Why I Like That Tom Friedman Guy Sometimes...
With all of the attention paid to the other three New York Times columnists with things to say about the Obama administration and the bailouts, it is refreshing to read what the fourth had to say on Sunday.
While Krugman, Dowd and Rich joined the "nattering nabobs of negativism" whining about all of the things Obama is doing wrong, followed closely on the heels by media bobbleheads, who today pronounced laughter also off limits for the President -- see the complete list of Presidential no-nos at the end of the blog and add your own -- and the bloggerazzi, that delightful echo chamber of yum snarky goodness where if Krugman said it, by God or some guy named Larry, Darryl or Daryl, it must be true. In that crowded atmosphere is the Oracle of Things Kind of Reasonable, Thomas L. Friedman.
An Indian businessman he knows has encountered him on the streets of Manhattan and says Americans are behaving like an "immature democracy." Friedman suggests we all know what the businessman means:
We're in a once-a-century financial crisis, and yet we've actually descended into politics worse than usual. There don't seem to be any adults at the top -- nobody acting larger than the moment, nobody being impelled by anything deeper than the last news cycle. Instead, Congress is slapping together punitive tax laws overnight like some Banana Republic, our president is getting in trouble cracking jokes on Jay Leno comparing his bowling skills to a Special Olympian, and the opposition party is behaving as if its only priority is to deflate President Obama's popularity.
He continues...
I saw Eric Cantor, a Republican House leader, on CNBC the other day, and the entire interview consisted of him trying to exploit the A.I.G. situation for partisan gain without one constructive thought. I just kept staring at him and thinking: "Do you not have kids? Do you not have a pension that you're worried about? Do you live in some gated community where all the banks will be O.K., even if our biggest banks go under? Do you think your party automatically wins if the country loses? What are you thinking?"
If you want to guarantee that America becomes a mediocre nation, then just keep vilifying every public figure struggling to find a way out of this crisis who stumbles once -- like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner or A.I.G.'s $1-a-year fill-in C.E.O., Ed Liddy -- and you'll ensure that no capable person enlists in government. You will ensure that every bank that has taken public money will try to get rid of it as fast it can, so as not to come under scrutiny, even though that would weaken their balance sheets and make them less able to lend money. And you will ensure that we'll never get out of this banking crisis, because the solution depends on getting private money funds to team up with the government to buy up toxic assets -- and fund managers are growing terrified of any collaboration with government.
And while Friedman does chide the President for not channeling some the nation's anger and angst into a Roosevelt style fireside chat, to reasure the nation, he doesn't dwell on the long list of political sins the President has supposedly committed.
Right now we have an absence of inspirational leadership. From business we hear about institutions too big to fail -- no matter how reckless. From bankers we hear about contracts too sacred to break -- no matter how inappropriate. And from our immature elected officials we hear about how it was all "the other guy's fault." I've never talked to more people in one week who told me, "You know, I listen to the news, and I get really depressed."
Well, help may finally be on the way: one reason we've been sidetracked talking about bonuses is because the big issue -- the real issue -- the president's comprehensive plan to remove the toxic assets from our ailing banks, which is the key to our economic recovery, has taken a long time to hammer out. So all kinds of lesser issues and clowns have ballooned in importance and only confused people in the vacuum. Hopefully, that plan will be out by Monday, and hopefully the president will pull the country together behind it, and hopefully the lawmakers who have to approve it will remember that this is not a time for politics as usual -- and that our country, alas, is not too big to fail. Hopefully ...
The plan was formally announced today. The stock market -- the barometer that is the perfect, exact and accurate measure of the President's dismal performance when it is down, but absolutely meaningless when it is up -- was way up. Almost 500 points up. Predictably, Krugman was quoted extensively. The politicians brayed and cackled, clucked and tut-tut-tutted. The bloggerazzi blogged that the Treasury Secretary was unfit to serve at the pleasure of the President, that he should be fired, that, in essence, because he proposed something they -- and more importantly the Almighty Krugman -- didn't like and had proclaimed was doomed to failure, the Secretary should be banned from Planet Earth.
