|
November 30, 2003PSYCHOBABBLE ALERT: TOM FRIEDMAN'S THERAPEUTIC LIBERALISMTom Friedman is the NYTimes exemplar of contemporary liberal thought, such as it is. "...Moreover, the Bush team is such a partisan, ideological, nonhealing administration that many liberals just want to punch its lights out..." Here we see revealed the mindset of contemporary liberalism. If only the Bush administration took a more “healing” approach to the world’s problems. If only the President did as Tom does and listened to his wife before making policy: “I have great sympathy for where the left is coming from. And if I didn't, my wife would remind me…” Well Tom, your subtle post-modern, multicultural, feminist sensibility may cut it on the upper west side, but in a war to the death with Islamo–fascists, Horsefeathers would prefer a man who doesn’t consult his wife before deciding to kill the enemy. While acknowledging the excesses of the left, Friedman refuses to question the assumptions underlying contemporary liberalism, for after all, liberals are caring, empathic and morally superior. If they lapse from this it must be in response to the harshness of the brutish and moronic conservatives who comprise the Bush administration. Thus Friedman was “entertained” by the vile demonstrations against Pres. Bush in London; he wished there was balance to the criticism; he wished there were signs equating Bush and bin Laden as equal threats to world peace! What a broadminded and tolerant fellow. Does it ever occur to Friedman that instead of railing at the “nonhealing” Bush administration, liberalism ought to examine its own failure to come to grips with the reality of war, of enemies who care not a whit for subtleties of discourse but merely wish to kill the likes of Friedman for being a Jew? Horsefeathers maintains that contemporary liberalism, for all its supposed sophistication and broadmindedness, assumes a naively utopian view of human nature. It overvalues verbal discourse, as represented by Friedman’s readiness to become a mouthpiece for duplicitous Saudi Princes who whispered “peace, peace” in his ear. And it is exemplified by the failure of the entire liberal political establishment to react seriously to a war declared on us by Islamo-fascists on 9-11-2001. Where liberals once took their cue from Lionel Trilling who argued that liberalism, to remain vital, had to engage in self criticism, had to acknowledge basic, harsh truths of human nature, now all criticism is directed outward at the uncaring meanies in the Bush administration. Contemporary liberalism, as exemplified by Friedman, regards a “healing” attitude as more important than subduing our enemies by force. It has devolved into a stance, a pose, and central to that stance is the assumption of superior virtue. Thus the tone Friedman adopts is one of intellectual and moral superiority to his presumed inferiors like Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney. Horsefeathers too has been to upper west side parties where the reigning assumption is exactly this one, and therefore no argument is necessary. The tone is so automatic that Friedman is completely unaware of it, yet it leaks out in his standard pomposities and condescenscion, as in: "the right liberal approach to Iraq is to say: We can do it better. Which is why the sign I most hungered to see in London was, "Thanks, Mr. Bush. We'll take it from here." Apparently the risky work of waging war is to be left to the brutal Mr. Bush and his military, but the truly important therapeutic work of, in Friedman’s words, “partnering with the Arab world to dig it out of the developmental hole..” is too important to leave to such clods. Place to one side for a moment, the fact that it’s not “partnering” with Arab tyrants that’s needed but, rather, regime change. However it’s Friedman’s incredibly arrogant condescension that is so striking. “We can do it better”…“We’ll take it from here” My God! Does Friedman realize that it’s the very liberalism he clings to that demonized our efforts to topple Saddam and change the Middle East? It's the Howard Deans who still argue that we should not have acted but should have continued along the path of talk, talk, talk. These utopians are now to be entrusted with carrying forward our war policies? Their healing efforts were in the great tradition of Neville Chamberlain, and they still wish to “heal” rather than win. Thanks for the offer, Tom, but we have enough trouble with enemies; we can do without friends like you. Posted at 08:02 PM by
 
|
"partnering with the Arab world..."
All we have to do is drop our arms and extend our hands and the Islamic world will love us to death.
Got it.
Posted by: Bernard on November 30, 2003 09:36 PMNo folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant Idealism ( Winston Churchill) Amen.-----John Kennedy is rolling over in his grave seeing whats become of the once proud name of liberalism=Democratic party
Posted by: Vince Leta on November 30, 2003 09:44 PMFriedman's own words:
"Hey, I would have settled for "Bush and Blair Equal Bin Laden and Saddam" — something, anything, that acknowledged that the threats to global peace today weren't just coming from the White House and Downing Street."
I would settle for: "anything that acknowledged that the threats to America are not just coming from Bin Laden and Saddam. They are coming from Friedman and other oafs."
