What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Hooray for Thomas Friedman! (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
Always thoughtful, but this morning's piece states EVERYTHING I have been thinking lately about our current state of politics, but unable to express with such simplicity and eloquence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/opinion/none-of-the-above.html?ref=opinion

I don’t recall a time when more people were running for president and fewer of them offered anything more than poll-tested generalities designed to rally their own bases. No one surprises you with any daring. If we could tax their clichés, we’d balance the budget.

The defeat by House Democrats — with an assist from hard-right House Republicans and praise from Hillary Clinton — of President Obama’s sensible plan to expand Pacific free trade and pair it with worker and environmental protections was a bad sign that many more Democrats are now polarizing toward the populist left. Since the Republicans have already purged their moderates, this trend does not bode well for the country. It means that the hybrid/centrist blends that on many issues can create the most resilient solutions are “off the table.” As long as that’s the case, there is little chance you will pass on the American dream to your kids.

Just go down the list. With interest rates this low, Washington should be borrowing billions to invest in infrastructure — roads, ports, airports and 21st-century connectivity and both medical and basic science research — to make us more productive and create jobs. And we should be pairing that with phased-in entitlement trims and means-testing to Social Security and Medicare to make sure that these safety nets, as well as discretionary spending on education and research, will be there for the next generation.

Given the knowledge age we are in, it is crazy that we are educating the world’s brightest kids in our colleges and then sending them home. We should be giving green cards to every high-I.Q. risk-taker who wants to work in America, as well as the energetic less-skilled immigrants. Yes, it must be done legally, with a plan and tight borders. We need a high wall — but with a very big gate. Look at how many start-ups today are led by recent immigrants.

Given the incredible power that new technologies give both governments and terrorists we need a strong American Civil Liberties Union and a strong National Security Agency. In a cyberage, you should want an A.C.L.U. watching the watchers. But you should also want an N.S.A. watching the superempowered, cyberempowered angry people. Civil liberties absolutists may think the 9/11 era is over, but do the jihadist fanatics who use Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp as their command and control system? We need to worry about Big Terrorist and Big Criminal as much as Big Brother if we want to prevent another 9/11.

How is it that we are not deploying a carbon tax and using that to reduce payroll taxes that discourage hiring and shrink corporate taxes that reduce investment? Many economists — left, right and center — agree that a carbon tax, with adjustments for low-income earners, makes a world of sense. How is it that our two parties cannot agree on imaginative solutions to ease the burden of $1.2 trillion in outstanding student loans — by, say, enabling graduates to pay off student loans with pretax income, the same way we allow workers to save in 401(k)s? The Highway Trust Fund, the primary source of financing for roads and mass transit is going broke primarily because House Republicans won’t agree to an increase in the federal gasoline tax, which has not been raised since 1993!

Finally, now that Obamacare is the law of the land, Republicans should be joining Democrats to strengthen it and expand its tools to cut medical costs — rather than keep trying to kill a market-based health care solution that was originally a Republican idea.

Partisanship is vital to a healthy democracy — but not when it becomes an end itself, just an engine for politicians to raise more money to win more elections to raise more money — without ever daring to stop and challenge their own base when necessary. In Silicon Valley, collaboration is how you build great products with others. In Washington, it’s how you destroy your career. In cars and crops, hybrids are the most resilient solutions; in politics today, they’re toxic. Eventually that will sap our strength.

I like the way Clive Crook, a Bloomberg View columnist, puts it: “Can any self-respecting political thinker any longer be a centrist? I’d say so. For me, the question is how any self-respecting political thinker can be anything else.” How can you have a serious public policy discussion without acknowledging trade-offs? Crook asked. “True believers of right and left organize their ideas around the hope that there aren’t any. For progressives, ‘fairness’ trumps everything; for conservatives, ‘freedom.’ Balancing either against anything else is a moral violation — but, as luck would have it, the need never arises. If you’re a progressive, you can raise tax rates without discouraging effort, and mandate higher wages without reducing the demand for labor. If you’re a conservative, you can cut taxes without harming essential public services, and roll back regulation without putting anybody at risk. If centrists didn’t always try to be polite, I’d call this aversion to trade-offs infantile.”