And to insure that all was right in the world, laughter in the immediate vicinity of the Oval Office, Air Force One, Marine One, inside the borders of the continental United States, the country of Alaska, or the foreign country known as "Hawai'i was strictly prohibited. The President's illegal laughter was protrayed as nervous tick, a sure sign that he is cracking under the stress of the job, degrading to the majesty of the office of the President, and like shirtsleeves in the Oval office, simply not done.
* - no jokes, no negative talk, no realistic talk, no positive talk, no working on more than one thing at a time, no working on just one thing at a time, no acknowledging the boneheads who criticize you, no NOT acknowledging the boneheads who critixize you, no answering media questions with complete sentences, no joking by Robert Gibbs in the WH Press Office, no sleeveless clothing worn by your wife, no appearances on late night talks shows, no taking office your jacket in the Oval office, no being born in a foreign country. This list is by no means all inclusive. More items will be added after the President's second primetime news conference in 64 days.









Well gee..it's either blog negative comments or climb to the top of some building and start throwing golf balls at the the first coat and tie that comes into view.
Or get really piss assed drunk.
C
March 23, 2009 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buying alcohol and golf balls would stimulate the economy.
March 24, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade. It's nice that you like the Dow when it supports Obama, and like columnists when they support Obama, and like bloggers when they support Obama, but Friedman's column actually DID list a bunch of his "sins," and was effectively condemning him for NOT providing inspirational leadership.
In short, I'm not sure why you should like this column:
"President Obama MISSED a huge teaching opportunity with A.I.G. Those bonuses were an outrage. The public’s anger was justified.
But rather than fanning those flames and letting Congress run riot, the president SHOULD have said: “I’ll handle this.”
He SHOULD have gone on national TV and had the fireside chat with the country that is long overdue. That’s a talk where he lays out exactly how deep the crisis we are in is, exactly how much sacrifice we’re all going to have to make to get out of it, and then calls on those A.I.G. brokers — and everyone else who, in our rush to heal our banking system, may have gotten bonuses they did not deserve — and tells them that their president is asking them to return their bonuses “for the sake of the country....
HAD Mr. Obama... it WOULD have elevated the president to where he belongs — above the angry gaggle in Congress....
Right now we have an ABSENCE of inspirational leadership."
March 23, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
How on earth can a few fireside chats and calls for sacrifice be the primary thing by which [presidents] are judged? John Cole's blog
March 24, 2009 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Friedman's an idiot, fireside chats alone wouldn't be nearly enough, no disagreement there.
Just saying that his column wasn't actually all that pleasant in what it was saying about Obama.
March 24, 2009 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I got to really dislike Friedman. Not hate him like rush or sean or something. I just began to see that he was full of himself. The son of a bitch grew up in the same neighborhood as my favorite Al Franken and only a few miles from where I grew up.
I find the other part of your piece more interesting. I gave up on Dowd almost completely but I have to kick myself in the behind so I do not forget she was one of the very few who lambasted w all the way through. From beginning to end. So I forgive her. I just do not bother to read her anymore.
Krugman and Rich however have been my favorites for years and years. I was sure I was right about Krugman even though I have not the brains to understand what he and our own Dr. Reich are talking about have the time. I was sure because jughead on mornin joke absolutely hates him. hahahahaahahahaha
Rich has been the best editorialist I come across.
Just a fine writer and almost always on 'MY SIDE'
That said, Krugman has been getting more and more frustrated with MY PRESIDENT lately.
This thing you point out about Rich really disturbs me.
There is something going on here. And because of YOU I am going to pay closer attention. When big powerful media folks like Rich and Krugman are complaining, there are forces a work. There is something happenin'. And I do not know what it is.
I suppose I mostly agree with Q here. But There are forces in my party that I feel I must pay attention to.
I am rambling. You have struck a nerve here. Thank you.
March 24, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neither Rich nor Krugman are "big" or "powerful" or "media folks."
Each writes a opinion column which is popular with readers of the New York Times and for the production of which the Times pays him. If and when his column loses its popularity, the Times will cease paying him and the column will vanish -- at least from the Times.
March 24, 2009 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yva, it is my humble belief that Rich and Krugman, per prestige alone achieve a status; a position of power. They each have their own constituencies. Rich could work anywhere he wanted.
