
I know the American constitution, its principal architect Thomas Jefferson said it should be rewritten every nineteen years Jefferson was a scientist. AOC is a scientist. A Green New Deal and a 70%top marginal income tax rate are not extreme positions for a nation gone mad they are what was needed in 2000 to try and get back some balance.
I live in Quebec with a center right government. In 2019 a Green New Deal and government oversight and participation are not extreme, they are not left or right they are about survival, democracy and sanity.
America can no longer lead it has gone utterly mad, the world is not binary, it is analog and we need equilibrium.
Solutions to existential problems are neither left nor right they are solutions and men like Friedman looking to find halfway solutions may have already doomed us.
12
@Montreal Moe Your analogy of lemmings stampeding over a cliff is an apt one for our society that continues to ignore the perils of climate change. Have a nice life, what's left of it. You may, according to some reports, have only about 30 years left.
1
@TommyTuna
Thanks Tommy,
So far I am a cancer survivor and I am over 70 so thirty years more is cause to celebrate since my family's history indicates we never really lose it.
Lemming go over the cliff for a reason. They go over the cliff so the species can survive.
I am beginning to believe Americans are not so much crazy as realizing that whatever it is that makes someone an American endangers our species survival.
I admit my bias in never believing Thomas Friedman's opines but I was reading the Ecologist in the 70s, Thomas Friedman's middle is as extreme as one can get. It doesn't solve any problems it just makes them worse.
Believing things like climate change and inequality are political rather than existential is simply insane.
I am still not sure Americans didn't know that Jimmy Carter was honest and gave us the facts but preferred Fantasyland to perpetually condemned to creating more perfect.
Reagan opened Disneyland for a reason.
1
OK, Tom. How do we grow the pie without destroying the big ingredient maker? How do you make the markets compete fairly if all the participants in the market collude in discounting externalities?
Thinking outside the box requires some real debate about the imperatives for growth in capitalism and whether or not growth at this stage in the over-development of the big pie maker can ever be truly sustainable.
5
Which candidates are proposing socialism and abandoning markets? Gee, I must have overlooked something. We are running out of time for timid solutions to the problems we face. Markets aren't always the answer, as evidenced by our crumbling, market-based healthcare system.
8
All politics appears to be being shredded by identity politics of both the right and the left. Converting every gender, race, religion, and ethnicity into competing special interest groups has not worked. Placing property rights above individual rights has not worked.
I trust that someone is going to find a respectable center that recognizes the rules of the game called Democracy while affirming the Constitution's insistence upon equality of rights.
8
What does Friedman think of Warren wealth tax? He should have the courage to admit it is one of the solutions for wealth concentration. In the absence of such acknowledgment I consider this piece nothing but a refute of progressive agenda that people like Warren are advocating.
7
Warren knows and is correct that our capitalism has become an oligarchy. Some business leaders know this and speak out. It’s not socialism to correct our grievous mistakes.
8
@Hoshiar A wealth tax is a good example of thinking inside the box. It’s not a requirement for a more equitable society, and it has largely been abandoned by Western European countries that have tried it.
A more effective and efficient approach would better distribute rewards in the first place, rather than take away from some after the fact. What exactly that would look like, I confess I don’t know.
1
The very wise Mr. Friedman is in fact a centrist, and should wear the banner proudly.
He is thoughtful, wise, flexible, restrained in manner, prudent and caring.
It is we, the centrists, who can—and must—save the country from the excesses of the extremes.
14
It’s not helpful to characterize centrists ideals as mush. Being a centrist means looking at complex problems from different viewpoints. This practice puts one in the center. Far right and left have a predefined rigid viewpoints. I pretty much know what FOX or MSNBC are going to say about a issue in the news. They have and agenda and use their own brand of rose colored glasses to view everything. This practice is some combination of ignorance and malevolence. Unfortunately our popular media has embraced this thinking and many people embrace these media outlets. This sort of thinking is bad for politics, business, and personal lives. It leads to bad decisions and poor outcomes. We need more centrists with their open minds and clearer thinking.
6
It is incredible how often these op-ed are recycled. While it pretends to critique left and right, it is just a more polite version of existing politics. It is “let’s trust markets” and have light government regulation. As someone that has spent time in Europe, universal higher education and single-payer healthcare, aren’t considered left or right or even controversial—immigration is another issue altogether. It is odd to me that Americans treat universal programs that don’t discriminate basic on wealth as radical communism. Whatever world he is describing, has no resemblance to the problems people have, most of them come down to lacking money because of ridiculous price of medical care and education. A centrist in this context would be on the farthest right spectrum in Europe. Maybe word a low-wage job or interact with people making less than 100k for perspective.
13
California is an interesting example for Mr. Friedman to cite. As part of it's visionary outlook it began a bizarre bullet train project that ran up billions of dollars in costs and then had to be abandoned; San Francisco is increasingly unlivable, an odd place inhabited mainly by the super rich and the very poor with the middle class pushed out; and the number of Americans leaving this high tax haven outnumbered those coming in by about 1 million over the past decade. And California is essentially a one-party state with a jungle primary that helps eliminate competition.
If that is Thomas' vision for a livable, centrist/moderate future, count me out.
4
Bullet trains: this is the second rear in a row that my plane travel from Philadelphia to Portland was canceled by rain. Spent all day in the airport, only to go home. East coast air travel is a mess. At some point it will become obvious that we should have a train that goes from Miami to Maine. Damn the cost. Increasingly, we cant afford not to do it. Building the interstate highway system was too costly. Going to the moon was too costly. Healthcare is too costly. We should have done it decades ago.
57
@Chris
The party of Nixon are but a group of whiners.
We don't care what you don't like. Start acting like you care, and come up with answers that are more than right-wing 'talking points'.
Talking loud, is just making noise.
2
@Chris
Read the history of Japan's bullet train system. Cost overruns. Public annoyance. They stayed the course and completed the system.
Having recently visited Japan I can tell you their system was worth every penny of overruns. It is lightyears ahead of anything the US offers for transportation. Ask anyone in Japan if it was worth it. The answer is obvious.
Last year, it took me 14 hours (no exaggeration) go by train from Chicago to Indianapolis (which wasn't the final destination).
If that's your vision for 21st century US, then count me out. It's short sighted and something I would have expected in the 18th century days of horseback transportation.
It reminds me of an old Monty Python adage that sums up today's US; "Please sir may I have another", except in our context "another" consists of wasteful trillion dollar tax cuts instead of investing in the country's infrastructure.
What we have today is not livable. I'm really not sure what you're talking about. We are going backwards.
2
This is a truly inspiring article, Mr. Friedman. Thank you for writing it.
How I wish that instead of us vs. them, we could simply be Americans. We seem to have lost touch with "United we stand, divided we fall."
I would like to see a political debate where all of the candidates were disguised, so that there was no way to identify candidates' voices, appearance, gender, and party. When a question was answered, the audience would electronically score the answer, so that only the candidates ideas were evaluated. I'm not sure how one would disguise ideology, which could be recognizable via word choice, but it would be interesting to see whose ideas received the greatest support.
2
Among the multiple causes of our immigration challenge, you correctly note drug use by Americans. I would have liked to have seen more solutions offered in this area; especially in the prevention arena. Drug use by Americans not only contributes to our immigration problem, but also to our incarceration problem and all the economic impacts associated with it. Not to mention health system overuse and quality of life issues. You'd think we would prioritize this in a more intelligent way than simply declaring "war" on drugs. But "war" is a simple concept for most people and allows us to more easily place blame on others and abdicate our own responsibility.
3
For Mr. Friedman's prescription to work in practice, the first thing that has to happen is that people must care enough to do the work of thinking - to gather information, even when the facts are uncomfortable, and to evaluate that information carefully and honestly.
The tribalism on both left and right creates an easy "out" for the avoidance of thinking. But as the old saying goes, variously attributed to Ben Franklin, Walter Lippmann, et al, "When everybody thinks alike, nobody's thinking."
For my part, I long ago rejected all political labels as a part of my identity because acceptance of any seemed to inevitably require willing and voluntary distortion of reality and scapegoating, if not outright intellectual goose-stepping.
And the labels themselves mean different and usually inaccurate things to almost everyone, anyway.
The problems of tribalism and intellectual laziness are compounded, by the way, by monied interests who distort the information people consume and work to keep the populace stupid for their own benefit. The sore thumb that sticks out is named Murdoch, but there are many more.
6
I doubt the world is facing any more severe problems than we've had to deal with previously. Each age brings its own problems.
Technology and globalisation bring great rewards.
Climate change is a mish mash, the impacts are likely overstated, its expensive to deal with and requires global attention if you accept the catastrophic claims.
In Australia we've been investing in renewables for years with mixed results. My own State, based in a country with some of the worlds most abundant sources of energy has just one world record. The highest power prices on the planet. The effects on households and industry are daunting.
Sharing the pie is a lot easier than growing it. I've noticed it's typically politicians who manage to spend while leaving the growing to the public. Then they hit us up for more, as there's just so much good work to be done.
Free markets may have their risks but governments with big plans no matter how well meaning are riskier.
2
Quote: “our old two-dimensional grid with its binary choices between left and right is insufficient to respond to them. It requires a more complex, three-dimensional set of policy tools and responses.”
Isn't Elizabeth Warren the most appropriate response to these new needs?
10
@Cassandra
Perhaps, if we can count on her to govern more from the middle than her campaign promises of free-everything seem to suggest.
I like her but, for instance, forgiving student debt only rewards the irresponsible running up of as much debt as possible —since someone else will be paying it off—while punishing those who have worked hard to avoid such debt and pay off what debt they have acquired. Exactly the wrong messages to send to our kids.
Same with other progressive plans like open borders and free medical coverage for all immigrants. These notions will not win back the rust belt that was ignored by HRC, nor the working people she insulted. It will just shove more people away from the Democratic Party and ensure more Trump.
5
Elizabeth Warren is the best prepared. The most adult. But I agree that she needs to rethink some of her proposals. Late in life I took classes at my local community college, where the credits were so cheap as to be almost free. I was shocked at the sloppy, lazy disregard and disrespect the 18 year olds had for their education.
1
I agree in one sense; people and policy makers should be open-minded and willing to, yes, expand their political toolbox when it comes to policy solutions. There is no doubt about that. But I think some of the best ideas I have heard lately come from the American political left, simply because these proposals are reacting to the really troubling problems Americans from all over the country and political spectrum face. Outsourcing of jobs, poor healthcare, poverty, exorbitant college tuition etc. I have yet to hear a solid right-wing solution to let’s say credit card debt or student debt. The frequent response we get is: you accrued the debt, pay it back! So, the solution is not to completely jettison the political spectrum, I think this is impossible at the moment by the way, but to utilize government policies ( this is by definition left wing) to help people. Yes, labels are less important than positive outcomes. Yes, who cares what we call them and where they came from but don’t dismiss them because they remind you of “socialism” either.
5
I agree that the right doesn’t really offer solutions. They don’t even acknowledge how bad it’s gotten for half the country. The Left may bumble, but the Right seem to be cynical naysayers offering nothing but resentment politics. And they have the nerve to wave the flag.
2
The one thing that this column didn't raise is central to all of the issues and that is overpopulation. The great migrations of this century come from the fact that overpopulation in places like Africa and Central America is forcing the people there to go out and find other resources and this is putting great pressure on western democracies to try to do something without appearing too (putting kids in cages) harsh. Trump is exploiting this, because many people see the surge of people at the southern border as the product of left policies (like sanctuary cities) as not going far enough to stop it. The democrats can't seem to get far left enough to agitate their base and all they seem to be doing is handing votes to Trump, whose only policy is to promote himself and his family. He panders to anyone who will wear his Chinese made hat and those religious supporters don't want women to have reproductive choices. I don't know when we became an all or nothing nation, it seemed to have started around Reagan, but I do know this, too far left and there is a likelihood that Trump will win. At the point we will not experience all, but we could experience nothing. These democratic candidates need to understand that and articulate that in next debate. They need to turn off the 'squad' and apply some common sense. We need reform, but we don't need to blow the whole thing up. This is still a good country, but....
6
Focus on what Trump is doing not what he is saying, and you can see that he is a very effective and pragmatic solution provider. Democrats know this but they deny it, because they know they can’t win against him once they accept it. They just don’t want to follow their old dancing partners, yes republicans, who were captivated by Trump already.
4
I am trying to follow. His one accomplishment is a tax that showered wealth onto the already wealthy.
1
@Young
Trump has delivered tax reform, which helped over 80% of the middle class and was a boon to small businesses. His tax code changes simplified tax returns for millions of taxpayers, who will no longer have to itemize. Focusing on the rich always blinds people to what happens to everyone else, and, of course, the democrats can acknowledge none of this.
He has also delivered landmark prison reform. Racist put African-Americans into prison, not get them out early. Between the First Step Act and the renewal of the Second Chance Act, Trump has delivered for African-American inmates. Plenty of Americans are celebrating as their family members return to them early from prison.
We can argue about immigration, but Trump remains the first person who is actively trying to manage the border. Say what you will about Obama, but his policies resulted in over 70,000 unaccompanied minors to flood our border in one year.
2
@Young
Please state the solutions you believe Trump is providing.
You are right that California is implementing laws and ideas to radically reduce greenhouse admissions.
But California has a super majority of democrats in the legislature and a democratic governor. Now tell me how these solutions can be scaled up for the entire country when so many republicans don’t accept the science behind climate change? The existential threat of climate change should make even a good centrist vote democratic, regardless of who wins the nomination.
4
@Nanette Joslyn
I am not so sure that do not accept the science of climate change.
More to the point is that they just do not care.
Money and power are the goal. Period.
They will blow up the world to achieve their goal.
2
This column could have been written in any decade for any group of political leaders. Binary has never worked except in very limited cases. Leadership involves working in the complexity and ambiguity of the gray, not standing only in the black and white.
12
You're a little confused, I think. Just because the markets- (why not call it what it is -Capitalism) are largely responsible for global climate change, that doesn't mean they're the force to solve it. The growth of renewable energy in the US needs the economic conduits of capitalism for funding, product distribution, etc because that's where the money is, but the profit motive isn't the main force developing renewable power- the millions of Americans working to mitigate climate change are. It turns out that the lefty position accords with the facts and what's good for people while the the right wing position has no evidence and harms people every day.
10
Ellizabeth Warren has far more to say about what is necessary and how to get it done than "centrists" who want to have their cake and eat it too.