Centrism, noted Crook, isn’t automatically good or bad. It can be “pointless and productive, lazy and energetic, timid and brave.” At its best, it may rarely inspire, but, at its best, it has a lot better chance of prolonging the American dream than either party alone.



 
Rich Conway said:
Centrism is great, except when it's not. Sometimes, the "extreme" position is the correct one.
Not being a SA here,just trying to think of an instance when the "extreme" position was enacted and it was the correct choice.

Any help?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
Centrism is great, except when it's not. Sometimes, the "extreme" position is the correct one.
Not being a SA here,just trying to think of an instance when the "extreme" position was enacted and it was the correct choice.

Any help?
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Wait, we'll do an easier, generally more agreed upon one. The American Revolution.

 
Rich Conway said:
Centrism is great, except when it's not. Sometimes, the "extreme" position is the correct one.
i highlighted 6 issues that Friedman mentioned in which he believes, and I agree, that the centrist position would be the most productive for this nation moving forward. Where do you disagree?
 
Rich Conway said:
Centrism is great, except when it's not. Sometimes, the "extreme" position is the correct one.
Not being a SA here,just trying to think of an instance when the "extreme" position was enacted and it was the correct choice.

Any help?
Well, at one time, allowing gays to marry was considered an extreme position. Legalizing sports gambling, marijuana, and prostitution are all, or have recently been, considered extreme positions.

 
Rich Conway said:
Centrism is great, except when it's not. Sometimes, the "extreme" position is the correct one.
Not being a SA here,just trying to think of an instance when the "extreme" position was enacted and it was the correct choice.Any help?
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Wait, we'll do an easier, generally more agreed upon one. The American Revolution.
Neither one is a good example IMO. For instance I've always believed it was morally correct to bomb Hiroshima, but not Nagasaki. The Japanese would have surrendered anyway under the threat; a further demonstration wasn't necessary.

As for our Revolution, we could have let radicals like Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and Thomas Payne run the show. Who knows where they would have led us? Probably something closer to the French Revolution. Instead we chose conservative minded men to create a government and Constitution which still lasts today. The formation of our country was a triumph of moderation and reason.

 
Rich Conway said:
Centrism is great, except when it's not. Sometimes, the "extreme" position is the correct one.
Not being a SA here,just trying to think of an instance when the "extreme" position was enacted and it was the correct choice.Any help?
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Wait, we'll do an easier, generally more agreed upon one. The American Revolution.
Neither one is a good example IMO.For instance I've always believed it was morally correct to bomb Hiroshima, but not Nagasaki. The Japanese would have surrendered anyway under the threat; a further demonstration wasn't necessary.

As for our Revolution, we could have let radicals like Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and Thomas Payne run the show. Who knows where they would have led us? Probably something closer to the French Revolution. Instead we chose conservative minded men to create a government and Constitution which still lasts today. The formation of our country was a triumph of moderation and reason.
I was talking simply the act of revolution, which was considered an extreme and radical position requiring a justification and a declaration of universal, self-evident rights of man that called for violence and the severing of the bonds of former governments and their legitimacy as derived from a divine right of kings.

That was moderate and centrist?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
Centrism is great, except when it's not. Sometimes, the "extreme" position is the correct one.
i highlighted 6 issues that Friedman mentioned in which he believes, and I agree, that the centrist position would be the most productive for this nation moving forward. Where do you disagree?
For starters, this statement, which you bolded, is colossally stupid: "We need to worry about Big Terrorist and Big Criminal as much as Big Brother if we want to prevent another 9/11."