Krugman would be welcomed anywhere.
They both are 'tied into' special interests. I do not know what these special interests compose or from when they arise. But they are there just the same.
The two become symbols to the lowliest of the low like myself. But bigger concerns like the ACLU,
certain civil rights organizations, green 'societies', educational concerns......they catch the ear of these two writers.
I think Krugman is more socialistic in his perspective, like I am. And he is frustrated that
my New President is not taking full advantage of the tools that are now available to really turn this class/caste structure in which we live, on its goddamnable head. That is the feeling I am getting and that the new Treasury Secretary and others in the top economic tier are too conservative for Krugman's tastes.
This rubs off on Rich.
But the last eight years were so goddamanable bad for the common man and common woman and there are so many forces at work in Congress, that I get kind of chicken shit. I think, play the cards you have, transform the judiciary like Carter did. Got to a 40% top tax rate instead of 60-70%.
But I want to hear what K & R say for sure. They may affect the outcome. A base sort of, pulling the Administration to the left, farther than some 'moderates' might like.
But, alas, what do I know. I am the lowliest of the low in my Pj's.
March 24, 2009 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, for Krugman at least, this is nonsense. The guy has a Nobel. He can drop in on a dozen TV shows whenever he wants. The fact that he IS popular with a lot of readers is at least partly, I suspect, something he would carry away with him if the NYT dropped him. He could get on other papers, on tv, other universities, basically write his ticket.
Compared to Obama or Buffett or Murdoch maybe that's not big or powerful or media enough for you, but to say he's not big, powerful or media at all?
March 24, 2009 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen I get confused. I have always been confused but I take a special pill now and I am not supposed to be confused.
But Ellen, did you used to have an avatar that was a cat? And I thought you were also Evaine.
Now Q tells me the truth. And he told me to take two pills so that I would be better balanced.
He also says you are the expert on the economy and I am an idiot. Of course he has told me that I am an idiot before.
Have a nice day and I will never make this mistake again.
March 24, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is true of Rich, but not of Krugman, who has become a television talking head as well.
March 24, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused. Who didn't know we were in deep doodoo?
I may not have known the extent and severity until Sept 2008 but my pocketbook has been telling me for several years sht wasn't working correctly. I didn't need anyone to tell me it was time to clamp down and tighten the purse strings.
As far as laughing, heck, I laughed my arse off and fell out of the chair the day the 1000.00 heating fuel bill came in. It was funny as hell.
Two weeks later when I had to replace the water pump (I have a well) at 1400 bucks, it was hilarious!!!!! I don't know, maybe some people handle crisis differently than others.
The prez inspires the hell out of me. I've paid more attention to what has been going on around me in the last 2 years, than I have my entire life. I've been more involved and active than at any point that I can remember.
If the the economy comes crashing down around me, I'll get pissed, get over it and I will find a way to survive.
Personally, I voted for a leader not an inspirational guru. I've got books for that.
I think I'll go hug my mom and thank her for raising an adult!!!!
Good Nite everyone.
March 24, 2009 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good night M and good night for texaco.
March 24, 2009 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Jade,
Personally Friedman gets up my nose more than most. I was going to say over at DD's blog that he's one of the people that seem 'spectacularly inaccurate' most of the time. So I couldn't resist this title. It seems here he has good things to say only about Liddy and Geithner. And, if I'm reading correctly you agree because the Dow is up, and that is a sign that Geithner's plan is good.
The Dow going up is a sign that a lot of money is going from the government to shareholders, as far as I can tell. A bank cleanup should be leading to a fall in the Dow as the government stops bailing out shareholders and makes that clear. That's not happening. So for me the Dow's reaction is a pretty bad sign. As i've said elsewhere, I thought the recent crisis in the bond-markets were a good sign the government just might get the banking fix right. Those hopes took a hit today, imo. It would have been nice if Friedman had tried to say something other than express disappointment at immature politicians of all colors ("i'm shocked, shocked there's gambling going on here!"), and actually provide some substantial argument, other than "look at their piddly salaries", in defense of Liddy and Geithner, who are to all appearances doing a poor job.
March 24, 2009 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
People, People, People...