Climate change is a lot more serious than anyone wants to admit. Income inequality is rampant. Vote cheating keeps the bought and paid for minority in charge. Why would they let go if their opponents are willing to "go along to get along".
8
I've been pretty disheartened since the first set of Democratic debates. My friend (who didn't watch) asked me who won and I said: President Trump.
Out of all the candidates, I am most drawn to Mayor Pete and his worldview and way of thinking. But the debates confused me and I'm not 100% on board with anyone at the moment.
Thank you for putting into words what I have been feeling. I think that's why I keep hoping Michael Bloomberg will get into the Democratic primary. He's not perfect, but I feel like he has this 'no box' approach.
I'm not sure there is 'the one' to beat Trump and that has me worried. We shall see who emerges.
10
@Maria
"The One" to beat Trump is us. We just need to vote him out. All the issues and agenda will still be there to be hashed out afterwards. Since no President can dictate law, everything will still need to pass through a politically diverse Democratic House and, likely, a still Republican Senate. Once Trump is gone, any Congress must move to reign in its past grants of executive discretion and very carefully box in any future ones. We can each have our preferences in the primaries, but all we really need worry about now is registering people to vote and making sure everyone with a smidgen of common sense shows up at the polls the November after next.
5
@RRI
How do you think anything can get done in a republican controlled Senate with McConnell?
By all means register and get out the vote but if Dems don't take the Senate, how can anything get done - especially with placing judges on the courts?
My friends tell me, if Dems take the Senate, we'll get open borders, immigrants coming in from all over the world and endless hearings on reparations, I usually respond by saying, that may be but that's better than a plutocracy or oligarchy led by a pervert and a traitor.
1
I don't think that Democrats will win offering complex solutions to complex problems. If they can just convince voters that a change is needed, I would settle for that. Based upon recent history, I think we have grossly overestimated the decision-making powers of most Americans.
10
@DALE1102
Since I agree wholeheartedly with your first and basic premise, I'll disregard your rather smug dismissal of the voting public.
Aristotle told us what makes a winner: ethos (character), pathos (emotions), and logos (reason). Notice what he put last.
There is simply no way that a voter can judge the likelihood that as to any specific policy a candidate can get it enacted. The most that a voter can do is judge the credibility and the values of a candidate. If the candidate is judged to be truthful and his or her values are close to those of the voter, that's enough.
So -- find an honest man or woman whose values are near enough to 51% of the voters and nominate him/her.
2
"But maybe we should be radically incentivizing companies to go back into the education business, since no one knows better the skills their workers need than they do. That’s thinking completely without a box."
To the contrary, that's the same sad box "relevance" advocates have been bouncing around in for decades, stamping their feet. The critique, usually leveled at "irrelevant" Liberal Arts degrees, typically comes from entrepreneurial cheerleaders, rarely from actual employers. I once worked for a university fever-gripped to serve employers "relevance," to the point of surveying local corporate and business leaders with a view to a complete curriculum overhaul. The disappointing answer: when asked, employers little cared which specific courses of study students undertook. What they wanted were graduates who knew how to read, analyze what they read, and write clearly and accurately. Business-specific skills and knowledge, they could impart on the job. In other words, a rigorous Liberal Arts degree might well do the trick, perhaps better than a degree in, say, Human Resources imparting principles and practices likely to be just baggage on the job because hopelessly general or already outdated.
There's the same prepackaged air to most of Friedman's breathless revelations of the wonders between left and right. Some are good, but we've been trying most of them for a while. For something genuinely new, it's neither the right nor the center that's America's road not taken.
9
It's not Left or Right.
It's fair or unfair. All or few. Public or private. Inclusive or exclusive. Consumer or corporate. Prosperity or profit. Accountability or impunity. Empathy or antipathy. Fix or break. Share or hoard. Empower or suppress. Black Lives Matter or "You wouldn't want to live with them either." Care or loath. Help or Hurt. All faiths or bad faith. Diverse or just white guys. A head or behind. Strategic or bellicose. Thrive or wither. Democracy or Trump.
I remember market research involving in-depth focus groups of people who were undecided about abortion rights. One query elicited a consistent agreement: if you could choose to socialize with a group of people opposed to abortion rights or who support abortion rights, which would you choose and why.
The response was consistently a preference for people who are pro-abortion rights who were envisioned to be "educated", "more interesting", wider cultural experience ("go to museums, plays, read national news and magazines") "trendy clothes", "visited other countries", "eat all kinds of food", "have interesting things to say".
The anti-abortion rights people were characterized as "serious", "religious", talk show listeners, "NRA", socially rigid, conformist, "cautious", ordinary, driven.
Focus group findings aren't designed to be generalized but I'd say Americans on the Left are more fun to be with while you wouldn't want to share a cab with those on the Right.
12
Its foremost about clan societies or democracy.
The answer is not left or right. The answers are integrity competence, and concern for the average American citizen.
12
What I find most frustrating is that a candidate cannot win without offering the voters free stuff. Dems promise the moon and insist that the rich will pay for it; voters think this is too good to be true and figure taxes will rise on both rich and middle class to pay for the goodies.
By contrast, Repubs promise the moon and insist that no one need pay for it -- they’ll cut your taxes at the same time! Voters think this also is too good to be true, but it’s a darn better deal than the one offered by those fuddy-duddy Dems who believe in paying one’s bills.
Any wonder Repubs keep winning and winning and winning?
3
Except republicans balance the budget during democratic administrations, while budget busting during their own. Free stuff? Republicans have their own basket of free goodies. Tax cuts to the already very wealthy, for example. But Republicans usually win by sliming democracy with their resentment pitches. The ever present dog whistle: don’t let ‘those people’ get free stuff.
I never have heard of a Dem who believed in paying ones bills. That is what government is for. Why did Pelosi just negotiate a 320 Billion spending bill.
1
Such wise words. Pragmatism and thinking outside our party's narrow political viewpoints is exactly what we need. As the father of two toddlers, I lie awake worrying about this country and the world's current trajectory. Increasing debt in a time of plenty, ignoring global climate change in an hour of need where addressing it could provide opportunity and wealth. Meanwhile I watch both parties pander to the political extremes in a race to more gridlock. The clock is ticking and as a parent the sound is keeping me up at night.
9
Tom, agree that today’s issues are increasingly inter-related and complex and require multi-dimensional solutions. And the stakes are high.
We’re playing checkers in a world of chess.
The tribalism, binary conversation / policy and one-upping is incapable of dealing with the real world and will eventually sink our ship.
With that, a few things 1) the root of all of this is campaign finance and money in politics... I’m not holding my breath this will ever be solved but we should never forget 2) i’m a radical pragmatist and think, like all things, the right path is in the middle... it’s a difficult thing to defend these days 3) I might be too hopeful, but I think the electorate grasps this and will respond well to an adult conversation if communicated well... if candidates articulate their thought process beyond a bumper sticker and don’t pander / patronize... will be refreshing. 4) on higher education and as a father of two, the college system must be blown up. Students need to learn to think in addition to code or we’ll continue to have binary conversations. We need barracks and great professors who are payed to teach not just research... rather than over the top campus centers, accommodations and athletic facilities.
2
The main problem is Pelosi's arrogance in presuming that, no matter how good a case for removal could be made in the House, that there is no way that the Senate would convict. A thorough airing - perhaps tomorrow when Mueller testifies - of the evidence of foreign interference and Trump campaign operatives dealing with foreign entities, and those same operatives being given cabinet posts, and the attempts at witness tampering by dangling pardon possibilities, and the multiple obstruction and attempted obstruction, and Trump's inadequate responses could have been enough to convince enough Republican Senators - 20 out of 53 - to be "brave" enough to vote for conviction.
Or Trump might have caved when he saw his coverup strategy failing. He's caved before, and he could have pulled a Nixon and resigned with a Pence pardon to keep him out of prison.
But no. Nancy knows best.
And Lincoln's statue in the memorial sheds marble tears.
3
Free college? No, college was never free. But most of us in the progressive camp (and I suspect in every household across the country) realize that college costs have risen more than the rest of goods and services over the past 50 years. When I began graduate school at UCLA in 1975, the fees — not tuition, which was free— were $237 per quarter. That’s $711 annually for the graduate courses, regardless of number or field. Of course, there were additional costs, including books, transportation, housing and food. But in 2019 dollars, the fees would amount to $1,147.25 per quarter, or $3441.75 per year. At a world-class institution.
The difference is that over the past 40 years, states have steadily reduced their commitment to public higher education, to the point that state appropriations now constitute only 10-15% of most public universities’ budgets. And as that occurred, the difference has been transferred to students, their families, and ultimately to increased student debt. These universities are now basically private institutions that receive a small amount of public funding — not the institutions that made the United States known as a leader in public education around the world. We have mortgaged our children’s futures for a gargantuan military budget and obscenely inequitable wealth gap. And that is what progressives oppose.
28
Moderates and centrists are the people who did NOT give us Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the 8 hour day, public education through high school, unions, civil rights, women's suffrage, etc. and most of what helps makes life great in this country. Moderates accommodate the status quo. Be afraid of moderates. Very afraid.
14
LBJ was President when Medicare
was established, and perhaps by Texas standards he would be considered a Liberal (my father was from Texas where a Liberal would be on par with a NY Republican) . SS was established when FDR the same man who put Japanese Americans in Internment Camps during WW 2 and denied Jews fleeing Europe admittance to the US. Imagine how he would treat the people trying to enter the US. By today’s standards they would hardly be defined as Liberals
.
1
I’m afraid you are right. Like Kennedy thinking the Blacks needed to slow down and wait for their turn. Thank god for LBJ.
Clinton in 92 called this political movement The Third Way. Rational solutions based on reality, science, and facts to support robust growth and social equality.
8
Thomas: the answer is Ranked Choice Voting.
Or, really, any voting system that makes split votes impossible, the threat/fear of which is what keeps the two parties in power and unassailable.
Keep an eye on Maine. They are leading the way toward the salvation of democracy.
9
Education is never free.
Even if tuition is free, colleges and universities tack on extra fees.
The time spent studying and going to classes is time the student is unable to spend working and can be described as lost wages.
And if our taxes supplement education, we are most definitely paying for it.
When we fail to cover tuition for students from less affluent backgrounds, we heap debt onto the students least able to recover from that debt. We create an environment where many bright young people — people our our country needs if it is to be competitive — are going to decide that they just can’t afford an education and instead be trapped in a lifetime of low paid unskilled labor. They will be less likely to pay taxes and more likely to need social services ( should those services even be available).
So, yes, the question of whether education should be free is one we should be asking.
Unfortunately, people who never had to choose between an education and survival, are the ones who have been answering those questions.
2
Tom, there are two major problems that need to be addressed. The first is the extreme concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a very few in the American polity. Unless this concentration of power and wealth is disrupted, government will forever be used to advance the interests of the few at the expense of the many.
The other is climate change, but that cannot be addressed unless the power of concentrated wealth is broken. It is simply too profitable for the ultra wealthy not to change anything about patterns of energy extraction and use.
This is why the richest men in the on the planet have ginned up a new "space race." Their real plan is to keep things as they are, such the earth dry, abandon it, and head off for Mars. As stupid as this sounds, that's clearly what they're thinking.
None of the issues facing us be it education, climate change, infrastructure repair, can be addressed without addressing the inequality that plagues this society.
And dismantling inequality is, has been and will always be an issue of the LEFT.
9
Ah Tom, you tell us to think out of the box, but then you speak from within your same old box. The answers to our problems will come from colleges training drones for corporations who will grow the pie while government leverages markets to mitigate climate change. We'll let in high IQ immigrants who can write computer code, and a few of the neediest cases to make us feel good, while slamming the door on the rest. Isn't this just the type of thinking that put us in this hole in the first place? Surely we've run head on into the limits of old time "free" market growth, built on exploitation of resources at the cost of the environment? The world doesn't lack for narrowly educated coders and hackers, but where are the broadly educated young people who have the perspective required for an informed citizenry? Immigration and foreign policy need to be linked so that we honor our melting pot values while helping stabilize neighboring countries. I agree that the old left/right, Dem/Repub dichotomies won't lead us forward. But neither will "reshaping" markets and powering exports. Tom, our generation exploited resources and accumulated wealth like no other generation in history, and pushed all of us to our current dilemma. We may be so wedded to this approach that we can't come up with useful alternatives; perhaps the best we can do is to stop pontificating and let younger generations find their way forward. The future is theirs, for better or worse.
6
This is an old story. If you believe climate, globalization, and technology challenges require a government role ... then you are a Democrat. The debates were a travesty in part driven by a media desperate for relevance and advertising. The moderators showboated. And that contributed to a silly yes / no set of a show of hands on issues that are complex as you say and require a problem solving mentality. So direct some of your ire to your media colleagues. They carry a lot of blame for the twitter style lack of sophistication and depth in their approach. I bet Biden is your candidate given his Obama exposure and good enough legislative history.
2
Thomas Friedman tells us that he is not a “centrist.” Instead he has “a different approach to politics.” He wants solutions that involve both the public and private sector! He doesn’t think outside the box—he thinks without a box! Dear Mr. Friedman: We all know that political views cannot simply be plotted on a “rigid left-right grid.” We all know that political ideas are not confined to, or escaped from, some metaphorical “box.” We all know that both the public and private sector must contribute to fixing the mess in which we find ourselves. Your different approach to politics sounds pretty familiar to me.
5
@Chris Rasmussen
I am reading it (the article) and I smile. This is the intellectual leading edge of this Country trying to illuminate us. Thank you for this comment.
2
Companies do not need to get into the education business. A company has short term incentives, but a degree needs to teach skills and basic knowledge that will last most of a career. Companies do not guarantee employment for decades, and no one wants to be tethered to one employer because they only have a narrow and job-specific set of akills.
College is too expensive because of administrative bloat and other questionable spending, but that does not make it obsolete.
3
Perhaps there is some binary context that would crystallize it for us, but surely it couldn't exactly be what we're often presented with.
1
As usual, Mr Friedman is very clear on the crux of the issue and national imperatives. The optimal solution is the Middle Path, right balance of Yin and Yang, etc i.e. an astute adoption of the very best ideas of the LEFT AND RIGHT. First, we have to grow the national economy and wealth (Right-Capitalism), and, then (ASAP), Second, we have to distribute the wealth created fairly and responsibly (Left-Socialism). The problem with the Left is they are good at spending the wealth but don't have realistic idea or plan to create or build that wealth. Conversely, the Capitalist are great at wealth creation but they are so selfish they do not want to use their capital to help the needy.