In addition, you seem to have conveniently bolded items with which you agree, while ignoring others, essentially characterizing your opinions as centrist and opposing opinions as extreme. It's very simple to state that centrism is always correct when one defines centrism as "my position". For example, Friedman writes, "We need a high wall — but with a very big gate." You bolded only the "but with a very big gate" portion. I don't consider the position that "we need a high wall" extremist in the least. In fact, given past history, where the two sides agreed to create a high wall and a big gate (metaphorically), but never got around to creating the wall, demanding proof of the wall's existence before agreeing to further expansion of the gate would seem to be a very centrist position.

 
Rich Conway said:
Centrism is great, except when it's not. Sometimes, the "extreme" position is the correct one.
i highlighted 6 issues that Friedman mentioned in which he believes, and I agree, that the centrist position would be the most productive for this nation moving forward. Where do you disagree?
For starters, this statement, which you bolded, is colossally stupid: "We need to worry about Big Terrorist and Big Criminal as much as Big Brother if we want to prevent another 9/11."

In addition, you seem to have conveniently bolded items with which you agree, while ignoring others, essentially characterizing your opinions as centrist and opposing opinions as extreme. It's very simple to state that centrism is always correct when one defines centrism as "my position". For example, Friedman writes, "We need a high wall — but with a very big gate." You bolded only the "but with a very big gate" portion. I don't consider the position that "we need a high wall" extremist in the least. In fact, given past history, where the two sides agreed to create a high wall and a big gate (metaphorically), but never got around to creating the wall, demanding proof of the wall's existence before agreeing to further expansion of the gate would seem to be a very centrist position.
You're right. I'm not in love with the high wall, but I'll trade it for the big gate (and amnesty of course.) Friedman doesn't ask that you or anyone agree with all of his positions, only that you recognize that compromise can often be the most productive way forward, and it absolutely is in this case. As it also is in the case of the NSA; I don't find the statement you quoted to be stupid at all.

As to your earlier assertion that there are issues where centrism is wrong, I agree. Slavery for one. Nazism, for another. There are things we should never compromise with. But in terms of modern American politics, they're difficult to find and usually inapplicable.

 
Either your definition of "modern" is skewed, or your definition of "difficult to find" is. How long ago was it that being in favor of legalizing gay marriage was considered "extreme"? Ditto for support of legalizing marijuana? Those positions are both pretty clearly the correct ones.

 
This whole piece smacks a lil'bit o' whining.

Basically he feels his policy initiatives are being ignored and so his response is, 'me centrist, you extremist; me good, you bad.' Tom declares himself a centrist and everyone who disagrees with him (here) is an ideologue. Sure.

He's largely PO'd about the TPP failing and the rest of the piece is a construct around it to mask that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Friedman lost me forever by being one of the most loud voices in support of the Iraq war. We even had to invent a whole new term. The Friedman Unit.

http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-history-of-friedman-unit.html

I think it [the invasion of Iraq] was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie.We needed to go over there, basically, um, and um, uh, take out a very big stick right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble, and there was only one way to do it.

What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand?"

You don't think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we're just gonna to let it grow?

Well, Suck. On. This.

Okay.

That, Charlie, was what this war was about. We could've hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. We coulda hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.

VERRRRRY CENTRIST

Flipping war monger. And he's still getting paid and is one of the VERY SERIOUS PEOPLE.

 
Given the incredible power that new technologies give both governments and terrorists we need a strong American Civil Liberties Union and a strong National Security Agency. In a cyberage, you should want an A.C.L.U. watching the watchers. But you should also want an N.S.A. watching the superempowered, cyberempowered angry people. Civil liberties absolutists may think the 9/11 era is over, but do the jihadist fanatics who use Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp as their command and control system? We need to worry about Big Terrorist and Big Criminal as much as Big Brother if we want to prevent another 9/11.
Wrong and bull#### all in one paragraph.

 
Rich Conway said:
Centrism is great, except when it's not. Sometimes, the "extreme" position is the correct one.
Not being a SA here,just trying to think of an instance when the "extreme" position was enacted and it was the correct choice.