Posted by: Ruth King on December 1, 2003 06:41 AMThe sad thing about Tom Friedman is that he is a bright guy whom I suspect does not even believe half the crap he writes (which makes him intellectually dishonest). He writes as if it is Tom Friedman's world and we all just happen to live in it. He gets his facts correct (most of the time) but comes up with the srangest conclusions. he has far more hatred for the so called "settlers" then he does for the Islamofascist Hamas.
Posted by: Joel on December 1, 2003 09:11 AMWhat the hell happened to Tom Friedman and when did it happen? He wasn't always such a loon.
This is priceless--"...Moreover, the Bush team is such a partisan, ideological, nonhealing administration that many liberals just want to punch its lights out..."
How about other "partisan ideological nonhealing" administrations- Like the PLO, Hamas, the Baathists"
He has the right cure here, he just seriously mis-diagnosed a patient.
When I went on a "fact finding " tour of Israel and the camps his book Beirut to Jerusalem was the only antidote to the lunacy that the Church group I was with was trying to feed me. This was the year before the Gulf War- and I had set off with no idea how infested the Church was with Idiotarianism- my first intro to "we have to understand terrorism"
What happened to Tom?
This is the guy that wrote a proposed settlement for a Palestinian State that 1/ first had to recognize the unconditional right for Israel to exist as a Jewish State, 2/ would be "permanently demilitarized" with Israeli checkpoints at every point of entry- (Absolutely No Third party forces for this) and 3/ would be offered in stages- over five years and cancelled upon any threat to Israel at all! ( this is from the 1990 epilogue of the AnchorBooks edition- and in the current edition. At Amazon you can read it- scan for "charity business" and read pgs. 256-257
Really- what the hell happened to him?
Posted by: Grumpy on December 2, 2003 05:02 AMHe became a NY Times Op-Ed pundit.
Posted by: Stephen on December 2, 2003 05:59 AMThomas Friedman doesn't understand and-- given his age-- likely never will. Liberals have a self-induced learning disability; they have an incapacity to learn from experience. Take the following quote:
"Believe me, being a liberal on every issue other than this war, I have great sympathy for where the left is coming from... It would be a lot easier for the left to engage in a little postwar reconsideration if it saw even an ounce of reflection, contrition or self-criticism coming from the conservatives, such as Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, who drove this war, yet so bungled its aftermath and so misjudged the complexity of postwar Iraq. Moreover, the Bush team is such a partisan, ideological, nonhealing administration that many liberals just want to punch its lights out — which is what the Howard Dean phenomenon is all about."
How does Thomas Friedman know that the war's aftermath was bungled? Because, there were problems? Because, nothing went according to plan? Which plan-- out of hundreds? Because, Bush’s strategy did not survive contact with the enemy? But, strategies always die, and plans always fail. How can he not know this? I know he was told.
The defining characteristic of the Iraqi war is how much went right; how much went according to plan. And the speed at which the country is being put to rights. But, Thomas Friedman sees none of this-- understands none of this. Why? Because he is Liberal and has a self induced learning disability. Because, he is stupid.
I don't usually hand out insults, but it applies here. Let me show you why in another quote, "A man who isn't a liberal at twenty has no heart; a man still a liberal at forty has no head." Mr. Friedman has no head. Why? What's the root cause? Like every Liberal he thinks he can have his cake and eat it too. Like every Liberal he thinks his thoughts and beliefs matter; that he can control events.
The very thing that Thomas Friedman complains about is that conservatives know they can set events into motion and perhaps guide them toward the goal. But, they can't control every twist and turn which results. Why? Because, contact with the enemy changes everything. The enemy gets a vote.
War is like a chess match in that you can't often tell who is winning and losing. A showy move can either help or hurt you. You can lose men and still win the war. Winning wars demands mental flexibility; you must change your actions to respond to how the enemy is changing his. Can you capitalize on the enemy's mistakes? Can you peer through the "fog of War" and ascertain a true picture?
Thomas Friedman has revealed that he can't. He wants fixed fortifications, not flexibility of movement. He hates “give and take.” He wants to fight Sixteenth Century wars and complains when the army insists on Twenty-First Century strategies.
Well. Whoever is leading the fight on the other side in Iraq is fighting like a Liberal; his response is “all show” and “no substance.” It's why the enemy is losing rapidly, and probably doesn't know why. It's because the enemy is fighting this war as though he were a Leftist Journalist-- as though he were Thomas Friedman. Tom, are you sure you are on the right side?
Posted by: Louis Wheeler on December 6, 2003 07:36 PM