So the best solution is to marry the best of Capitalism and Socialism ideals and practices in a realistic, sustainable and responsible way. It can be done, and, has been done very successfully in America.
Henry Ford was an entrepreneur who gave the his employees a pay rise and boosted his car sales and possibly the economy too. Similar, admirable contemporary entrepreneurs would include Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc.
What I think is necessary and enlightening is to have a national dialogue on what American values should be and a develop a realistic national plan/imperatives to ensure America leadership. It could be steered by talented people like Mr Friedman, Krugman, David Brookes, etc, with invaluable contributions from Gates, Buffet, scientists, Bernie Saunders, etc. Good luck !
2
The general idea that the left-right axis in the space of observable view points and behaviors is not merely incomplete. I believe it is used consciously to Keep people thinking in boxes.
Take for example the abominations of Libertarian ideology and dogma. Those have largely been examined because they have been subsumed and hidden under the rubric of Right, or even more incorrectly conservative. Republicans used to be largely Burkean conservatives in lineage. That tradition has been usurped entirely by Radical libertarian ideology which is certainly not left or progressive but cannot be called right or conservative based on original meaningful definitions. Any small examination of the practical results of implementing republican/libertarian policies would lead to the unavoidable conclusion that they are neo-feudalists. There will be a very small class of people who own nearly all of of wealth in a nation, or with globalism, the world. Everyone else will effectively be owned by them. Politics controlled by them, policy/law set by them, your rights or lack thereof set by them. You can see that happening now.
That is happening because of corruption. Corruption transcends left and right. It is already out of the box. That is why we are coerced to maintain the false left-right fantasy.
We are a nation of laws which We are supposed to make through our form of democracy. When the form of that democracy is corrupted we are a nation of laws made by corrupters: the financial elite.
4
It's not Left or Right it's Forward Andrew Yang.
2
It's not always about race and the left will never understand the right if they insist on assuming that. It's more often about culture. When someone comes from a culture where female genital mutilation is practiced on 95% of women (as is the case in Somalia, which is just one of many massive problems in that country, with its the absence of a functional government the prime example), it comes off as inappropriate, insulting, and somewhat ludicrous, to attack American politics, culture or politicians on pretty much any level. The left only sees race, they refuse to see culture, but there are a ton of terrible, truly horrific cultures out there in the world that should be the focus of criticism, and a lot of people easily forget that when they are in the US (whether born here or not). Claiming everything is about race is a way of refusing to see culture, and ultimately keeping repressive, corrupt and hostile regimes -- and cultures -- in place.
3
@SL
The primary focus of the American government is America. Pointing out what needs fixing, and then actually fixing it (as much as possible). Just because other countries are worse than us doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve.
2
@SL. You are exactly correct. It is not the color of the skin, it is the culture, the beliefs and the practices of others that we disagree on. As soon as someone criticizes another culture, the left twist that into a criticism on their race and therefore promote that practice. You mentioned female genital mutilation. Why would the left want to uphold that? They may claim they don't but that is what happens when they twist away from the point of objecting to the behavior and making it just about race. It isn't the race, it's the behavior that others object to.
Cmon.
Life was never a series of binary choices. Ever.
Everything important since the beginning of humanity has had multi-factor decision making requirements.
The binary mentality was stoked by the TV news:
"XYZ happened today! is it good? or is it bad? We'll tell you at 11:00"
What if it happens to be somewhere on the spectrum between absolutely good for everyone and totally bad for everyone? Which of course, 99% of events are.
"Dumbing down" is not just people generally caring less about gaining knowledge and facts.
It's about a lazy intellectual mentality that requires zero multi-factor analysis. When they simply say "I heard that was bad" or "I heard that was good". Ask them why this is so?
Then prepare for the look your dog gives you when you ask it question.
6
"The old binary choices no longer work." Deep.
When did they ever?
4
If only the technocrats could save us seems to be the rallying cry here. Problem is that all the people we've been told are the smartest in the room have lost all credibility with the electorate. They sold economic liberalism and free trade as a panacea to all of society's ills for decades while letting problems like structural racism, climate change and the widening income gap fester.
4
Well, if a binary choice is no longer viable, how about a ternary one? We could call it the Third Way, and it could be funded by corporate luminaries who aren't satisfied with how well things are already going their way. Friedman has one tune and his only creativity consists in how to continually reframe it.
1
Thomas Friedman may be the ultimate optimist. When most concluded that that Iraq War was a disaster he held out hope that outcome could still be successful. So who better to turn to then Friedman to find optimism. So here we are told there are actually answers to these complex problems. We do need optimism given how overwhelming the problems feel and this is the place to find it. The answers involve thinking without a box. Maybe he has something there. Let's just hope it turns out better than Iraq.
The problem with education is that people are not educated enough about economics and climate change. The middle class was Aristotles soft spot but free college really is a give away to the poor. Unfortunately our reliance upon intelligence testing proves that one group of Europeans have an advantage. Character is difficult to test for but the military builds character. Too bad immigrants aren’t allowed in any more?
Immigrants are always helpful when they have work visas and jobs. Many of these refugees are unskilled and traumatized by gang violence. I hope the blue wave reaches the White House where we need to hire a high intelligence worker to live.
Modern politics has evolved from appealing to a mercurial and unpredictable majority to identifying and catering to a significant and indoctrinated minority. This is what Trump aims to do with his rallies: it’s like deliberately inducing a cancerous malignancy that is almost impossible to eradicate. Even when he’s finally out of office, the tumour will remain. Karl Rovian figures have divined where angry prejudice resides, and Trump moves in next door.
No single party really wants permanent power, it’s simply too demanding to maintain in the face of unrelenting public expectations, so they shoot for filling their two terms, usually conceding power to the resurgent opposition until it ignominiously concedes power back to await its next bite of the cherry. However, within eight years, stuff in party interests gets done, and that’s the key: party interests, not national issues. Trump has already secured a tax cut. He isn’t running America for Americans, only for certain Americans, rich, racist, or both. Democrats are no less culpable with their fringe causes which only turn off centrist supporters. Party interests prevail until the public can no longer tolerate the excess. In the meantime, gerrymandering and other finagling, maximises the time in office for best effect.
Democracy dies in party clothing.
I have no problem with your politics, and I am certainly in favor of breaking out of spectrums in all cases, but I am troubled by the false equivalency that your opening three paragraphs elude to. There’s no doubt that Trump’s own fascist-style rally chants are a cataclysmic shock to the system, but to draw a line between that and the Democratic Party debating and discussing its vision for the future is frankly dangerous. By mentioning the two side by side, one might think that each is equally frightening. That feels dishonest. I’m willing to chalk it up to an error of form, but please be careful to not make this false equivalency. It is bad for our Democratic process and it feeds into a narrative that benefits Trump.
5
The thing I like about T. Friedman? He never seems to be writing out of anger. Like this column, he argues for pragmatism. He’s about solutions, and - kicker - he actually seeks them. The nonsense Americans are encouraged to fight over seems so silly if it weren’t so maddening when you see the actual problems we as a country are facing. Thank you for showcasing them. And it all comes back to anger. When we’re all so angry about everything all the time, we can’t see anything in front of us.
4
"The Answers to Our Problems Aren’t as Simple as Left or Right"
Who would have ever guessed.
I would agree with most of this column except for one very frustrating aspect:
Friedman's depiction of the ideas and stances of the Democratic candidates is paints them as a lot more radical-Leftist than they really are.
Friedman, like many other pundits (and a lot of uninformed voters), have swallowed the lies that Fox News and the rest of the Rightwing Media Cabal have been pushing for last decade. The Democrats haven't drifted much to the left (especially compared to the rest of world democracies); they're still basically a Center-Left party with mostly Center-Left proposals.
Unfortunately, a huge number of uninformed American voters have swallowed the Rightwing propaganda too: Remember all the polls in which people hated "Obamacare" but liked "The Affordable Care Act!?!?"
The Left isn't a monolithic movement like the Right is. In fact, our plurality of relativistic and contextual stances is what makes our messaging against the monolith mantras of the Right often ineffective at the ballot box: too many voters who actually support our policies believe the simplistic lies that the Right spreads.
Of course, it doesn't help that a smart guy like Friedman also falls for it; in fact, columns like this merely help to propagate the simplistic lies.
So, Mr. Friedman, don't get caught up in the intellectually lazy trap of creating false binaries, falling back on both-sidisms, etc. Your insights would be better used by unpacking complex issues, rather than oversimplifying them.
5
In the future, we need a 3rd, middle of the road, political party.
1
@turbot
While the Republican party has become the right arm of Trump and his extremism, I think you are wrong that the views of most Democrats are not "middle of the road" . Rather than think of political views as either left or right on a road or number line, perhaps we should consider those in the middle as the center of a circle.
1
Climate change is a problem. Currently, the best answer is nuclear. We don’t build those plants anymore. Everything else is pathetic small ball.
In general, this article is best speaking about the dangers of polarization on many issues, except spending financed with debt that is already staggering.
But one thing is clear, and I have heard this from government officials: nothing gets done without a real crisis. Manufactured crisis that serve the Twitter sphere will not move the needle. No, we will get a real big one that is going to make us yearn for the days we were throwing barns at each other for no good reason.
1
@David
Corretion: Climate change is not just A Problem. Climate change of the kind now locked in to occur leads to the death of humans and most other current life forms.
Vote for moderate democrats in primaries. Vote for any Democrat in any race against a Republican.
There are two wings of the Democratic party, one a center-right one and one a center-left one. So-called moderate Democrats (center-right) are the ones you like, and that's fine, so vote for them. But what is unconscionable is to vote for a Republican, any Republican. They are a reactionary party that has shown itself to be anti-democratic. They only have any power because they cheat; they gerrymander, suppress votes and voters, are trying to undermine the census and may yet succeed, and solicit propaganda from our strategic foes.
Once the Republican party falls apart, which is hopefully soon because the damage they're doing is vast and growing, the Democratic party is likely to split into two parties, one of which is center-right and one of which is center-left. The faster the Republican party dies, the faster you can find a party that explicitly caters to you instead of "only" having some candidates that support most of the same policy positions that you do.
6
Right — either what you say will happen, or perhaps equally likely is that the U.S. becomes a dictatorship.
It is already halfway there, with some government employees breaking laws with impunity.
Thomas, you hit the nail on the head. "My views are not mush. They just emerge from a different approach to politics." I really relate to this. How to make others take centrists and moderates seriously? I really dislike what both parties have (or are) becoming.
3
Tom, you're a Democrat. "Socialism and abandoning markets" are straw men. Hardly anyone proposes either, unless "socialism" is redefined to mean your preferred "vibrant state that can use taxes and regulations to reshape markets ... so that more individuals, start-ups and communities have more tools to adapt and thrive" and can ensure "public wealth" like "parks, schools, mass transit," etc. All that's just TED-speak for Democratic economic policy, more or less, since at least FDR, a policy that has always been premised on preserving capitalism as our economic system (because economic freedom ensures innovation and growth) while actively addressing markets' excesses, unfairnesses, and failures to address on their own the sort of large-scale and/or long-range challenges that concern you. You're well inside a quite old and venerable box.
To maintain your "centrist" stance, you suggest the need for a Republican "hammer," but you don't explain why. You advocate tighter border security and an immigration policy focused on admitting the good ones. I'm not sure how you're defining "high-energy," but those who take perilous journeys to leave their homes for an uncertain future in a distant land seem to qualify. We increase our population, and grow our economy, mainly through immigration. We could probably use more of it, from any quarter. Opposition is anti-"pragmatic." Meanwhile, one side of your center doesn't even acknowledge climate change as a pressing concern.
5
Yawn. Thomas Friedman is describing social democracy. These approaches, particularly the mix of a strong welfare state and vibrant markets, are common in Europe. His education proposal sounds a lot like Germany's, and the rest sounds like Scandinavia. There is nothing novel here, but the US doesn't have a social democratic party, so maybe Mr. Friedman doesn't have the language he needs to describe his preferred policies. That would explain his reaching for the clumsy label of "neither left nor right."
The good news is that just because he doesn't know what it's called doesn't mean he can't vote for it, because we already have a social democratic candidate running for president. Her name is Elizabeth Warren.
2
@Sam
Tom sounds like he is Republican-light. How long do we have to hear the same old saw, "The moderate dems and the moderate Republicans won't like it" and where has it gotten us?
We've lost a lot of time buying this reasoning and now our standard of living is going down for many citizens. We've got to fight to get out of the shroud of this thinking. Tom, I'm going to read your editorials with a lot of hesitation from now on.
No right left. Mr. Freidman, thank you for this op-ed. I am an Independent. Left Right, absolutism is fundamentally un-American in my view. No issue or problem facing America today can be solved by a right/left, up/down, black or white doctrine. Partisanship now appears as the only other institution which thinks this way, religion. I am both a passionate believer in the separation of Church and State and defender of freedom.of religion. No issue is that simple yet we are conditioned between good and bad to our detriment. Hopefully, voters can wake up to this fact and start to decide on an issue for its, not according to doctrine and absent of reason or reality.
5
I agree with your basic premise because at some time in the near future we need to address the major structural flaws in our government that threaten the well-being of our multi-ethnic society.
I recommend that thought leaders like you should dig in on the concept of the Electoral College. The classic debates on converting our Presidential elections to a popular vote are contained in the Congressional Record and the Congressional Research Service probably has a well-researched summary paper.
It seems that our national goal for achieving a more perfect union should be to give every eligible voter equal weight in selecting the President and as you know we don't now.
We may still end up with solid Red and Blue States but Americans will at least have the feeling that their vote counts.
Some of the latest projections for the 2020 election are saying that President Trump could lose the popular vote by 5 million votes and could still win a second term.
We also have a problem in defining the Congressional Districts, in some states, like North Carolina, gerrymandering is conspicuous and should be tested in the Courts.
Finally, our international relations needs to be reviewed and made more effective. The solution to Global Warming by its nature must be solved internationally. I strongly believe that we should be sharing the cost of Research, Development and Testing of technical solutions. Global Warming is a complex priority challenge integral to the survival of our species.