Any help?
Well, at one time, allowing gays to marry was considered an extreme position. Legalizing sports gambling, marijuana, and prostitution are all, or have recently been, considered extreme positions.
I would consider most of these to have been a "minority" opinion at one time,not "extreme". None of them were enacted until the "majority" of constituents were in favor of them. Perhaps the definition of extreme depends upon your point of view. A right wing Christian would consider gay marriage extreme,a gay person would not. I think there's a difference between a minority opinion and an extreme one.

 
timschochet said:
I like the way Clive Crook, a Bloomberg View columnist, puts it: “Can any self-respecting political thinker any longer be a centrist? I’d say so. For me, the question is how any self-respecting political thinker can be anything else.” How can you have a serious public policy discussion without acknowledging trade-offs? Crook asked. “True believers of right and left organize their ideas around the hope that there aren’t any. For progressives, ‘fairness’ trumps everything; for conservatives, ‘freedom.’ Balancing either against anything else is a moral violation — but, as luck would have it, the need never arises. If you’re a progressive, you can raise tax rates without discouraging effort, and mandate higher wages without reducing the demand for labor. If you’re a conservative, you can cut taxes without harming essential public services, and roll back regulation without putting anybody at risk. If centrists didn’t always try to be polite, I’d call this aversion to trade-offs infantile.”

Centrism, noted Crook, isn’t automatically good or bad. It can be “pointless and productive, lazy and energetic, timid and brave.” At its best, it may rarely inspire, but, at its best, it has a lot better chance of prolonging the American dream than either party alone.
This is so bizarre. Crook's article is very nuanced, even ideologically pure at times. It's an excellent piece, but it has a radically different agenda and tone than the Friedman usurpation of it.

What Friedman disingenuously leaves out is Crook's caveat to the timschochet-bolded sentence above. Crook's next line, after claiming that centrism is the only respectable position, includes an important qualification. It states that the centrist temperament is what is important, not centrism's ideological underpinnings. In fact, in the next paragraph after the one Friedman quotes, Crook laments ideological inconsistency within our current politics. Not, as Friedman would have you believe, our ability to compromise and hash things out. Crook seems to be arguing for a moderate laissez-faire capitalism mixed with a social liberalism. Libertarianism, really, if one will call it what it is. Crook can call it centrism, but it smacks of a reason article.

Interesting to look at the sourcing and find out what these people are really saying.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Friedman lost me forever by being one of the most loud voices in support of the Iraq war. We even had to invent a whole new term. The Friedman Unit.

http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-history-of-friedman-unit.html

I think it [the invasion of Iraq] was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie.We needed to go over there, basically, um, and um, uh, take out a very big stick right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble, and there was only one way to do it.

What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand?"

You don't think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we're just gonna to let it grow?

Well, Suck. On. This.

Okay.

That, Charlie, was what this war was about. We could've hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. We coulda hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.

VERRRRRY CENTRIST

Flipping war monger. And he's still getting paid and is one of the VERY SERIOUS PEOPLE.
Lots of very smart people were wrong about the war in Iraq.I'm about 99.99% sure at least one of these people will be our next President.

I wasn't wrong about Iraq, but I take no pride in it (mainly because I've been plenty wrong about so many other things.) Does being wrong about Iraq disqualify someone in your eyes so that you'll never listen to that person again? If so, the number of people you listen to is going to be awfully limited...

 
timschochet said:
I like the way Clive Crook, a Bloomberg View columnist, puts it: “Can any self-respecting political thinker any longer be a centrist? I’d say so. For me, the question is how any self-respecting political thinker can be anything else.” How can you have a serious public policy discussion without acknowledging trade-offs? Crook asked. “True believers of right and left organize their ideas around the hope that there aren’t any. For progressives, ‘fairness’ trumps everything; for conservatives, ‘freedom.’ Balancing either against anything else is a moral violation — but, as luck would have it, the need never arises. If you’re a progressive, you can raise tax rates without discouraging effort, and mandate higher wages without reducing the demand for labor. If you’re a conservative, you can cut taxes without harming essential public services, and roll back regulation without putting anybody at risk. If centrists didn’t always try to be polite, I’d call this aversion to trade-offs infantile.”

