Getty Images
Back in April, I chided the New York Times' Thomas Friedman for having two bad habits: (1) writing columns complaining that President Obama had failed to take a certain action, apparently unaware that the president has already taken that action, and (2) writing columns calling for a third party that would push the two major parties to be more responsible.
He's made the first mistake more than a few times; and the same goes for the second.
This week, in a curious twist, Friedman combined both bad habits -- he wishes a third party could have forced Obama into supporting an agenda Obama already supports.
[T]here will be no third-party candidate, so the only hope is getting Obama to raise his game. [...]
What the president should have done is follow the advice of the Princeton University economist and former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder, namely lay out a specific "three-step rehab program for our nation's fiscal policy." Call it the Obama Plan; it should combine a near-term stimulus on job-creating infrastructure, a phase-in, as the economy improves, of "something that resembles the 10-year Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction plan -- which would pay for the stimulus 15-20 times over" and a specific plan to "bend the health care cost-curve downward."
My beef is not with Friedman's goals, per se. I consider much of the Simpson-Bowles plan to be off-base, but putting aside the specifics and considering the larger context, an approach that combines short-term growth and long-term deficit reduction sounds quite sensible. What Friedman wants, in a general sense, is what I want.
Instead, the problem, once again, is that Friedman is admonishing Obama for no reason -- the president already agrees with the columnist and has already done what Friedman recommends.
A "near-term stimulus" with a focus on "job-creating infrastructure"? Done. A phased-in deficit-reduction plan that "resembles" Simpson-Bowles? Also done. A plan to "bend the health care cost-curve downward"? You guessed it; that's done, too.
Where's the value in criticizing the president for failing to adopt an agenda he's already adopted?
Leave a Comment:
I am glad that you and others continue to point out that Friedman is a clown.
Where's the value? Why obviously, only by criticizing Obama for being insufficiently centrist without regard to objective fact can a wise centrist Very Serious Person earn the praise of other sensible centristly serious Very Serious People for being a bipartisan nonpartisan Very Serious Person. Which is, after all, Freidman's sole purpose for existence.
He presents himself as rational and non-partisan, but then he makes the president look ineffective.
What is really great that the mighty Liberal Media constantly and completely calls out this quack for his unbelievably self-absorbed and harmful drivel.
Right? Right?
Got you to read it, didn't he? Purpose served.
Why Friedman still has any credibility is far beyond anyone's comprehension! This clown has been loudly wrong about everything. Just a tip Tom - go away!
But while Friedman is profoundly ignorant of the world around him, he is so earnest you have to conclude he believes what he says. His is a rare gift--invincible ignorance.
Yeah, marrying a billionaire will do that for you.
The answer is now clear. Tom Friedman doesn't have enough clout to cause other people to push Barack Obama to do what both Barack Obama and Tom Friedman think should be done. If we pile on Steve Benen, it will be enough.
From now on, Steven Benen should urge Tom Friedman to start urging Barack Obama to push for these policies while indicating that this will only work if Tom Friedman argues forcefully everywhere all the time in favor of these policies. Regardless of whether Tom Friedman is already arguing for these policies. Because if something doesn't happen right now, it never happened.
Go Steve Go!
Friedman's unofficial job is to keep low-info voters a: from knowing what's going on and b: form caring. By complaining that Obama should do things he's already doing, that sentiment gets echoed and becomes common wisdom, so low-info voters assume there's no way to get anything done in a strictly partisan political world so why bother caring? Indeed, why bother even VOTING?
And that's how Republicans win.
Once the left understands that the Republicans' attempts to stop people from voting are not only obvious (voter suppression, voter ID laws, etc) but subtle (if you think we're corrupt, you have to admit that the left is JUST AS corrupt, maybe MORE SO, both sides are just as guilty, so don't bother voting because you'll only encourage us all in our corrupt ways), it'll be easier to beat the bastards each and every Election Day. And one of the first steps is to realize many reporters, deliberately or not, or pushing the "they're all guilty" meme that benefits the Right.
Unless we have an umbilical cord to the White House West Wing and Oval Office, and then we are the assistant to the President, our comments and opinions are without merit. The media, except for such reporters as Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Al Sharpton, et al, recycle the "news" from each other. So we should understand why there is so much chaos! Polls are based on reported misinformation and the public tends to accept as fact.
You get invited to a lot of parties with people who are famous, wealthy, and powerful (check at least two) and admired for your vision and wisdom.
Re: Additional parties.
Citizens should be able to participate in more than one party at once. Nowadays, the Republican Party is primarily about thwarting the Democratic Party, and the converse seems to be increasingly true as well.
So what the heck, why not make it so we can participate as Democrats for our Republican fighting, but in addition to that, perhaps each of us could participate in other parties with actual agendas concerning issues in themselves? Heck, we might even bump into some Republicans at these new parties and discover we have stuff in common.