4
With Culture, Religion, Education, Public Goods, Research and Development and Healthcare all unable to make their costs and people going into those "necessities for civilization" fields training for the virtuoso need for competence in those fields, how do you propose a college graduate pay for their college loans? They need capital to build their practice in the Arts, Religion, Education, Public Service, Theoretical Science and Healthcare and yet the only sector that has surplus or profit is the mercantile commercial sector. What makes a civilization? inherited wealth? a demeaned cultural identity, a low quality spirituality, corrupt politics, trinkets and trash research, unavailable healthcare? College is supposed to renew the society. Right now education is like housing for the middle and lower classes. Gentrified and now offered only to the mercantile sector, or maybe the media sector as well. That's not a civilization, I don't know what it is but I do know history will not be kind. REH: NYCity Performing Arts Teacher
2
Thank you for this article. I’m also a moderate, but I’m a scientist and what I see in either side right now is theater and bickering. My favorite candidate who has proposed bold new ideas doesn’t have a chance in the primaries. There has to be real and creative problem solving. We need to find common ground and start building something together.
2
Exactly the right last sentence I think. Excellent. There's something very deep about tribalism. We can't outlaw it or we'll outlaw democracy because tribalism is PART of democracy. So, how to channel?
Fact checking is a good thing; but how do you play in a game where the other side doesn't trust or abide by the referees?
I'm sure there are possibilities. It's very complex. ... but, there is an answer. We just have to find it. The core of the problem is who are the referees? We have the judicial institutions that are close and probably have to morph or add new functions to take on the challenge.
The reality is that capitalism is not working for a large percentage of Americans. For example, Wall Street is in the process of dismantling our freight rail system and it doesn't seem as if anyone is asking the basic question of what society needs the rail system to do in an age of severe congestion and the need to address climate change. I use this example because I know about it, but I am sure there are may others. Capitalism is not creating efficiencies, it is creating crisis. We have to move in the direction of worker owned cooperatives, more unionization, and a more egalitarian society. Affordable college, universal health care, redistribution of wealth, and an emphasis on human rights in foreign policy is all part of the package.
6
Basically right. This is what socialism means today. State and market. Multiple forms of property. Redifining growth. The idea is not new, and 1989 was a chance. Hopefully we get another one now.
But dont attack the democratic candidates all. Some are exactly on this path? Warren and Harris in particular, even if not perfect.
4
The Democrats first debate was a shock to me also, showcasing how far left the party is going. But dont forget there were plenty of moderates on those two stages outside of Biden who are each polling at what, maybe 1%? Where are all these mainstream Democrats and Independents you mention? They don’t answer polls?
2
Let's compare the left and right on major issues. My contention is that on major issues there is only one hand clapping, and its the left hand.
Start with the most critical issue, global warming. The accepted scientific consensus is that unless drastic action is taken to reduce significantly greenhouse gas emission, much of the human habitat will be uninhabitable within the next hundred years, with major damage occurring along the way.
The left accepts this challenge and advocates strong action to confront it. The right, lead by Trump, considers global warming much ado about nothing, and advocate objectives that will increase greenhouse gas emissions.emissions.
Universal healthcare is a basic objective of the left. Obamacare was a very difficult, but successful, move towards that objective. The right tried to kill Obamacare completely over sixty time, and is quite content to offer no alternative that would increase coverage or improve care.
Mr Friedman is right that solutions to big problems require the participation of all parties that share a desire to solve the problem. The left is invariably a participant, but the right invariably rejects the very existence of the problems.
As it stands now, pragmatism is far to the left of whatever goes on with the current day right.
12
Trump lets imperfect people feel good about themselves. Democrats denigrate them just for having imperfect thoughts or wants, for not being 100% selfless and prejudice-free.
Most soldiers feel fear; good ones learn to overcome it. But if you brand soldiers deplorable for feeling any fear at all, they won't follow you.
Vegans might be morally right, and have all logic on their side. But if they called you deplorable for even wanting some meat, would you vote for them?
7
Serious Americans are concerned about the future of our country, and they realize that all of the issues Thomas Friedman identifies really matter.
Those people who care about the America we will hand over to our children and grandchildren know that we ought to be working hard to address the difficult issues in good faith, without the constraints of party politics.
The problem is that the clock is ticking, as we try to reach a consensus on the solutions and on how we will implement and pay for those solutions.
In Donald Trump we have a president who offers only impulsive responses to the nation’s and the world’s most serious problems.
He denies global warming because he knows that denial of what the scientists are saying suits the big campaign donors in the fossil fuel business.
He denies the dire conditions which drove families in Central America to seek refuge in the United States, because he finds it useful to scare everyone about brown-skinned people entering our country to take Americans’ jobs or to commit unspeakable crimes.
He declines to treat citizens of color fairly, whether their ancestors arrived in America centuries ago or came recently.
He has embraced white supremacists for years, and he knows that many white Americans harbor the same ugly views.
A majority of Republican politicians supports Donald Trump, and they can do their damage in a single afternoon.
Millions of Americans need time to do the right thing, but the clock is ticking.
2
I agree with you at times. I like "thinking without a box" -- we need to contemplate issues and consider each one laterally, then express good ideas fearing only disapprobation -- not for going against others (resistance can make one strong) but for ideas that "kill" others (making someone frail or misguiding, this perhaps leading to a failure).
It can be best to say nothing.
What is morally useful depends on context; abstract ideas that result in acts that are right all the time are, if one contemplates well, difficult to see. Perhaps not right conceptually?
1
One of the quotes from the article states a need for a complex, "three-dimensional set of policy tools and responses". I would add the 4th dimension, time. Right now time is not something to be frittered away in the foolishness that inhabits our politics. This nation and the world are on the clock.
I would ask one thing from both parties: Place climate change as a priority in your platforms. It is the root source of many of the problems today. It will play an ever increasing role the more time that passes without engaging in some serious application of those complex policy tools and responses.
5
I usually disagree with you, but I think the time has come to ditch the left-right ideologies that divide us. I do think that the center gets misdiagnosed as something that is not. The center wants to tax billionaires, go after tech companies and bring back entrepeneurship and opportunity. Basically everyone agrees on those fundamental issues in this country--however our leaders and the billionaires make us fight along these ludicrous left vs right lines, in order that we confuse our enemies.
We should not be fighting on the basis of abortion, immigration nor even socialism vs. capitalism. We need to be fighting for economic justice, parity and opportunity. That means going after the people who seek to divide us--Tom Steyer, Donald Trump-- men who have hijacked our democracy and taken away entrepeneurship. The right should not be fighting the left. The people should be fighting those who have attempted to enslave us.
11
Instead of railing against the parties, how about a serious discussion about changing the Constitution to reflect the modern realities of the U.S. empire.
10
@Vote with your pocketbook do you know what it actually takes to amend the constitution?
@Vote with your pocketbook
Huh? What kind of changes are you talking about?
"I don’t have the answer, but I’m working on it! We all should be."
There are, of course, answers to this problem. But, at the end, all answers requires some kind of commitment from presidential candidates.
Mr. Trump has established that candidates can promise anything that brings them votes. and, once in office, they are not obliged to make good on those promises. They can lie with straight face all day, knowing that:
1. There is no law against lying politicians; and,
2. There will be others who will be defending president's lies, as long as their re-elections is tied to his.
6
Good piece, on a complex topic, Tom.
I take exception to your comments about selecting "high energy, Hi IQ" immigrants, however. Two reasons: a) lack of facilities for 'selection', and b) if someone wants to be part of this country, to work for a better life, and pay taxes to support our governmental structure.... why should we care about his IQ?
The problem is a complete lack of adequate courts to manage the volume of applicants. And, of course, the last of facilities to accommodate those waiting.
All of that said... nothing is as simple as left and right, liberal and conservative. You cannot create social support programs without also creating means for funding those programs, in an ongoing way. So socially responsible and fiscally responsible are not opposite poles. Both politicians and reporters have fallen into the trap of ' unthinking convenient shorthand'.
Among other things, we are ignoring the problems of an aging society. Who is going to do the work? Ask someone in agriculture...can they survive without immigrant (and perhaps migrant) labor?
5
For better or worse, I suspect Tom is suggesting that America has more than enough low-IQ people as it is. Almost by definition, though, I would have thought that anyone with sufficient drive to try their luck in a new country would be a “high-energy” type.
I agree. I’m a pro-growth Democrat. I absolutely agree with Warren and the younger Dems that we need to redistribute the pie more equitably. But I also agree with you and many liberal entrepreneurs that we need policies that help grow the pie too. I will never accept the false choice of more equitable distribution OR more economic growth. I say: BOTH.
14
I’m sensing that a lot of people are advocating for an overhaul of our education system that would make it more like job-training. I understand the merits of turning out skilled workers in a rapidly advancing technologically-oriented economy, and I agree we need to provide the training for future generations to compete and thrive in that world. But, citizenship in a democracy requires people to have a grasp of human history and an understanding of the fantastic revelations about out world and the universe we live in that science has discovered. People need the benefit of the insights into human nature provided by great artists and writers and philosophers. There is a lot to know to be a functional citizen in a vibrant democracy, and we should be advocating for an educational system that turns out students that can think with the clarity provided by a diverse learning experience. Education should not be only about getting a good job, it should also be about developing into a better person; it should be about creating better citizens. Society as a whole needs to recognize that we all benefit from an educationally elite population and we should all be willing to find a way to pay for it.
Monte Ladner
311
@Monte Ladner I agree Monte. That was probably the most disturbing part of the piece. There is too much of that votech mentality these days. The reality is that a college education is in many ways the key to responsible citizenship, as well as just living an informed and curious life. I am not in favor of dumbing down our citizenry. We have enough of that.
27
@Monte Ladner
I agree that a well-rounded education is better than mere job training, and in any case should come before job training. Perhaps companies should do the heavy lifting to train their employees.
That said, a real issue that almost no one is talking about is the rise of artificial intelligence and workplace robotics. The digital revolution, which has already brought so much change to how we think and communicate, will soon require us to question the centrality of work to our lives.
Industry is rapidly replacing workers with AI and robots, goods are being produced by ever fewer workers, and companies don't have to pay robots salaries or worry about working them to death or provide them healthcare. This permits companies to produce more stuff but pay less in salaries and benefits. Result? Ever higher profits for owners but fewer good jobs for normal people. And what will happen when robots replace service workers, drivers, teachers? And who will be able to buy stuff if they have no job? And how will frustrated jobless folks maintain their self esteem, to say nothing of survive?
I think we will be hearing the term "wealth redistribution" a lot in coming years.
19
@Monte Ladner-Agreed. Trauma therapist Gabor Mate says that educators need to recognize they are in the brain development business. Indeed according to the science we know know--children's brains are still developing all the way through high school and through college. Education that recognizes this and values the whole person has the most chance of preparing students for the challenges of tomorrow.
13
This article is typical Friedman.
1) Set up a straw man, a false dichotomy between 2 opposite extremes.
2) Demolish it, and in its place, point out that the world is a more complex place than is represented by either extreme.
3) Criticize candidates of both main parties for being too far on one side or the other, and advocate for Friedman's policies - a mixed economy with capitalist principles to generate wealth and with a government that creates the conditions for creating wealth (e.g. physical infrastructure, rule of law) and ensures its reasonably fair distribution.
Friedman's implied criticism of leading Democratic presidential candidates for being too outside the mainstream doesn't hold. You can credit Bernie Sanders for shifting the debate enough so that we're debating what kind of large-scale government intervention in the health care system we'll have next. And voters are far more nuanced than you give them credit for, e.g. many NRA members think there should be laws restricting gun ownership, and many who support immigrants' rights also agree that such support does -not- translate into an open-door, unfettered immigration policy allow all who want to enter to do so.
Most candidates have more nuanced views and policies than you're willing to admit. However, trying to enunciate them clearly on the campaign trail is a losing proposition. In all fairness, they're too long and complex to be discussed in detail at campaign stops. They are better read than said.
32
@Aram Hillman - Actually, Friedman has simply discovered the Tired Old Way of using tax incentives to indirectly incentivize private capital to do something that might have a socially beneficial spill-over effect. Yawn.
His cited poll about American "centrism" is more establishment trolling. While there is variance in the polls, on the whole and overall they show that 55% to 70% of people support Bernie Sanders' policies. The only place they don't is in the DNC's bubble.
4
Today’s column presents a nice multiple choice test for how to achieve a workable political approach:
(A) You should “never think in the box and never think out of the box. You have to think without a box.”
(B) “[O]ur old two-dimensional grid with its binary choices between left and right is insufficient to respond to them. It requires a more complex, three-dimensional set of policy tools and responses.”
(C) “[T]he real solutions require a left-wing wrench, a right-wing hammer and all sorts of new tools and combinations we’ve never imagined.”
(D) “And their political ideology is pragmatism — experiment on the best ways to blend markets and government and then just do what works. Leave your rigid right-left grid on the hook outside the door. That’s actually happening locally.”
I vote for (D). We’ll probably need to first convince the voters that we have a long history before the Reagan Revolution of regulating markets so they work and also a history of solving some problems with a government that worked.
2
Perhaps American immigration policy should set aside some spaces for well-educated, accomplished immigrants. But I take exception to Thomas Friedman's statement that the U.S. should give strong priority to "high-energy and high-I.Q. legal immigrants." (Who else uses phrases like these? Donald Trump!) Throughout American history, many immigrants have been poor and uneducated. Some of these immigrants went on to accomplish amazing things--or their children did, or their grandchildren. The prospect of American immigration policy rewarding principally people who already have some advantages in life seems unfair to me. Mr. Friedman seems to want American immigration policy to resemble the college admissions rat race.
11
@Chris Rasmussen
This country is already full to the gills with uneducated, poor and needy people, and more want in. Yes, some contribute to the economy but a huge number rely on the state to provide for them. Come to Los Angeles and see our overburdened public schools, public health care system, police, etc. We will not escape slipping into a 3rd world state by opening our borders to an endless stream of more in need.
5
@Andio I did not advocate an "endless stream" of immigrants. I agree that the U.S. should have an immigration policy and enforce it. I agree that this policy should be based on our economic need for workers, skilled and unskilled. I agree that the U.S. should admit some doctors and engineers. But it should also make room for poor and working people, who will become citizens and, in many cases, begin climbing the ladder. Many Americans are descended from poor farmers and urban laborers, and I do not think it is right for American immigration policy to prefer people with money and education over those who lack these advantages.
1
“But the answer, Gorbis says, is not socialism and abandoning markets, but a vibrant state that can use taxes and regulations to reshape markets in ways that redivide the pie, grow the pie and create more “public wealth” — mass transit, schools, parks, scholarships, libraries and basic scientific research — so that more individuals, start-ups and communities have more tools to adapt and thrive.” So, Tom, remind me which Republicans would agree with this.