Title of blog... Why I Like... SOMETIMES (operative word: sometimes, meaning occasionally, periodically, every now and then)
Did I say the Dow was the magic indicator of all things Presidential? No... I merely reminded you that some US Americans (like, I don't know... the entire Republican party) believe that the Dow is the measure by which one judges the success or failure of this President, and that by that yardstick, the Dow went UP and not down.
I like Friedman's column because it was at least "hopeful" meaning, we might want to give this thing a chance, the world as we know is not coming to an end because Team Obama chose to do something other than what the Almighty Krugman said.
Krugman is a fine academician, and a Nobel prize winner at that, but he is not a politician and is firmly ensconced in his Ivory Tower.
Aside from complaints about Obama at every turn since Obama announced his candidacy, I have not read ONE SINGLE thing from Krugman that is positive about Obama. NEVER. So in comparison to someone whose general demeanor and commentary is skewed dramatically to the negative, I thought it would be a good contrast to present someone whose views I don't always agree with, but had a calmer take on the situation.
I'm tired of herd mentality. I'm tired of the gloom and doom. I don't believe the sun rises and sets when Krugman says so, and I don't believe moonbeams shoot from his ass. So sue me.
March 24, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. And it makes me suspect it is personal and emotional, not based on principles or ideas.
Like when Krugman called Obama supporters a "cult" because they disagreed with his ideas/politics. That's not the most mature reaction to dissent. (And neither is that goddamn blog on NYT which is HEAVILY censored.)
Krugman's constant harping seems to only help the GOP at this point. His "cult" meme was candy for Rush Limbaugh. And his attacks on this plan are a boon for Eric Cantor and the Neohooverites. It makes me wonder whose side he's really on. I really wish his critiques were more constructive, like "This won't work. It would be better to completely nationalize these banks".
March 24, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman had positive things to say about Obama's budget:
But I don’t blame Mr. Obama for leaving some big questions unanswered in this budget. There’s only so much long-run thinking the political system can handle in the midst of a severe crisis; he has probably taken on all he can, for now. And this budget looks very, very good.
I found myself not wanting to use Friedman's column as cat litter for the first time two weeks ago, when he wrote about how is wife, a public school teacher, and her colleagues agreed to modify their collective bargaining agreement to take a 5% pay cut in order to prevent layoffs.
It was a good illustration for the argument that contracts can be renegotiated, if both sides are willing, and illustrated the deficit in morality of the AIG bonus situation--although the two instances aren't comparable, since the bonuses were already paid out by the time the news broke.
March 24, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT Voter I tend to think the contracts could have been renegotiated as well but after listening to some of the testimony from Liddy, not sure the cost benefit analysis would have been worth it.
Aside from the grandstanding from congress this is quite interesting.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=284698-2
March 24, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every time Krugman starts to say (not finishes saying) something positive, he comes back even more negative. After awhile, you gotta wonder...
So, this morning, while waiting for the city water dept to come fix the geyser that suddenly erupted in my front yard (revenge of the Krugman God?) I started reading someone else who hasn't been so negative, the Washington Post's Stephen Pearlstein. Made me feel better. Well, about the economy... the competence of some plumbers, not so much. (I didn't ask if anyone who showed up was named "Joe".)
March 24, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do give him props for at least being welling to admit when he was wrong. Such as his early support for the Iraq war. But, you sure can't let slapping him on the back become a habit. Because he will turn right around and say something that is so left of field that you wonder which camp he is trying to empress. He's just one of those independent thinkers, who is not scared to try new things. But, when you have that kind of mind-set and are in the business of giving advice, that can be very dangerous.
March 24, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appresheate the aireoditeness of the commence and overluk all the misspellins!
March 24, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eye ollways suspeck sumbuddy sumwhar will say sumthin i cud eyethar arghree wid oar disarghree wid.
March 24, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it so difficult for some people to understand, simply because you choose not to jump on every little thing the man says, WITHOUT knowing all the facts you are somehow a zombie that can't think for yourself?
My second question, why is it so difficult to believe he just may know what he's doing?
My third and final question, for those that voted for him and still find yourself in the first two categories, why the did you vote for him in the first place?
March 24, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK?
March 25, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink