Tom Friedman: The Voice Of The American Establishment

CounterPunch
May 13, 2005

The Nobility of Slaughter
Tom Friedman, the Imperial Chronicler
By MIKE WHITNEY

Tom Friedman is the most popular columnist in the United States. He's also the voice of the American establishment. From his perch at the CFR (Council of Foreign Relations) he delivers his affable-sounding polemics; spreading a gospel of free markets and endless war. His many accolades, including a stockpile of Pulitzer prizes, attest to his ability to convert the self-serving doctrine of personal accumulation into the highest form of personal virtue.

Friedman is forever the casual acquaintance, the man on the street, whispering a friendly word of advice to his readers. The world according to Tom is getting "flatter" all the time. This is his snappy, non-threatening expression for globalization. Friedman is the foremost pitch-man for the new economic paradigm; ignoring the tens of thousands of high-paying American jobs that have fled the country and the withering blow that outsourcing has delivered to the middle-class. He carefully avoids the details of how the neoliberal agenda has crushed third world nations with its austerity measures; privatizing resources, deregulating business and compromising national sovereignty. Instead, he champions the dismal results as a sign of emergent democracy.

"For globalism to work," Friedman avers, "America cannot be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is...The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist--McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonald-Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps." (NYTs March 28, 1999)

It's doubtful that anyone has ever written a more succinct defense of American militarism. Friedman's analysis casually mixes Machiavelli with Adam Smith; producing a poignant description of how the real world operates. Behind the illusion of "free markets" and globalization the same coercive, "hidden fist" is guiding events. For all his "folksiness", Friedman's world view is no different than that of George Bush.

Friedman's unbridled support for the war can be best summarized in his own words: "The war in Iraq is the most important liberal, revolutionary US democracy- building project since the Marshall Plan. It is one of the noblest things this country has ever attempted abroad." (New York Times)


http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney05132005.html

I know why things are as they are, but it still never ceases to amaze me that I know children who can more rationally analyze foriegn policy than some people who get payed handsomely to do it.

He disgusts me.

Paul Krugman is a million times his superior.

Dobbs called him a "Free market Evangelist" and it was not a compliment, Dobb's voice was dripping with contempt.

This is really incredible:

"Friedman's unbridled support for the war can be best summarized in his own words: "The war in Iraq is the most important liberal, revolutionary US democracy- building project since the Marshall Plan. It is one of the noblest things this country has ever attempted abroad." (New York Times)"

1600 Americans are dead for his noble thing. 100,000 Iraqis are dead for his noble thing. This miserable POS ought have an M16 thrust into his hands and made to stand a post, or walk a patrol in beautiful downtown Baghdad(without proper body armor, as others in his noble thing have had to do).
The New York Times should be forced to suspend operations, if for nothing else, for raging dishonesty. Jeff Gerth still draws a pay check there. Judith Miller still draws a pay check there.
According to Okrent, the plagiarizer was an evil man, but Judith Miller and Jeff Gerth don't even draw dishonorable mention.

Let's see how noble he is when his own life is on the line. Chickenhawk piece of shit.

:puke:

He could use a horse whipping or two.

He never mentions the other side to his arguments which easily refute everything he claims.

Like Condi Rice and the rest, he is still living in the Reagan era.

Tom Freidman is nothing but a pimp for the establishment. These bastards all pat each other on the back and expect us to do the same. They pretend to be passionate about their writings, but are just yes men/women for the establishment. Mr. Freidman likes to pretend he is an intellectual but his analysis, opinions and reasoning are too simplistic. Writers that are permanently obsessed with "America's place in the world" are no better than religious intellectuals who refuse to think beyond a certain point. Finally, compassion is one quality that people like Mr. Freidman absolutely lack. But, given the idiotic crowd that read enjoy his articles, one cannot blame him.

Primarily because it's one that ignores the pain to the middle class in the form of lost jobs and income, the devaluation of college degrees and the overwhelming benefit to the super-rich that pocket the dollars saved rather than create jobs with it.

but from what I have read I don't remember him being pro-offshoring. He seems more to be sounding a warning that the world is becoming more competitive and American kids need to learn more Math and Science to stay ahead. He is describing it as a reality of the emerging world we live in.

He bought into all of the utter booooolshite Indian execs sold him - "Americans better wake up and smell the coffee - innovate or die." "Free Markets" "Devote your lives to your work as we have". Also, to say that the problem rests solely on American schools and lack of motivation to learn math and science (using, in other words, the tired Repuke "blame the worker" canard) is silly and short-sighted. This ignores the fact that these people have universities, just like we do (they can even use ours). They have the same knowledge as we do. They can attain any degree that we can, and their numbers are far greater. They're only remarkable for their cost. They aren't more talented. They don't work harder. They're simply cheaper. Don't let anyone sell you a line of free market CEO horseshit - this is a zero-sum game all the way, and we will never be the winners.