8
Mr. Friedman is "centrist" in the sense that his articles are a perfect amalgamation of Paul Krugman and David Brooks at their best. Thank you for providing such interesting,erudite and pragmatic proposals.
5
Well, we're still waiting for the Militant Moderates to seize power. They seem like a pretty wishy-washy bunch. The extremists have a clear plan, even if it's wrong.
1
I am an Old Blue.
I hate to say this but the Democrats are Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory. It is 1972 and 1984 all over again. I am actually so discouraged that I am getting tired of reading about politics. I turned off the TV at 7 PM so I would not have to listen to endless bloviating about Mueller’s testimony tomorrow.
9
Thanks, as always, Me. Friedman.
Your reference to higher education begs the question: Why is college getting costlier at a rate far beyond inflation?
Same question about healthcare.
Rather than discuss “free tuition” or “Medicare for all,” why not hold these industries accountable for their runaway costs?
That way, whoever pays will receive value.
Joanne Roberts, MD
6
"The right question on education is not whether college should be “free.” It’s what should be taught there and who should teach it. Some Democratic candidates seem to care only about the word “free.” But maybe we should be radically incentivizing companies to go back into the education business, since no one knows better the skills their workers need than they do. That’s thinking completely without a box."
Mr. Friedman, you want politicians to decide what is taught in universities and who should teach it?
You should be ashamed of yourself.
You want to put companies back in the education business because they know what skills their workers need? And they decide what is done in universities?
You should be doubly ashamed of yourself.
Also, there is always going to be a box, Mr. Friedman, otherwise there will be be intellectual anarchy. The box is a necessary framework. The question is how big and strong that box is and what one does with it.
I cannot imagine that anybody could get elected based on your suggestions. Govern, perhaps. Get elected? Not a chance.
15
Brilliantly stated about being outside of a box. To pick the low hanging fruit, you cannot make one step of progress on the environment and global warming, and take two steps back. The earth is not a casino that extends another line of credit. First there is branded plastic straws, next there is a theme park in a coal mine, with the star attraction the 140 mph Canary.
1
Your foray into false equivalency is stunning. It is also incorrect that we have a binary system in place right now. What we actually have is one political party with understandable variations in policy beliefs but with a fundamental baseline of overall beliefs and values. The other political "party", formerly the GOP, is no more. Further, the adherents to the party of white nationalism (formerly the GOP) no longer even participate in this country. They are only interested in altering it in whatever way necessary to shift it to a non representative system. It is their only survival strategy and they really don't care if they destroy our beautiful and fragile system to achieve their hold on all of the power. They don't even hide or are ashamed by the fact. In fact, their "base" demands it. And these attitudes are no longer part of the fringe. The man sitting in the oval office, the leader of the Senate and every other Trump Party Senator in the chamber as well as the House, top to bottom they have sold out this country to retain their illegitimate and existentially threatening hold on power.
The "radicals" on the other side, Mr. Friedman... well yeah they'd like everyone to have some healthcare without it bankrupting them and their families. They would like the promise of this nation, a nation of immigrants, to continue to be able to seek a better life here for themselves and their families as did EVERY single person here who is not descended from a Native American nation.
22
@Richard B. Riddick Ahh, what a relief to read your brilliant and succinct reply. Thanks for the dose of sanity!
3
“And their political ideology is pragmatism — experiment on the best ways to blend markets and government and then just do what works. Leave your rigid right-left grid on the hook outside the door. That’s actually happening locally. But taking that national is really hard.” I’d say it is impossible which is why this essay depresses the heck out of me.
3
If I want an unaccountable plutocracy I know which party I pick—right out of the box.
1
Here's a bipartisan effort to fix issues facing the country now, and it should be mentioned, publicized, applauded, supported. Hats off to Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Rob Portman, R-Ohio and six co-sponsors for introducing the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act
"Bipartisan efficiency legislation targets buildings, industry and federal government
A bipartisan group of senators last week introduced legislation to strengthen national model building codes to make new homes and commercial buildings more energy efficient.
Efficiency advocates say the bill could strengthen the U.S. economy while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Building codes are a "critical" energy saving opportunity, according to the Alliance to Save Energy."
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/bipartisan-efficiency-legislation-targets-buildings-industry-and-federal-g/559208/
2
I can't say that I found either of those shocks to the body politic to be in the least shocking but, rather, more in keeping with what one has come to expect from both sides, whether it's free stuff for everyone or love it or leave it, neither of which are sentiments it would occur to me to include in my definition of what is American. Here is one thought, though, that does fit my definition: I am skeptical of enlisting any politician to help me navigate, as you say. our current problems, whatever one thinks they may be. You are mistaken. as a centrist or anything else, to put so much faith and weight on government.
Talk about wishful thinking! I thought this kind of idealism died with the flower children of the 60s when they (we) had to get a job and pay the rent. As long as we have a two-party system and loyalty to party trumps solving problems, two boxes is all we'll have. The only way out of boxes I can think of is if a new generation of candidates commits not to run for re-election. That would free them to solve a few problems in a practical way and then go back home. When they run for office, they declare which problems they want to solve, pledge to consider the best ideas and work hard to produce a good solution. That's all. For example, healthcare. You declare, "I want every American to have guaranteed insurance that covers every necessary and effective treatment at the lowest possible cost." That, too, may sound like wishful thinking. Expecting that candidates would choose to be temporary public servants instead of career politicians may be expecting too much of mere humans.
4
@abigail49 One of the major turning points was when RR defined government as the problem and succeeded in moving the presumed "middle" so far to the right that Eisenhower would look like Karl Marx. And the media would, as always, play right along. Universal health care is NOT right wing; labor unions are NOT commie plots, etc. We have gone so far that the current occupant of the white house has NO interest in governing, only in bragging rights and cashing in.
2
Parties could categorize policy into Party-determined (political economy issues) and Individual-choice (social issues, regarding which state representatives make their own choices). In a state, each member of the populace could cast one vote for their representative (considering their stance on social issues) and one vote for a party (considering the line of each party, which is national). This is perhaps quite an awful simplification. Unfamiliar with things yet --
1
Other countries in the world use this sort of double voting system (where you have separate votes for candidate and party) but if it would be right for a federation ask a political scientist; it could work if there are more represtatives in the House than there are individual electorates in the United States.
1
Well said, Mr. Friedman.
There are a lot of us out here in blue territory who agree. Take a wrench from the progressives and a hammer from the fiscal conservatives and build something new.
The alt-right just has to be bulldozed away.
You are spot on with what's needed for immigration policy.
7
Your last two columns have been- well brillant.
We are living in a digital era – 0 or 1 – it works on computers but our brains are still analog as well as human behavior.
Your points are well taken. And you are right.
In this world there are more grays than blacks and whites. The problems we face are more complex than we guess they are. They are not mathematical equations or challenges. They involve individuals, societies, life and death. The problems involve material, physical objects but their solutions come from abstract thinking. But as you say we must think without a box.
The Democratic Party faces one of the biggest challenges of their existence- if Trump wins, the USA we know, will no longer be. The whole world will be in a clear and present danger of real decay.
To avert such apocalyptic scenario egotism within the leadership of the Democratic Party must disappear or at least diminish to a comfortable, manageable level. If that doesn’t happen the predictions are surreal.
Suggested reading (albeit not easy ones) trying to understand this whole mess, two books: “Thinking, Fast and Slow” and “The Social Conquest of Earth”.
May the Force be with Mueller and lawmakers tomorrow AM.
6
Tom, you bring up an excellent point that the solutions that are required in today's society go beyond the simple left-right, liberal-conservative bias in today's political spectrum. One of the failures in your analysis though is the assumption that government is the solution to many of the problems you present, when in fact government is the cause of these problems. The media fails to cover or give attention to the Libertarian Party, which is the only major third party that goes beyond the axiom of government-oriented solutions to individual or freedom oriented solutions. You mention radical solutions to some of the same problems. Through a free-market, individual rights orientation would solve many of the root causes that are mentioned below with regards to the influx of Central American immigrants. While government quarrels with itself on how best to deal with climate change, businesses, lead by the insurance industry, are tackling these issues head on because it economically makes sense.
Everything defined as "public wealth" in this column is socialism: mass transit, schools, parks, scholarships, libraries and basic scientific research. So to say that we don't need socialism redefines what it is or just gives it a new name. Everyone seems to know what capitalism is but socialism needs careful definition.
5
“our old two-dimensional grid with its binary choices between left and right is insufficient to respond to them. It requires a more complex, three-dimensional set of policy tools and responses.”
The above statement touches on the mind-boggling level of complexity of the issues currently faced by many countries, if not by the world. Then the real question is: how the US voters, many of them are oblivious to these complexities, can make a rational choice; that is, elect a president capable of understanding and addressing such complex issues.
4
Friedman: "Only by reshaping markets — with the right incentives, taxes, standards and regulations, as California has imposed — will we get the scale and the speed of innovation, depth of research and tools of adaptation that we need to cushion the worst of climate change and get the best out of it."
I so very much agree with this statement (and with the larger point in the piece that we need to think about complexity). The problem is that only one political party is even *approaching* thinking about how to tweak markets. They get labelled socialist for the mere mention of creating different incentives for businesses. They get decimated by the other party for even daring to *imagine* government is obligated (and even created) to manage conflicting private interests.
I love the dream Friedman dreams, but fear he is unfairly valuing the differences between the parties' language, rhetoric, and intent. When only one party even tries, what is a voter to do?
5
@Stacy VB Vote Blue, at leastyou will have an administration and not a crisis maker
1
I'd say tell it to Mitch McConnell. These kinds of solutions are generated through vigorous debate and negotiation, and both parties need to act in good faith towards governing in order to arrive at reasonable compromise. Republicans at the national level have been actively undermining the functioning of our government for over 20 years now.
Country over party.
29
Friedman's solutions are remarkably superficial and simplistic.
One example:
"Only by reshaping markets — with the right incentives, taxes, standards and regulations, as California has imposed — will we get the scale and the speed of innovation, depth of research and tools of adaptation that we need to cushion the worst of climate change and get the best out of it."
Really, what does this mean? We already have plenty of incentives, taxes, standards, and regulations. And, yes, California has them too. But has California come up with some magic solution to climate change? No.
The economic, environmental, social, and political problems we face are huge and they are not going to be solved by consultant-speak gobbledegook about thinking in, out, or without boxes. The very social, political, and economic structures that have made our modern lifestyle possible are now destroying not just that lifestyle, but the entire life-giving ecosystem we depend on for survival. We have to radically transform the way we live. Incentives, taxes, standards, and regulations are not enough. We are in a crisis that requires revolutionary thinking and revolutionary action. Even the far left is too moderate for today's challenges.
22
@617to416 Yeah, The sky is really falling this time, but I will bet on the New Green Deal giving us a fighting chance and to create hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs to honestly grow the economy. We have to take a leap and trust the politicians who have signed an oath with the Justice Democrats, look them up, they only sponsor candidates who will not take corporate money and are then free to represent we the people, not the oligarchs. They only get small donations from individuals. Bernie is not a Justice Democrat but the idea of never taking corporate money was his idea. And what a coincidence he is for The New Green Deal and he has held his same policies and had integrity for years and years. Steller record.
4
@617to416.
Where are your specifics?
In what world does the current Republican Party solve any of these problems? Where is the compromise? It’s a moderate fantasy.
18
Here's a proposal that will infuriate a lot of people on both sides of the political divide, but I think it's worth considering: Get rid of welfare, but replace it with a guaranteed job opportunity for all Americans, along with subsidized daycare and affordable health care, with benefits at least equivalent to Medicaid. The incentive structure is such that it if you're a single parent on welfare, it works against you to take a job -- too much of your money goes toward daycare costs and health care costs, even if your employer provides health insurance. That's especially true if you have a child with disabilities or significant health problems. I have lots of ideas on how to pay for this, but I would be accused of being a socialist.
4
Are we shocked by the first democratic debate? Not really, not me anyway. Being farther left than centrist democrats is hardly a difficult thing to be for any thinking human. There is no way that someone running for president, and who really wants to help the people, can legitimately make the argument that these times need moderate action and incremental change. Many of the candidates know this. Often as well, the democrats try to act far left during the primaries then they try to slide to the right when it gets to the general election. The democratic base often gets fooled by this. Then they are stuck between voting for a corporate hack or a republican, which is of course, a corporate hack that wants to impose Christian law on everyone. So, again, not shocked that the dems try to appeal to their base in the run up to the primaries.
The question is, will the candidate the democrats choose be a real progressive or another wolf in sheep's clothing. In my opinion the ones who can be counted on to be truly progressive are the ones who put forward a clear set of actual proposals. I think Bernie has run his whole career doing that. I think Elizabeth Warren has done an excellent job making specific policy proposals. Some others have done fairly well. However, some want us to feel good about things and talk of nostalgic times from the past and other sentimental garbage. Which is typically what democrats get fooled by.
5
@Chris Well said, I only trust Warren or Bernie and he is my first choice because he always makes good sense to me when I hear him speak and I love his fire and passion for what is right and fair. And everything is so clear and he is strong and what a leader should be and honestly all the other candidates seem to fade away and look false next to him. I mean he lights up the stage like no one else and that must be why so many young voters love him. He is real and honest. The others, not really, they can't afford to be they have big donors bossing them around. Bernie has never been owned by corporations. And he has the same policies and beliefs now as he has had his entire career.
1
Interesting you don’t discuss healthcare. Without affordable healthcare and medication, we all suffer. The status quo is not working. We desperately need a champion to take on the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. That person has always been and continues to be, Bernie Sanders.
Get money out of politics, and then you can tell me how industry will work with labor for the benefit of all and not just the ridiculously wealthy.
7
I don’t believe there are very many centrists these days. To be affiliated with either party requires a choice reflecting one’s priorities about what the focus of government policies should be.
The fact that we have a rogue president who flaunts the Constitution and rule of law, with the Republicans marching in lockstep behind him, puts the choice in sharp relief.
Regarding Immigration, for example, whatever one thinks about asylum seekers, seeing the conditions under which detainees are being held requires knowing one party is responsible, one condemns it.
Climate change is another, to deny it while seeing evidence of its effects requires a conscious choice. One party supports taking action, one does not. There isn’t a nuanced way to consider these things.
It’s as binary as right and wrong.