Centrism, noted Crook, isn’t automatically good or bad. It can be “pointless and productive, lazy and energetic, timid and brave.” At its best, it may rarely inspire, but, at its best, it has a lot better chance of prolonging the American dream than either party alone.
This is so bizarre. Crook's article is very nuanced, even ideologically pure at times. It's an excellent piece, but it has a radically different agenda and tone than the Friedman usurpation of it.

What Friedman disingenuously leaves out is Crook's caveat to the timschochet-bolded sentence above. Crook's next line, after claiming that centrism is the only respectable position, includes an important qualification. It states that the centrist temperament is what is important, not centrism's ideological underpinnings. In fact, in the next paragraph after the one Friedman quotes, Crook laments ideological inconsistency within our current politics. Not, as Friedman would have you believe, our ability to compromise and hash things out. Crook seems to be arguing for a moderate laissez-faire capitalism mixed with a social liberalism. Libertarianism, really, if one will call it what it is. Crook can call it centrism, but it smacks of a reason article.

Interesting to look at the sourcing and find out what these people are really saying.
Is it possible for me to agree and disagree with you at the same time? I read Crook's article too, and also found it an excellent piece, but I don't think Friedman usurps it as you claim here.

And it's not modern libertarianism, which is also extreme, BTW. It's a libertarianism tempered by conditions of reality and emphasis. We've had this discussion before. I would call it a lost brand of libertarianism, and centrism is a suitable enough term for it.

 
timschochet said:
I like the way Clive Crook, a Bloomberg View columnist, puts it: “Can any self-respecting political thinker any longer be a centrist? I’d say so. For me, the question is how any self-respecting political thinker can be anything else.” How can you have a serious public policy discussion without acknowledging trade-offs? Crook asked. “True believers of right and left organize their ideas around the hope that there aren’t any. For progressives, ‘fairness’ trumps everything; for conservatives, ‘freedom.’ Balancing either against anything else is a moral violation — but, as luck would have it, the need never arises. If you’re a progressive, you can raise tax rates without discouraging effort, and mandate higher wages without reducing the demand for labor. If you’re a conservative, you can cut taxes without harming essential public services, and roll back regulation without putting anybody at risk. If centrists didn’t always try to be polite, I’d call this aversion to trade-offs infantile.”

Centrism, noted Crook, isn’t automatically good or bad. It can be “pointless and productive, lazy and energetic, timid and brave.” At its best, it may rarely inspire, but, at its best, it has a lot better chance of prolonging the American dream than either party alone.
This is so bizarre. Crook's article is very nuanced, even ideologically pure at times. It's an excellent piece, but it has a radically different agenda and tone than the Friedman usurpation of it.

What Friedman disingenuously leaves out is Crook's caveat to the timschochet-bolded sentence above. Crook's next line, after claiming that centrism is the only respectable position, includes an important qualification. It states that the centrist temperament is what is important, not centrism's ideological underpinnings. In fact, in the next paragraph after the one Friedman quotes, Crook laments ideological inconsistency within our current politics. Not, as Friedman would have you believe, our ability to compromise and hash things out. Crook seems to be arguing for a moderate laissez-faire capitalism mixed with a social liberalism. Libertarianism, really, if one will call it what it is. Crook can call it centrism, but it smacks of a reason article.

Interesting to look at the sourcing and find out what these people are really saying.
Is it possible for me to agree and disagree with you at the same time? I read Crook's article too, and also found it an excellent piece, but I don't think Friedman usurps it as you claim here.

And it's not modern libertarianism, which is also extreme, BTW. It's a libertarianism tempered by conditions of reality and emphasis. We've had this discussion before. I would call it a lost brand of libertarianism, and centrism is a suitable enough term for it.
It's very possible we can read something in radically different ways, agree with it, and then disagree on its content. I'm not above acknowledging that a reader brings his or her own prejudices to bear on an article and that we can hear what we what to hear.