More on the Friedman Offshore Cheerleading stupidity:

In previous columns and in his new book about globalisation, free trade (and, implicitly, offshore outsourcing of American jobs,) Friedman celebrates the movement of industrial and high technology work out of the United States to nations such as India and China. He considers this situation a "win-win" for Americans but he can't point to "21st-century jobs" created in the U.S. for Americans as a consequence of offshore outsourcing. (Sorry Tom, the growing number of low-skilled and low-paying nontradeable services jobs in the U.S. economy are not the "21st-century" jobs you imagine.)

Months ago, while writing from India, Friedman noted well-known "American" corporate branded products in use by Indian companies and employees engaged in doing work once performed in the U.S. by American workers. Based upon the simple appearance of some familiar brand names on the products in evidence, Friedman announced in triumph that "American products" were being consumed by Indians - a "win" for American workers.

The truth that Friedman forgot to share or was to ignorant to discern is that the only thing "American" about the products was their brand names; the computers and bottled water used by the Indian offshore workers were likewise made offshore with foreign labor. (Even the "innovative" and "knowledge age" development of the products is increasingly done offshore by non-Americans.)

(snip)

Sadly, or perhaps inevitably, Friedman fails to either acknowledge or comprehend the fact that the very outsourcing and "free trade" policies he has breathlessly praised are at the core of why Americans cannot compete for the "21st century jobs". The "flattening" of which Friedman speaks is the result of political action -- laws which have enabled American corporations to simultaneously move work offshore while continuing to sell goods and services produced by foreign workers in the U.S. market without restriction. Businesses are able to offshore jobs and pay Third World wages while continuing to sell the goods and services at "American prices".

more . . .

...... don't seem to be such bad ideas. I have met many foreign math and science students in biology and science classes at more than one college. Many of them were harder working than a lot of American students in the same classes. I don't want to stereotype but foreign students are serious competition. Globalization is a large issue and I don't think one post can do any justice to the topic. Putting all corporate interests aside, the world is getting smaller (or flatter as friedman says) for a lot of reasons, the internet, satellites, air travel, etc. Policy is just a part of it. Whether we like it or not Americans are going to have to learn to compete in a changing world. India and China are growing and becoming much more sophisticated and in the future, whether we like it or not, are going to be serious economic competitors.

Yeah, devote your life to your work. Wow, have I been missing the boat. I mean really, who NEEDS stupid things like family, hobbies, sunlight, vacations, friends, sleep, weekends, etc? Stress? Ulcers? Depression? Feelings of hopelessness? Take some PILLS and SACK UP!! This economy isn't going to sell itself, you know!! Fat rich old bastards need money, and any time you spend for yourself is money you're taking away from THEM!!

Policy is the very reason we won't be ABLE to compete.

Seriously, would YOU go into a field or enter a start-up where the potential is great that you wouldn't be able to get an entry level position that pays a reasonable, survivable wage because all of those jobs are being given to overseas/L-1 applicants? I know I'd be staying the hell away from that field - bills can't pay themselves, you know, and a CIS degree is kind of useless when you're stocking shelves.

Tell me, Mr. free marketer, how's Joe Sixpack going to innovate his way out of this mess? What new services, patents, products, etc is Average Joe going to provide that isn't already being thought up in a corporate lab/think tank somewhere in Bangalore? Does Jack Cubicleslave have access to a million-dollar-+ home R&D facility?

Where does his funding come from? VCs aren't making the same dot-bomb mistakes they made in the 90s. Naturally, start-ups thrive in placess like India and China; they're relatively low-cost places to do business, America isn't. Corporate greed is the cause of that.

What OUR are new 21st century careers? Hate to break it to you, but these careers are going to require training. YEARS of training, not months. I need to know NOW what they are and make sure they're stayin' put for a while . . . at least until corporate America ships THAT overseas as well. Until you have something better than the mediocre-paying service industry (like Davy Dreier stupidly espoused in that report of his), you're pretty much buyin' into a gamble.

You're completely missing the point - competition has absolutely NOTHING to do with this problem. If that were the chief reason, why are so many IT/Telecom professionals either out of work or leaving the field entirely? It's all about COST. They're cheap. We're expensive. Well, not really, since the average American income has only risen $2,000 in real dollars since 1970 and we work 80 hours longer. $15-20k per year is a king's ransom over there. Here, it's poverty, even in Arkansas.

- which means create/improve on something new. Innovation is inherently difficult to predict (you just have to keep studying and stay on top of the game). History is filled with emerging technologies the bulk of the population missed. It's a fast changing world and you seem to want a guarantee I can't provide. Somehow Americans have been able to readapt and reeducate themselves up until now. I mentioned in my previous post you cant do the entire topic justice in one post and right now I don't have the time to write an entire book. Let me ask you a question, 3/4s of your post is an article from another website, are you the original author?

My first post on Friedman was an observation he made about foreigners and I happen to to have made the same observation at colleges I have been too. What do you want refuted? I have stated a basic observation, it's not a viewpoint (again, I dont want to stereotype, there are many many smart Americans, yet the foreign students I have met are very hard working and intelligent, of that I have no doubt). I understand ceo's send jobs overseas because it's cheaper, that doesn't change the basic long term picture though. If they are growing and evolving (other countries) they are going to be competitors anyway because they are smart, period. Since you have such a thorough understanding of the topic, mr.smart guy, what's you solution to outsourcing? If company A makes and sells a product for $100 and his competitor company B sends a factory overseas and makes the same product and sells it here for $50, what am I suppose to do? Tell my neighbor to buy the $100 product because it is American? Tell me, honestly, I dont want Americans to lose their jobs but everybody wants to shop at Walmart where it is cheaper. You seem so absolutely sure you have the answer, what is it?