12
@MG I am a centrist. I know roughly 200 other centrists who were once Republicans. Then Trump happened. Then they turned off Fox News. Then they challenged what they had believed in the past. It can feel lonely in the middle but I think our numbers are growing.
2
On education, you say "But maybe we should be radically incentivizing companies to go back into the education business, since no one knows better the skills their workers need than they do. "
Do you really, Mr. Friedman, want corporations doing education?
Companies want workers who will do what they're told, surrender their rights to sue or arbitrate, accept lousy health insurance, be willing to relocate or be fired at the company's command.
Colleges teach independent thought. We as a society need a lot more of that.
46
Another radical ideas from the far far left.
Any business that cannot pay its employees a real living wage with health care benefits, pay it fair share of taxes, and make a profit should not be in business. Someone more efficient should take owner ship.
Moderate version says the taxpayer must businesses with special tax breaks, a minimum wage that qualifies them for Medicaid and food stamps, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, among others.
That used to be a conservative idea, how capitalism works.
Now it is mainstream moderate.
Now it is a radically left, socialist idea. I call it radically regressive and actually hurts our economy by subsidizing inefficient businesses.
2
Some folks think like lawyers, some like engineers. Lawyers craft arguments to litigate binary problems - when the problem is resolved, lawyers are done - they do not build systems that must run in a balanced way into the future. Engineers think about how to build working systems - they take risks, learn from mistakes, and their goal is not just to win (like lawyers) but also to construct a balanced system.
I am fed up with lawyers and their simplistic sophistry. I will support candidates who can communicate and build working systems. Tom is right.
5
I've worked with engineers. Smart, ok. Fix problems, ok. Imagination? Macro thinking? Not so much. We need all sorts of brains to have a fruitful society. What we do not need is ignorant people in red hats accruing all the power and garnering all the attention.
I think that Friedman is increasingly making broad sweeping statements about the Democratic Party and their potential candidates for president at a much too early stage.
His pessimism is unfounded at this early stage in the nomination process and his ideas are fuzzy and his arguments meandering.
Like Brooks, Douthat and Stephens he mixes quotes from people most of us have never heard of but offers only fragments of what must be their long and thought out essays.
I agree we need control of our borders but the Draconian policies of Trump separating children from their parents, in essence closing the legal crossing points to ask for asylum and illegally imprisoning immigrants for longer than the law allows in dreadful conditions has fostered revulsion and poor thought out alternatives by the potential Democratic candidates.
It is time to take a deep breath and be patient. The most likely Democratic candidates are smart, articulate and will run a much better campaign than HRC.
3
I want to speak about on the job training. Why should workers go into debt with the hope of performing routine jobs for a corporation? When I was young I worked many jobs and I was trained for each and every one of them. Those jobs were needed at the time and were not very high skilled. I had to hide the fact that I was a college graduate. If companies want skilled workers they should train them. A two year degree from a community college is not going to prepare anyone for specific jobs. From my point of view today's businesses are lazy and they expect workers to be handed to them on a silver platter. Just look at the current debt levels of students. Yet the educations that they receive are not generally geared to any specific job. I think trainability is more important than any specific job. Businesses have lost any sense of responsibility for their work forces. If a worker cannot instantly perform the duties demanded they remain stuck on unemployment roles. I am so glad that I was able to retire early and never again have to run the gauntlet of a business beauty contest. Our work culture has become inhumane and I am sad for the suffering of young people just starting out.
7
We won't eliminate the binary system overnight. But what we could do is first, get rid of SuperPACs that make candidates more beholding to special interests than the people they are supposed to represent. Because of SuperPACs, the party leaders in the binary system have greatly diminished power to vet candidates to be their final choice and to promote the best candidate to represent their party.
Secondly, I have been thinking that in our form of democracy, too much power is vested in the office of the President. Maybe we should really do something outside of the box (at least for our country) and move toward a parliamentary democracy, where it would be possible to have Parliament have much more say over who is the head of State.
2
Of course they are not as simple as left or right. But political parties and campaigns are about having a position, and having a vision for the future. Our candidates should do that, and compromise will come as a result of leaders debating issues and working together to solve problems.
Enough with this pre-emptive compromise before any debate actually begins. All of the candidates should present their views on the issues and not be ashamed of them.
2
Green New Deal. Radical. Socialist. Too far left.
What is the Green New Deal?
Starts with upgrading our national roads, electrical grid, water systems with all kinds of jobs including construction, engineering, management, and paying local Americans good wages for every bit of it.
Could pay for it by taxing the rich who got the GOP tax break, but that is the radical part. Too radical for conservatives. Too radical for moderates.
13
@gratis Yes! Too radical to save our lives and planet and create a real booming economy. Have everyone thrive? Oh how horribly radical.
1
Again Mr. Friedman has raised the intellectual bar by suggesting that we blow up the “box” to address some of the most vexing problems we’re to face in the next four, twelve, or fifty years. I’m not optimistic that a constituency that doesn’t vote, is so disengaged by any information beyond 140 characters, nor capable of grasping the nuanced approaches necessary to make living to the 22nd century even remotely possible. Regardless of what “side” anyone is on we have no current or potential leaders capable of altering the impending outcome. The best choice to make is binary - to have children or not. All the remaining hyperbole is meaningless.
2
This drought is related to sun spot cycles. You may not have noticed that it's the second year of drought in India and drought is stretching all around the globe. The shifted weather is causing the floods in Ohio and Siberia.
The biggest question for me is, is this going to be a two year or four year drought in India? India is capable of having either.
It would be smart for the nations of the world to put some effort into coordinating crops and food shipments to ameliorate good insecurity throughout the world. Because it would help stabilized nations politically. And as practice for the next Bond Event
3
As an astronomer who knows something about the sun and its cycles, this is nonsense.
Our economy is 2/3s capitalism and1/3 government(al levels) ownership or government subsidized or funded. Our past leadership was largely pragmatic and not ideological based. Our problems can be resolved by pragmatism. But that includes science, experts, common sense , pluralism, peace, and worldwide cooperation and collaboration.
Authoritarianism is not conducive to any of the above. The Republican Party is now operating under an authoritarian regime.
It must be ended before pragmatism and longterm American values can reemerge.
8
@Newman1979
Eg, the Hassert Rule.
The atmosphere contains too much carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, the main three greenhouse gases, and global emissions of all three are increasing, the oceans are teaming with plastics and the amount is increasing rapidly, and we may have entered the 6th great extinction, but much of this is lost on a large part of the American population. How long can we continue on this path? We are beginning to hear catastrophic climate change may be only two or three decades away. Catastrophe may become the new normal. And many of our people with the greatest minds are working to improve targeted ads and in doing so are destroying privacy. That is where things stand. If there are answers to our problems we need them quick.
13
@Bob...Do you think trump voters care about climate change? They care about the economy = Jobs, immigration = protect the borders, and making abortion illegal. If democrats don't address those issues to win back enough trump voters, it's 4 more years of trump.
An elephant is a mouse that was designed by a committee.
Tom is absolutely right, but who is qualified to herd all the national cats? Who sees the world forest from the trees and has the intellectual and moral chops to lead a nimble charge? This is why the presidency is so important....to get a righteous visionary who presents a comprehensive picture that is compelling to the masses. Short term self-interest in the corporate and civic world is a huge problem.
3
We need more elections about specific issues, and fewer votes on candidates and political parties.
7
Here's the problem with people like Thomas Friedman. He's very specific in his criticisms of others -- citing names, dates, places, and specific things he doesn't like. When it comes time to be positive and constructive, he's vague and evasive. That's spent from a lifetime of critical thinking and analysis, without ever having really had to make executive administrative decisions in real life. Say what you will about Trump, he's not afraid to be specific about what he positively wants to do. He's not just specific when he criticizes others, like most of the academic people and commenting classes.
5
@david, our country's problems are more than clear criticism and clear statements about what one wants to do.
Trump lies and makes untrue statements in both his criticism and his plans for the future. Just yesterday he claimed he could end the conflict in Afghanistan immediately, that it would be easy! If you mean Democrats need to more clearly articulate their plans, I would agree with your statement.
2
@david You mention the "academic people" -- teachers. Teachers need to use a lot of judgment in how they dispense criticism. We do NOT want teachers to start shooting off their mouths every five minutes, randomly attacking and praising whatever target catches their eye, then changing their mind five minutes later. Is that how you want YOUR children to be educated?
1
@Gerber Actually, I know a little bit about education and when schools emphasize 'critical thinking' all the time, they encourage people to be specific and analytical in their criticism of others, but too often that specific clarity is reserved for critiquing the actions and beliefs of others. Leadership is to choose and be specific, not just to critique. So...when people like Thomas Friedman write this lofty critique of our culture, Trump, etc., then conclude with some vague idea that we have to do better, it's very dubious. When they can be as specific in their constructive input as they are in criticizing everybody else, then I'll stand corrected.
1
This constant appeal to centrism, or moderation, or a third way is tiresome. It appeals to people because it has the facade of intellectual of superiority—“I’m not captive to a hidebound ideology!” But Friedman and his ilk who always seem to stumble upon the latest guru with a fashionable way of thinking does the Left a disservice by dismissing its big government approach, if only because its ideas are still sound and haven’t had the opportunity to be fully implemented. Republicans have controlled the Senate for the past five years, and until January controlled the House for eight. It’s also unfair for Friedman to disparage the Democratic candidates’ positions on education, health care and immigration at this point in the race. He should know better that at this stage the candidates are competing solely for the Democratic base but will pivot to the center once the nominee is chosen. So what are these stale Democratic ideas? Universal health which is embraced by the rest of the industrialized world. On immigration, a path to citizenship for the undocumented who’ve lived and worked here for most of their lives. On education, an emphasis on early childhood, technical and community college. As for free, CUNY and California’s state college system helped educate immigrants after World War II. Canceling student debt would be a middle class tax cut and should be funded by Wall Street. The only “problem” with Democratic ideas is a media that doesn’t give them serious consideration.
10
@AlNewman “...Pivoting to the center...” no longer works.
Nobody who held up his or her hand that they favored free health care for illegal immigrants has the slightest chance to win unless they have a helluva an explanation. Biden, for example, said that he meant ED care form life-threatening situations. Actually, Federal law already requires that.
But there is video of 9 or 10 hands in the air in favor. We lost election after election in the 70s and 80s by going too far Left. People remember this stuff.
@AlNewman
The big government approach got implemented in half the world from 1945 to 1989. It failed utterly.
There are big emerging problems like climate change that we need to start working on, yes, but there are also big problems created in the past 40 or so years that we know how to correct. We need stronger labor, we need progressive taxation - that gets paid - and we need something like anti-trust. If we solve the latter, we will live in a society able to address the former. The latter is not complex adaptive coalition stuff.
The problem is the Ayn Randian GOP will not allow any of it to be made law.
4
Sorry, but I don't see much in Mr. Friedman's article that helps much. It is so filled with non-specific generalities and equivocations that practically, it is useless. The simple fact is that the U.S. is burdened with silly ideologies (mostly on the left) that prevent this country from rolling down its sleeves and tackling the issues before us. For inspiration in that regard, we have to look to successful First World countries like Canada, emerging new giants like China and formerly poor countries making enormous strides like many African nations such as Ethiopia, Rwanda and Ghana. They all emphasize hard-nosed practical education like engineering, regulated free markets and simple direct action on environmental concerns without deforming the capitalist growth engine. Social programs are limited, even in First World Canada, where far less is spent on medical care than is in this country. Immigration, if allowed at all, is strictly tailored to the needs of the host country, Perhaps, most importantly, all these countries value hard work and do not have the deadening hand of a heavy handed administrative apparatus in the way. It is time to put America First in a wise way where we learn from the example of other productive countries across the world.
7
I believe in the radical center
The best policies of left and right applied with pragmatism
We need a new centrist party that is free of influence and can do the right thing for our country
In Europe, this would be the Social or Liberal Democrats, even the Greens
11
My question, Mr Friedman, are you willing to hear ideas from centrists like yourself who want to move forward while staying in the center and the ideas that we have? If heard a Democrat say "lower tax rates and wider tax base", "increase the House size by 100% over 30 years, undermining incumbency, and increase the Senate by 50% at that time with additional Senator chosen by State legislatures", "decrease the number of abortions while maintaining legality and access","mandatory public service", it would grab my attention and I believe many moderates on both sides that can start a discussion on how to combine government and markets, promote cooperation between businesses and their employers, would get Democrats to participate in local governments where practicality promotes moderate stances and helps understand conservative philosophies.
Thank you
2
There is a very strong current of anti-intellectualism in the US; it's always been a part of our history. The argument that Friedman puts forth doesn't appeal to the strong emotional reasoning that drives both the left and right in our country. There's A LOT of passion on both sides of the spectrum (wrapped in righteousness). What's proposed in this article does very little to appeal to that; it would be hard to imagine a politician shouting platitudes based on what Friedman's suggesting and getting rousing applause from an audience. This is too bad and very American. With that, a lot of people vote, and many aren't concerned w/ (empty) promises of "revolution" but do hope for a more just, fair society that works for all. It's possible w/o the fire from the extremes.
5
IMHO its not just the "Right" that's the problem. It the rich, powerful and influential regardless of their Left Right prism. The reality is that Left and Right leaders control the levers for their benefit The only way to beat that is through collaboration and pragmatism. For that to happen both Left and Right grass-root supporters have to let go of their biases and apply critical thinking and work together. In other words its up to the grass roots to be better more mature leaders that their representatives.
7
@Eamon Daly I agree that government in the interest of the elites, whether Left or Right, is a problem, but can collaboration occur? Fundamental differences divide left from right on a range of issues and no common ground can be found. Indeed the basic values of the one are deemed evil by the other, things which can never be accepted irrespective of what law may demand.
3
@John Smythe Hi John I agree but call me a idealist and using my very small, tiny data set from my life as a change agent - people in the end just want to be heard and not judged. If we can do that then we have a spark that could transcend Left and Right.
Albert Einstein said that no problem can be solved by the same consciousness that created it. Solutions always emerge from a transcendent consciousness that awakens as the traditionally opposing forces are held together in unresolved tension that preserves and recognizes the essential value in both polarities. That notion has been at the heart of American exceptionalism from the founding with the collision of colonial capitalism and enlightenment progressivism. Contemporary politics denies the essential value of the opposing force and presumes one side is right and good while the other is wrong and evil. That viewpoint breaks every possibility for transcendence.