I simply would note that "usurp" was a strong term on my end -- used in order to make a point about the authority of the secondary source -- and that I still think Friedman missed the overall point of Crook's article, especially when it comes to ideological consistency and compromise. Acknowledging a trade-off is one thing, being a "centrist," and the compromise that the term connotes in a modern American context is another concept entirely. And I think Crook is British and writes for the Financial Times, which makes all of our disagreements reasonable. Across the Atlantic, different words and concepts have wildly different implications over here.

Crook may be a centrist when compared to vulgarities of American politics, but an American centrist? Probably not.

 
Right, once again, easy to say centrism is always right when you define centrism as "what I believe". Libertarianism is in no way "extremism".

 
timschochet said:
Always thoughtful, but this morning's piece states EVERYTHING I have been thinking lately about our current state of politics, but unable to express with such simplicity and eloquence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/opinion/none-of-the-above.html?ref=opinion

I don’t recall a time when more people were running for president and fewer of them offered anything more than poll-tested generalities designed to rally their own bases. No one surprises you with any daring. If we could tax their clichés, we’d balance the budget.

The defeat by House Democrats — with an assist from hard-right House Republicans and praise from Hillary Clinton — of President Obama’s sensible plan to expand Pacific free trade and pair it with worker and environmental protections was a bad sign that many more Democrats are now polarizing toward the populist left. ...

...
On second reading, it sounds like ol' Tommy is not supporting Hillary any more than the others running, due to her crawfishing on the TPP.

Surprising tidbit there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whenever somebody tells me that he or she is a big fan of Thomas Friedman, I make a mental note to disregard their opinions on everything. He's the platonic form of "middlebrow."

 
For example, consider this one:

How is it that we are not deploying a carbon tax and using that to reduce payroll taxes that discourage hiring and shrink corporate taxes that reduce investment? Many economists — left, right and center — agree that a carbon tax, with adjustments for low-income earners, makes a world of sense.
He's right. If you took a poll of economists on this issue, it would probably come down something like 75% or so in favor of exactly what Friedman is describing. Paul Krugman supports this sort of carbon taxation. So does Greg Mankiw. And those guys hate each other. Carbon taxation, with the proceeds going to reduce or eliminate inefficient taxes elsewhere in a revenue-neutral fashion, is a great idea in principle.

But if Friedman really doesn't understand why Congress and the President don't jump at the chance to impose a gigantic new tax with huge redistributive effects that have to be sorted out by making major adjustments to other parts of our tax code simultaneously, then he's not qualified to comment on politics.

 
For example, consider this one:

How is it that we are not deploying a carbon tax and using that to reduce payroll taxes that discourage hiring and shrink corporate taxes that reduce investment? Many economists — left, right and center — agree that a carbon tax, with adjustments for low-income earners, makes a world of sense.
He's right. If you took a poll of economists on this issue, it would probably come down something like 75% or so in favor of exactly what Friedman is describing. Paul Krugman supports this sort of carbon taxation. So does Greg Mankiw. And those guys hate each other. Carbon taxation, with the proceeds going to reduce or eliminate inefficient taxes elsewhere in a revenue-neutral fashion, is a great idea in principle.

But if Friedman really doesn't understand why Congress and the President don't jump at the chance to impose a gigantic new tax with huge redistributive effects that have to be sorted out by making major adjustments to other parts of our tax code simultaneously, then he's not qualified to comment on politics.
I can also see a carbon-tax implemented and NO reduction in payroll taxes, or any taxes for that matter, at all. Basically, they talk a good game to get convince the American people but when the tax monies come rolling in do you really think they would reduce any other taxes?

 
Rich Conway said:
Centrism is great, except when it's not. Sometimes, the "extreme" position is the correct one.
Not being a SA here,just trying to think of an instance when the "extreme" position was enacted and it was the correct choice.Any help?
Reagan cut tax rates by 30 percent...and the economy and revenue recovered (increased by the end of the decade)

He did have to compromise and remove a ton of tax breaks which you could characterize as a tax hike....

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top