In order to expand on a little on what I meant by innovate, I realize when I reread what I wrote above I didn't get my full thought across. What I mean by inherently difficult and unpredictable is that someone invents technology A and the fruits of that invention leads to B. One industry gives rise to another in a hard to forsee way, hence it is hard to setup a precise road map to the future. Not to mention the innovation itself may produce new economic benefits and changes the game. The intervention of the internet is not only good for microsoft and the programmer who gets paid to write browsers but its helps businesses that use it in a myriad of ways. There is a cascade of benefits. The company that comes up with a cheap fuel cell not only benefits the engineers who gets paid but society in general in a great way. Even when foreign technology workers are brought in with L-1s by American companies it can still be a net benefit to the American economy because they create things that benefit us all. I am not totally defending the practice, it just seems like it's not a nice neat cut and dry scenario.

Ideally, the first thing that should happen would be for US CEO's to . . . and I'm just spitballing here, stop being so damned GREEDY, but since that's never going to happen -

* Stop giving tax incentives to corporations to move jobs/companies abroad.

* Make it illegal for venture capitalists to be allowed to tell start-ups who they're required to hire.

* Push forward legislation that technologies developed by taxpayer-funded research (as virtually everything is) can be licensed only to American companies using local labor for, say, 10 years.

* Organize. Why there are so few labor unions for white collar workers is beyond me completely. I know there's WashTech or AEA, but there needs to be more.

* Keep the caps on H1-b/L1 visas.

* Bring manufacturing back to the US in lower-cost areas. A weak nation is one that has no solid manufacturing base.

* Decide that companies with a large percentage of their workforce located overseas no longer qualify for lucrative "American-only" federal contracts.

* You start more pro-worker legislation and curb offshoring sharply, it will encourage more collegiate entries into the science and math fields. Common Sense 101: You can't expect kids to take up a career field when you're not giving them a single incentive (i.e. offshoring tech jobs, R&D, etc) to do so.

* Stop electing pro-corporate, anti-small-business, anti-employee and anti-union dickheads like the ones currently polluting the Blight House and Congress.

The Bush administration, however, isn't doing a damned thing to stop this practice. To add insult to injury, it is pushing to expand trade treaties under terms that will make it even easier for CEOs to get even richer by shipping more jobs overseas.

I also don't buy the canard of "retraining" since it doesn't often work in the real world. Increased globalization has reduced the lag time between the initial development of new technologies and the offshoring of most related jobs. It took more than 50 years between the invention of the automobile and the outsourcing of car production to low-wage countries. But even if American labs produce breakthroughs in new fields such as nano- and biotech, the vast majority of work -- both technical and production -- will likely be sent abroad quickly. No amount of training will help us when those jobs leave the country.

If politicians know that retraining can't work, why do they continue to promote it? Easy: It gets the public off their backs. Instead of blaming the government, or the corporations that have eliminated so many jobs, the logic of "retraining" is to blame the victim. If you're out of work, don't complain. Just buck up and take responsibility for getting the skills you need. Ownership society truly does mean "You're on your own". If economists, industry pundits and financial analysts cannot point to a single industry that's creating a great deal of jobs and is sustainable for the time being, how is the average American worker expected to know?

I mean, what's left? Are we all going to have to become genome researchers or some other elaborate uber-career that takes over half a decade to train for? What do you tell the people who only have the mental capacity for blue-collar work? College isn't for everyone, you know.

It's amzing how simple you can make an issue once you have removed all those complicated "facts..."

But I had never read this before, and I am still trying to force down my gorge:

"The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist--McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonald-Douglas, the designer of the F-15."

Simpy unfuckingbelievable.

"The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist..."

Most neocons (and apologists) wouldn't come right out and say it like that.

It's one of the most nakedly revealing comments about "neoliberalism" and "globalization" that I have ever read.

Any of those brown people down there in those poor countries who dare resist the rule of American corporations should be bombed back to the stone-age so that they learn to be good little sweat-shop workers. That's his message, pure and simple.

:puke:

"America cannot be afraid to act like the almighty superpower ... "

I don't want globalism to work. If it works, we can kiss the middle classes of the various "developed" countries goodbye and say hello to a new dark age of technofeudalism.

And if everything is "global," why refer to "America." We should now call our military the Earth Army, the Earth Navy, Earth Air Force, etc.

It is bizarre that people who are being laid off and forced into a lowered "globalism"-based standard of living can still be brainwashed with "nationalistic" sloganeering. At what point do the dumbed-down masses figure it out? It is not in their interest to cooperate with the Friedmans on any issue at any level.

My prediction is that most of them never will. The good thing is that most of them will never read Thomas Friedman's impenetrable prose either.