4
Agreed
"But maybe we should be radically incentivizing companies to go back into the education business, since no one knows better the skills their workers need than they do." Seriously? What if, instead, we returned to a view of education where it wasn't about getting high-paying jobs but becoming educated for the sake of being educated. My parents pushed me to excel in grade school and high school and then to go to college, and I don't remember ever having a conversation with them about how I was going to make a living (and when it came to make a living, I did just fine).
8
I like thinking without constraints. Many of society’s great advances, particularly in the sciences, owe themselves to this kind of multivariate thinking. Not all problems require complex solutions though. Occam’s Razor taught us long ago that the simplest & shortest answers and solutions are often the best.
Our problems today are not new. Our climate has always changed. New technology has always displaced old - imagine how blacksmiths felt when tractors came along. The laws of economics have not changed. What has changed is the velocity of life. Read David McCullough’s biography of John Adams and you realize that simple diplomacy often took months to engage - today it happens with a tweet. Slower velocity centuries ago permitted time for people to think and clear their emotions from the problem at hand. Not so anymore.
Our problems don’t always require a multifaceted solution. But they do require more time to consider the myriad options from which to choose.
5
I ask Mr. Friedman, have you read the plans that Warren has advanced?
Certainly not binary. Not that I agree with all of them but they show forward multi-level thinking about seemingly intractable problems.
For the Dems to win they have to be bold on the environment (climate change), bold on healthcare, strong on workers rights, strong on human rights both domestically and internationally, get back to backing and supporting our allies and strong on cybersecurity and cyber warfare.
Wall Street and big banks need to be regulated. Taxes again have to be progressive but not at unrealistically low numbers such as the purported "rich" line of $250k which is not a high income in much of the country but something more along the lines of $1million before income above is taxed at a higher rate.
There are a lot of problems but these are the first that need to be addressed.
7
it isn't either/or. socialism and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive. socialism doesn't inhibit free markets or private property. capitalism doesn't have to be the strong eating the weak.
the right candidate for me is somebody who is willing to think about all these issues, try new ideas, throw out what fails and build on what works. and no labels.
4
Mr. Friedman,
Thank you for calling attention to the deep concerns many have with what seems like the Democratic platform.
It is astonishing to think that, in this climate, a majority of the candidates think that open borders and reparations are winning issues.
We hope the leaders take notice because I'm hearing quite a few liberals say they may stay home.
8
@Blanche White
Believe me Blanche, I live in a majority blue state and no "liberals" will be staying home. Unless, you know, your side tries to deprive us of our voting rights again.
1
@Blanche White...Would you care to name one democratic presidential candidate who has stated they are for open borders?
1
Yes, technical solutions are complex, but we need to confront Trump's racism and put out a contrasting and simple message tied to the Statue of Liberty, that America (not the "U.S.") is a land of opportunity and acceptance, where we give people a leg up in being their best.
3
@Rod Stevens Where is the opportunity and acceptance for homeless veterans? Where is the care and compassion for the battlers within society?
And how does America differ to US? The Americas include everything from Canada to Argentina and Chile. Are you suggesting foreigners go elsewhere?
The answer includes using your Opinion as the starting point or the template and working from there. For the democrats that includes first abandoning their far left ideas. The far left ideas increase the chances that republicans will be elected and they will never become law anyways.
4
@Doug
Abandoning the "far left" (which is only what traditional Democrats used to be) will increase the chances that Democrats are elected who are more like Republicans than Democrats.
4
@Doug Being centrist increases the chances that Republicans are elected. That strategy lost us all branches of the federal government, a vast majority of state governorships and legislatures, and resulted in only 2 Democratic presidents in the last 40 years, both of which where very charismatic, and one of which ran on a platform of fundamental hope and change.
It was the hope and change that got people, not being timidly centrist.
Maybe the Democrats should actually distinguish themselves from the Republicans and not be ashamed of it.
2
Very well done, but you miss one thing driving immigration: great social benefits. This is why they come here, not elsewhere.
The Right claims the rule of law. The Left claims the moral high ground. Law can be wrong, and moral high ground is not always black and white.
The USA has changed- we now have a much bigger welfare net then we used to, and liberalism tolerates terrible behavior and in some ways encourages it. Conservativism sometimes drives the bad behaviors.
And now we have politicians that love to play identity games- labelling everything to put it in a category. We had some Republican Presidents and the left demonizes them in hindsight (more so than the right demonizes Clinton in hindsight). Candidates are demonized (Mitt Romney was/is not some awful monster by any rational idea, nor was Obama). But now on both sides we have demons- people who really want to fundamentally change the fabric of society. And if these are the candidates, the status quo will always win, as well it should.
America is great. Always was. We do not need fundamental change. We need tweaks to keep up with the times and the new problems that come along.
5
@Ny Surgeon...Immigrants seek a life in the U.S. because they are fleeing violence and death. They want to live in peace and work for a good life...it's called the American Dream. They don't come here for the social benefits and nothing else. Have you noticed any immigrants standing on street corners begging for money? Immigrants come here to work and will take any job (including many that Americans refuse to take) to make a living.
1
@Mae T Bois
The problem is that if it is a job the American refuses to take, and is unemployed, force him to take it.
yes immigrants come here for a better life. But why not argentina? Because we give them more. It needs to end, or be split up across the hemisphere
So Tom is saying we need many more foxes, as opposed to hedgehogs.
Trouble is, if one defines a fox as someone who knows something about many different things, and is good at integrating this knowledge into new approaches, and a hedgehog as someone who knows a lot about a very specific thing, the incentives of society still rewards hedgehogs at a much higher rate than it does foxes, at least most of the time. (See Silicon Valley, where ability to engineer attracts much more funding than ability to see the implications of this engineering in the realms of economics, politics, ethics.)
And, just due to human cognitive tendencies, it's probably easier to produce a whole lot of hedgehogs than a whole batch of foxes--so we really need to weigh in on the fox side by incentivizing that perspective. At least we want to keep some semblance of civilization a century from now.
3
Friedman presents the view of Gorbis as “centrist” but then says he favors using government policy to address the common good. This very sensible kind of social democratic governance is defined by Trump and his enablers in the current era as socialism or even communism. To them, any government effort whatsoever to benefit anyone other than the ultra wealthy is dangerously radical. Until Friedman and other rational thinkers recognize what we are up against in Trump, the wealthy fanatics who follow him will continue to win more ground.
13
The Democrat debates may have shocked moderate Democrats but have they shocked conservatives? Likewise the 'send her back' claims may shock Democrats, but do they trouble conservatives? The shock is only to part of the American body politic.
I agree it's smarter for voters to work out what choices they support then decide their party, but do many do that?
This piece accepts the Leftist narrative that illegal immigration is driven by weather\climate change, poor government, crime, and America's drug addictions, but what if it's economic interests as conservatives allege? The solution to one will not solve the other!
What of the rise of the technocracy? I agree that we need to find a way to share the benefits fairly, but even the talk of public wealth - mass transit, parks etc, is urban\Democrat focused. What of supporting rural\Republican lifestyles?
Similarly the debate on education should not be over cost, but content. Statistics show the average academic in some fields is Far Left, and right-wing academics are non-existent on many campuses. Where is diversity of thought?
And climate change remains contentious. Why should America respond to it rather than simply adapt as things change? Something like the Green New Deal would simply destroy America without even proving the benefits of Stalin's 5 year plans.
As for Trump wanting to scare White Americans about the Gang of 4, he doesn't need to. Their toxic anti-Americanism suffices - Trump's simply along for the ride.
6
John, your last paragraph is what too many people on the left and the media do not get...
I prefer the word centrist. I don't see centrism as mush, neither in connotation nor denotation. For me it's not moderation so we can all just get along, though compromise is fundamental to civil society. Instead it is a mathematical optimization of self-governance as an algorithm.
Perhaps that'd be a better way to think about government in this age, as an algorithm. The algorithm should be dynamic and heuristic.
Center for me speaks to the balance between the public and private sector. I believe the optimized balance is near the political center. That is my strong conviction.
@Schaeferhund And I believe the only way to get that balance is by arguing two views that find your position in the center.
If you start by arguing in the center, the center you actually land on will be much skewed.
The old binary choices never did work; they were for winning favor with donors, party leaders, and primary voters. Life is more nuanced than that. Problem solving requires some compromise of some of your stated positions. That happened more in past years, but the parties were stronger then and young politicians couldn't get ahead by rebel free-lancing as they do today. Obama, Cruz, AOC, Trump -- none of them could have behaved as they did and survived, let alone thrived, thirty or fifty years ago. McGovern won the nomination, but was slaughtered in the general election. Gene McCarthy didn't get that far. JFK paved the way for Bobby and Ted, but mostly congresspersons well beyond freshman term were seldom seen or heard outside their own district/state. The committee chairs, subchairs, speaker ruled, unless the president was of your party, then he largely ruled, with the exception of Carter and Nixon as the fal was in full flight. LBJ ruled right up until the moment he crashed upon the rocks of Vietnam and announced he wouldn't seek the nomination.
2
It’s true that our parties are no longer left or right. They are right and further right. The Democratic Party of old, that championed the working class, is extinct. The few that speak for the way it used to be and could be again are pilloried in the media as well as by party leaders ( the “ green whatever” - to quote Nancy Pelosi). And the DNC wonders what went wrong?
29
The problem with being a centrist (and I’m one) is that the Left thinks your a conservative, and the Right thinks your a liberal.
19
@Steven Roth
Look at the policies. Today's "left" is further right than many European Conservatives. The "left" has moved steadily right since Clinton and the moderates have followed. Today's moderates are right of Nixon.
7
@Steven Roth
So, so true.
So lets see - on one side, a "shock" (which surprised no one) of racist chants "straight out of fascist newsreels" to paraphrase, and on the other side a "shock" of some Democrats angling to win over Democratic primary voters with policies that a centrist (who cannot even own his own centrism) feels are "far to the left on key issues than many "mainstream Democrats".
How is that for false equivalency? One side is racist, and the other is too far left for someone who is right of most of the Democratic party. Somebody fetch Tom his fainting chair...
21
Agree that solutions are not binary and do not lend themselves to the bumper sticker slogans many voters prefer.
Voting in America is binary. Until ranked voting is approved, one either supports ALL Democrats or empowers Trump and the Repubs by voting Green, not voting or voting for a Repub.
Mr. Friedman has a propensity for moderation and false equivalencies. The issue of border control is complex, but it is not a ne'er before seen crisis. A million or so refugees in a population of 350 million is 3/10ths of a percent. Hardly an unmanageable crisis.
It becomes a crisis when Repubs block bridges to prevent people from turning themselves in to the authorities, fail to hire addt'l judges to streamline the processing of claims so that refugees must be detained and, oh so cleverly, remove Obama & Dems programs to process refugees at the Central American border rather than the US borde.
Also not helpful for Repubs to end aid to those countries. The aid would obviate the need for many to emigrate.
Other countries deal with greater inflows of people and manage not to separate families, abuse children and create overcrowded jails to house people fleeing for their lives. The Repubs are creating and managing a crisis for their political interests. They are doing so on the necks of children and vulnerable and desperate people.
19
The Clinton border policy of prevention and deterrence which produced 7000 migrant deaths since 1994. What is new is the outrage at the incompetence of CBP at our borders. Separation of Parents from Children is nothing new on our southern border. The Press coverage is. I hope it continues but judging by the lack of recent coverage it may not. Prosecuting volunteers who leave water for survivors is not even worthy of China or Russia which we have done. The group was No More Deaths and they were acquitted this once. There seems to be no shame by the American government
2
Trump's got game and you, Thomas, know you don't.
Trump is Julius Cesar in the Colosseum. Trump voters have traded any rationalization, any real involvement in the political process against the short visceral high of power that lasts as long as Trump is in the same room - and he has all night. Thumb down. Send them home. Panem et circenses.
Trump is a slugger. Every ice hockey team has a slugger who dukes it out with the slugger of the opposing team while everyone else stands around watching, for pure excitement, which has nothing to do with the game. It takes a slugger to take Trump down. Someone who tweets that Trump is just two corrupt generations away from being an immigrant. Who tweets that Trump runs the government like his grandfather ran his brothel.
How is that for a strategy?
I am with Cortez. That, after all, was a conquistador.
10
I am afraid that the answer to your suggestion of nuanced solutions to complex problems is that a huge part of the population does not do nuance,Complexity scares them.They try to keep life simple-get up, get to work, pay the bills and hope to have a little left over for dinner out or a sports event.They are not pondering challenges and do not want to be bothered.This is one reason Trump’s simplistic solutions are accepted.He never gives a crowd a list of must do legislation,he just entertains in his obnoxious way.He does not deal in ideas,only in opinions.The Democratic candidates are earnestly putting forth solutions-people cannot deal with that much complexity. Maybe only KISS( keep it simple ,stupid) works.
4
You say your in the middle, a “centrist”, and then all of the ideas you list are basically the Democratic party’s. Why don’t you write an honest article that points out Republicans have no, zero, nada, none, not a one good idea!?
3
Get real Tom.
The Venezuelan wing of the Democratic Party does not want any slowing of economic migrants into the US.
They are happy to say that all migrants from Central America, and Central Africa for that matter, should be admitted no questions asked, until such time as Honduras and the Congo have been transformed into Luxembourg.
Which is to say The 12th of Never.
5
"The tactics of totalitarianism are to weld every difference of opinion and tradition and every conflict of economic interests into an absolute ideological opposition which disintegrates society into hostile factions bent on destroying one another."
"For example, there are Liberals and Conservatives, there are Republicans and Monarchists, there are anti-clericals and clericals, there are Communists and Fascists, there are Socialist and Individualists, there are Semites and anti-Semites. All of these are different oppositions, which have no necessary connection with one another, yet all of them are brought under the Left-Right headings and thus forced into ideological alliances which may be unnecessary and absurd. Moreover, when you have got your opponents all neatly ticketed you can then repeat the same process on any section of them—dividing the Socialists into Socialists of the Left Center in Socialists of the Extreme Left, or the Liberals into Moderates or Progressives, so as to submit them to the same process of confusion and disintegration."
-Charles Dawson
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/06/left-right-fallacy-timeless.html
1
The answers are simple, but our species isn't equipped to institute the ethical and reformationist planetary changes that are needed to save us:
* acknowledge that anthropogenic mass extinction is extinguishing the biosphere and reorient the entire world economy to stop the extinction juggernaut.
