Tom Friedman --warmongering billionaire racist

My gut-level reponse to Tom Friedman, the flat earth, globalist, pro-war, Arab-hating NY Times journalist whose latest column appears in today's Oregonian, is similar to that of Jonathan Schwarz of A Tiny Revolution:

"I try not to read anything by Thomas Friedman, because his writing tends to make me wish I were dead."

Chris Floyd elaborates:

"Friedman proposes -- seriously, one assumes, for surely nothing is more serious than Tom Friedman in full cry -- that we 're-invade' Iraq with 150,000 more troops...and this time really do a number on those recalcitrant tribes, do whatever 'is necessary to crush the dark forces in Iraq' and pound some sense into them, or at least some obedience, with our big 'iron fist.' (This is, after all, the only thing that Arabs understand, right? No doubt Tom has read The Arab Mind,  Raphael Pataki's reduction of fellow human beings to abstract ciphers bound up in a hive mentality -- an outdated, outmoded, outlandish spasm of hidebound 'Orientalism' that has long been required reading not only for war-of-choicemongers like Friedman but also for Pentagon brass and officers in the field.)"

But there's more  to the Friedman story than simple warmongering racism.   Friedman is also a "classist".     As David Sirota points out,  Friedman is a "billionaire",  who married into one of America's richest families:

"Far from the objective, regular-guy interpreter of globalization that the D.C. media portrays him to be, Friedman is a member of the elite of the economic elite on the planet Earth. In fact, he's married into such a giant fortune, it's probably more relevant to refer to him as Billionaire Scion Tom Friedman than columnist Tom Friedman, both because that's more descriptive of what he represents, and more important for readers of his work to know so that they know a bit about where he's coming from."

And that, more than his journalistic prowess (such as it is), explains his unwavering defense of "globalism" and his apparent disdain for American workers, or, as Sirota puts it, "...using his column to legitimize some of the worst, most working-class-persecuting policies this country has seen in the last century... ."

It also explains why reading Tom Friedman makes Jonathan Schwarz wish that he "were dead."

Comments

[howard]

Friedman is a best-selling author, a highly-knowledgeable columnist, enjoys reputable information sources worldwide, is highly sought after as a TV guest commentator on all channels and has accurately described the pros and cons of Iraq from day one. He started pointing out the blunders we were perpetrating in Iraq years ago and recently described the limited choices remaining for us in Iraq.

I rue my decision to pass on his recommendation to buy Salesforce.com stock (Ticker: CRM) months ago on the Fareed Zakaria show on PBS at $28. It is now over $40.

[Craig]

Your schoolyard, name-calling attack on Thomas Friedman is out of line. As Howard pointed out, Friedman has a well-deserved reputation for critical, groundbreaking analysis. He is hardly pro-war as he has been a consistent critic of the invasion of Iraq for a long time. His income and marital status are irrelevant.

Furthermore, Chris Floyd completely mischaracterizes the Friedman column he referred to. The column, entitled "Ten Year or Ten Months" says either we invade (TEN MONTHS) OR withdraw, because if we do neither, which is what the Bush administration is doing, we are condemned to occupy Iraq for another TEN YEARS. Friedman was not advocating either re-invasion or withdrawal, simply pointing out the folly of "staying the course."

And what has Friedman written that persecutes the working class? Is it his analysis of globalization in his ground-breaking book "The World is Flat"? Friedman does not defend globalization as a policy choice because it is not. It is simply a fact of our 21st century. Would you disinvent the Internet, the satellites that bring you CNN and Al-Gezira, or the jet planes that tranport you and others to far-off countries? Or enact protectionist trade laws that would ban all those inexpensive Chinese products you find in any 7-11 or drug store and invite retaliation on the export of U.S. goods and services? Or ban the possibility of buying generic drugs from Canada? Or perhaps build a wall to keep out the Mexicans?

I don't always agree with Friedman, but to dismiss him as an upper-class racist is ridiculous.

[Terry]

Your defense of Friedman reminds me that you were (once) an admirer of Henry Kissinger --war criminal-- too.

Read my UPDATE post, then tell me why anyone should listen to Friedman pontificate on Iraq. And I don't think Friedman (the billionaire) truly understands the ramifications of globalization any more than you do.

And tell me again why you voted for (or threatened to) the anti-globalist Ross Perot?

And finally, explain to me how Friedman is any less a racist, on Middle East issues, than Pat Buchanan, who opposed the war in Iraq from the outset.

Like me.

[torridjoe]

Friedman gets NO credit whatsoever for being "anti-war." He was firmly for it when it started, and since then has given us literally nothing but a series of "the next six months are crucial, we've got to hang tough" excuses in column after column.

I won't speak to the rest of the charges, but Friedman has some serious denial about the war. He should not be allowed to slide for helping us towards war in his own small way.

[howard]

Friedman did err in habitually using the "next six months are crucial" line too many times. There is an axiom in forecasting that one should never link an expected result with a time span. It is obvious, however, that the AIM citations were parsed from interviews or columns and provide no reference to the future events Friedman was commenting upon. Without context for each citation, they do not "evidence" anything about Friedman's overall abilities as a columnist or an analyst.

In Friedman's favor, he was giving his "thoughts" on the ever changing situation in Iraq over a 3 year period of time. I would not characterize them as "predictions" (AIM's term) or "prognoses" (Terry's term). Nor did Friedman repeatedly use the term "hang tough" (TJ's) term).

On 14 various occasions Friedman accurately pointed out that we had to wait till events ran their course before we could institute an end-game strategy in Iraq.

Friedman has recently presented a clear choice of end-game strategies in his "Ten Years or Ten Months" column as well as in his latest column in today's Oregonian. Even these end-games" are subject to future modifications by Friedman as events in Iraq and in the region "run their courses".