* acknowledge that America has been taken over by a two-party elite, corporate duopoly with no opposition party and no real democracy
* get back the fire, passion, zeal and physical strength of the progressive eras in the early 1900s and during FDR's presidency, so we can purge our system of sellouts, corporatists, and gangsters
* Put America back into the landmine treaties, the jurisdiction of the World Court, etc.
* Dismantle the military-industrial complex, close most of the bases overseas, and put young people to work doing something other than killing for Empire.
* Hold politicians, judges (including SCOTUS) accountable and fire them
* Recognize that Trump is the alpha male symbol of the worst rot, decadence, ignorance, venality, perversion, and sickness that permeates America at all levels.
*Remove Bronze Age father-god-in-the-sky theocrats from government.
7
The core problem is the digitalization of the economy and rapid human population growth.
Stabilize world population and magical things will happen economically and environmentally.
4
See, your problem is that you want to solve problems and answer questions about how to improve people's lives as they actually already live and want to live. You think expertise should be used to make the world more agreeable and better for everybody and that "agreeable and better" should have quantifiable, non abstract definitions.
The two main parties are not in the business of solving problems or addressing the plebs' actual lives. Per 1984, the proles just don't matter.
They are in the business of fighting over culture and ideology because they think those are the means by which the way the world goes can be dictated. And more importantly, of course, they assume they will be the ones doing the directing.
Per Roger Scruton: "Per Roger Scruton: "Intellectuals are naturally attracted by the idea of a planned society, in the belief that they will be in charge of it."
1
The reality of the world is changing too fast for the conservatives, and as for the young, it's not changing fast enough.
1
Great learning is often a paradox. To get to the truth, one has to hesitate and qualify a whole bunch. One has to preface most everything with an "I think," or "it seems," until the final verdict is rendered. I've been doing this for a while, and the answers to me appear concentrated on the left; the strategy in the center; and the headstrong unqualified lies on the right.
4
Mr. Friedman is not an economist, so I will help him out
The core problem in the US is raising income inequality. One half finds itself in competition with low wage countries that nails down their salaries, the other half (owners of capital, such as stocks, i.e. factories) couldn't be happier to find cheaper labour abroad.
There's only so much inequality a society can tolerate. I recommend Mr. Friedman studies what triggered the French revolution. Or for that matter Brexit.
Mr. Friedman, author of The Earth is Flat, has long supported globalization, without understanding its effect
on the political changes it had to cause in high wage countries. If you believe The Earth is Flat, wages must come down to the global average - something like China
Enter Trump
16
@Woof How many times does this have to be repeated before the people "who don't have the answer, but are thinking about it" get it?
1
America, as an idea for the world to emulate, was designed to work through the evolving problems of this nation and planet. Many of the differing perceptions of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, of what America would be to the world, are still being worked through even today, two and a half centuries later. George Washington wanted his two most brilliant cabinet members to work together to combine their differing economic and idealistic roles for America. They could not do so.
Perhaps, today, with enough care and imagination, enlightened leaders of this world can begin to work through the ever-present constructs of “self-survival” and “altruism.”
My thoughts, specifically, on changing immigration policies of today (as representative, also, of evolving technological and governance policies) are that these policies must always be, first, humane, recognizing that every person on Earth, today and tomorrow, is an equal child of God. Moreover, the immigration policies throughout our evolving world will be worked through by enlightened minds over, perhaps, centuries, not simply years or decades.
As Rhodes Scholar Calvin Runnels has written, “We must begin to imagine immigration systems which respect the humanity of all people, systems which understand that rights to dignity and justice transcend the manmade constructs of citizenship and borders.”
2
Mr. Friedman is absolutely spot on with this essay; complex challenges and opportunities require solutions that do not easily fit into a left/right binary ideological spectrum.
The challenge, however, isn’t with the unthoughtful, uneducated, non-literate mass of people who are easily swayed by the ‘ loot the rich’ group on the left or the Nationalist rhetoric that is offered as a smokescreen by the right. With enough money - and a convincing politician - these people can be led in any direction. The challenge is in breaking up the increasingly concentrated power that is held by the special interests in this country.
Hard to comprehend the amount of money that is going to be behind the Republicans on the National level in the coming years: the Medical industry; defense contractors: fossil fuel industry: banking: most corporations: high income people. These people will get Trump re-elected- not the common folk that you see wearing MAGA hats on TV.
On the other hand, the leadership on the left has lost credibility with most Americans as they avow crackpot ideas like open borders in a desperate attempt to gain their party’s nomination.
So - time for a third party. Mr Friedman - are you game?
2
"The old binary choices no longer work."
The immediate choice, however, is binary in the extreme. Vote for one of the serious Democrats any one of whom is infinitely better than Trump. Or vote for the textbook demagogue, his fascist aims, and his idolatrous, white supremacist, personality cult. A Democrat will protect our democracy and its vital institutions. Trump and his Republicans will not.
21
“our old two-dimensional grid with its binary choices between left and right is insufficient to respond to them. It requires a more complex, three-dimensional set of policy tools and responses.”
Technically, binary choices exist in a one-dimensional space (a line). Three-dimensional space is how we generally view our physical world; when projected on a flat screen (a two-dimensional space), it still looks pretty realistic. But, if one project it onto a line, it will be incomprehensible.
A healthy political world should be multi-dimensional. There are many complex problems and there are no simple, binary solutions. A rational democratic system needs to have representation of a multitude of voices, issues, and priorities. What we have is a caricature of a democracy, which is increasingly being shaped like a bipolar dumbbell. Once the middle breaks, we'll be finished.
2
"The American body politic has experienced two big — and enormously revealing — shocks in the past month."
Shocking? Really?
Mr. Friedman, did you really find it shocking that Sanders and Warren are pushing Medicare-for-All? Seems that they may have mentioned that a few times before. Or that Progressives have progressive policy preferences?
Were you shocked that Trump and his most fervent supporters are openly racist and xenophobic? First time you caught a Trump campaign speech?
My policy preferences tend more toward what I consider "pragmatic" than some of the social democrats on the Left and a lot more towards democracy and sanity than the Trumpists on the Right. I like some of the ideas you have been pushing But nothing in the past month stated by the candidates was much of a shock. Or changes the best way to get real, if imperfect, progress.
In the end, I'm just looking for a candidate who is capable of complex thinking, shows good judgment, will defend an inclusive democracy, and is reasonably sane. Ability to help Democrats win the Senate is a strong plus.
I wasn't shocked to find that the Democrats have a number of candidates that meet that first set of criteria. And a few I think who can help with the second.
14
I wish instead of talking about free college, we would talk about expanding what students study in prek-12. We already have 13 - 15 years of free public education, valuable time that is currently being spent on a watered down mid-20th century education. American schools should start a second language - be it French, Spanish, Mandarin, Arabic....- at age 4-6 like other countries do. We should teach out students global geography so that they know where other countries are. We should teach global religions so they don't get surprised when colleagues take time off for Divali or Eid.
We need to discuss the life skills needed to be a continual learner - because the pace of change is not going to slow down and the skills required to participate in the world will keep evolving. (E.G. Baby boomers, like myself, have been forced as adults to become computer literate.).
Until we strengthen prek-12 it is a waste to talk about free college education - the foundation needs to be strong to build on.
5
@CDN
You are right, and if we focused more on high-school and less on college, there might be fewer college students in need of remedial this or remedial that.
I wonder how many of these college students pay tuition fees to learn in college what they refused to learn in high-school.
2
The Democrats could thrash the Republicans on health care, if they wanted to. But they would have to discomfort some vested interests, which they will not do.
France is reckoned to have one of the best socialised healthcare systems. Outcomes are similar to the United States but at only two thirds the cost. Therefore the case for moving to a healthcare system free at the point of use funded by general taxation is difficult to argue against.
7
@Pelasgus - Public funding would not be sufficient. You'd also have to cut the prices pretty dramatically, since many more people would show up at doctors and hospitals for treatment.
2
Though Trump is trying hard to convince 2020 voters that the nation has the binary choice of preserving our democracy or turning it over to socialists, I am optimistic that those who voted for Trump in 2016 believing he would bring a fresh perspective from the entrenched Washington politics have by now realized that he's a con man whose sole objective is to fatten his own coffers. For the Democratic candidate to be successful unseating Trump, he or she will have to demonstrate that we are better than buying into fear and hatred and offer voters an agenda that is rich in substance and one that can restore our standing in the world and our belief that we are and always have been a nation of immigrants.
3
Talk about why the Constitution and it’s limits, checks and balances, and rights, matter to us all as individuals and a nation.
Only when we throw out the demagogue can we begin to think without a box. Until then the demagogue is the only pressing problem.
3
@Jon Throw out which demagogue? Trump isn't the one that scares folk.
I don't understand how the copy in this opinion piece actually relates to the title. All the solutions Mr. Friedman proposes we consider - or should consider considering - would be defined as left to far left policies by the conservative thought machine.
Doing anything at all to solve global warming is a leftist idea because simply acknowledging global warming as a legitimate problem is left of center. Redividing the pie would terrify any conservative and probably any legitimate centrist. Destabilizing other governments? Who cares? -leftists. Defending women and minorities also appears to be legitimately leftist; take a listen to those right wing congressmen and conservative talk show hosts criticizing Trump's comments...oh, wait...
No. it seems to me your more left than you realize, Mr. Friedman, although I appreciate the attempt to move the dial back to center. Let's face it, obstruction and denial is an effective tool for the right and they consider it a loss if they support any idea that comes from a left-of-center politician.
6
No, no, no, Dr. Friedman. Please do not assume that you abandon markets when you embrace some kind of socialistic ideas. I grew up in Norway, under a very socialistic society in the 1950s, where most utilities were state-run, but there were plenty of private industries. After WWII, Norway went the way that many European countries went, to socialism. Their economies were in shambles and Germany was in tatters. However, it didn't take long for the Norwegians to understand that you could combine a system of both, one that created a safety net for the general population, but also an environment for entrepreneurship. This is old news to the Norwegians, who enjoy free education through to Ph.D, MD etc. and who understand that a country that supports its workforce in any way, is a support for the country in general.
Yes, I understand that we have different issues facing us here, but demonizing the countries that have made a success of its system, will not help anybody.
Just take a look at what is called the "Norwegian Model" of oil exploration and benefits to the general populations of a country that has been lucky enough to find oil on its lands (or sea) and you will see that it is not socialism, but care for all of our citizens and their share in the riches that will lift them all up and enrich the entire country.
58
@Merete Cunningham
It is totally inconvenient to talk about real countries like Norway when talking about socialism. Only socialist failures like Cuba, USSR and Venezuela may be mentioned (even those are all dictatorships that just called themselves "socialist"). Even "liberal" columnists follow this rule.
5
Our countries need to do a better job in educating our future citizens in multi-dimensional systems thinking, in understanding how different values can be prioritized by different people (eg as explained by Haidt in his book ‘The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion’), in the skills of effective debate including questioning and active listening and in how best to contribute to the type of collaboration needed in complex adaptive coalitions.
This learning needs to be based on sound theory and brought home with active learning experiences.
1
Friedman is an original thinker. His ideas have been free of boxes for a long while. He's going to get a lot of push back on this one. Being tribal feels safer but also makes us feel that we're right. In that case, he's wrong. Helpful would be if Friedman could next give some examples from his travels to small communities that have figured out how to tap into disparate resources within them to work on challenging issues.
4
I appreciate and agree with your position and outlook for they are like many held by the thinking people of this country. The problem is that none of this fits on a bumper sticker and requires discernment and thought that as you say lies outside the sides of simple boxes. At the time when we need more than just a sound bite that seems to be all we get. Warren has many policies to address our deepest issues, but who will take the time and effort to see how they can work for our society. Instead 'Send her home' or lock her up fills the air ways and democratic candidates make simplistic solutions to immigration.
Excellent column, Tom.
I especially liked your thoughts on the causes of, and means available for addressing, these migrations from Central America.
I wish more Democrats would take this tact - instead of leaving the 'impression' that we are for open borders and see these migrants as our future voters, an impression that can only make the other side that much more angry and intransigent (and potentially, particularly in a post-Trump era, rebellious and violent).
If it is possible, we need to stabilize the situation in Central America - and you touched on all the causes that are impelling these migrations.
I also believe it important that Senatorial and Presidential candidates recognize that the activist base of the Democratic Party is not especially representative of the general election voter.
The Democratic politicians that I respect are, above all, pragmatic and evidence-based. Passion and ideology can get someone elected, but sooner or later we all have to be able to do the job, and react on our feet to life as it truly is, and not as we wish it were.
2
When was the last time America did anything 'leftwing' at the federal level; something along the lines of universal healthcare, truly affordable post-secondary educations, climate action etc? 30 years? 40 years? Longer?
That's why you have so many problems. Your nation has been drug so far to the right, anything leftwing is long in the rear view mirror.
7
@Canadian Roy Does this include SCOTUS decisions? Or what about Obamacare? Seems like America has done plenty of left-wing things in the last few years. A better question would be when did America do something truly conservative at the federal level, last century, the century before that?
@Canadian Roy
"When was the last time America did anything 'leftwing' at the federal level;"
The "Dear Colleague letter to colleges under Title IX, which eliminated due process for male students accused of sexual misconduct, and turned it over to kangaroo courts composed of students and administrators whose interest was ideology and not impartial justice. This resulted in the ruination of a number of innocent young men, and the conflation of trivial offenses with actual assault and rape; and
Under Title VII - Disparate impact, which forbade evaluating school discipline, including suspensions and expulsions, on the basis of individual students' behavior, but rather assigned quotas based on race, separate from actual behavior; and
"Waters of the United States", which characterized anything from a puddle on up as subject to regulations which in practice, had little effect on water pollution but put small farmers (but not corporate farmers) out of business because they could not afford the cost of compliance with the process and reporting, along with regulations based on ideology rather than science (as contrasted to actual improvement of water quality).
Are these left-wing enough for you? I could go on.
We had these and more owing to executive orders during the Obama administration. I voted for the man twice, and respected his decency and class, but disagreed deeply with many of his policies, some of which helped produce the backlash that (sadly) elected his successor.
The only answer is to vote the republicans out of office. They are the troglodytes who have been unwilling and unable to craft, pass and implement policies that can solve our problems.
All they know what to do is kick the barn down and blame it on some colored guy. They are not in the business of creating wealth or building things. Only destroying things.
The ultimate know-nothings. Get rid of the republicans and we at least have a chance to come up with some solutions.
3
Tom, won't you run for President? Please, please, please? I wish that there were a politician who thinks about the issues the way you do.
2