Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Freidonia

Friedman's basic premise, widely shared I'm afraid, is weirdly tautological and self-begging--society exists in order to create government, whose purpose, "governance" is to create the type of society that will endow itself with good government. The most fundamental block of a Thomas Friedman column is a statement to the effect that we need a government that will make it possible for X to Y. Look at today's column. Its central premise is that American society needs to have a better government in order that the government can better American society. It's like a fucking Escher drawing, without the comforting rot and bad reggae of a dorm room to mellow the harsh.

14 comments:

Justin said...

"The radical center is “radical” in its desire for a radical departure from politics as usual. It advocates: raising taxes to close our budgetary shortfalls, but doing so with a spirit of equity and social justice; guaranteeing that every American is covered by health insurance, but with market reforms to really bring down costs; legally expanding immigration to attract more job-creators to America’s shores; increasing corporate tax credits for research and lowering corporate taxes if companies will move more manufacturing jobs back onshore; investing more in our public schools, while insisting on rising national education standards and greater accountability for teachers, principals and parents; massively investing in clean energy, including nuclear, while allowing more offshore drilling in the transition."

As usual with Friedman, the tautology runs in parallels. Take his definition of radical centrist positions - how are they centrist? They are, after all, completely off the spectrum of left and right politicians, they are centrist because TF wants them and TF is a centrist, radically so.

Moloch-Agonistes said...

I don't think it's necessarily question-begging. Only if the aocial prerequisite for creating good government (the input) is identical to the good government that will result (the output). Or put another way, if f y(x) is identical to x.

Thomas Friedman is not, um, a deep thinker, but your formulation isn't really his unspoken premise. For rhetorical effect you're treating "good" as if it were a discrete article in the real world rather than a measure or continuum. He's saying that one set of conditions has to be fulfilled in order for the state to function in the way he wants, and another set of conditions that it will fulfill if this is accomplished. Both of these may be hazy and badly formulated, and the project unappealing, but it doesn't strike me as tautological. To the extent that one can make any rational sense of his gibberings at all it is more in the vicinity of a classic bootstrap problem.

zencomix said...

It's like an Ouroboros, except instead of swallowing his own tail, he's swallowing corporate cock.

Moloch-Agonistes said...

well then it isn't like an ouroboros at all, is it? i rest my case.

NutellaonToast said...

you make a strong case for totalitarianism, there.

Anonymous said...

"That is why I want my own Tea Party. I want a Tea Party of the radical center. Say what?"

Genius!

the talking dog said...

My definition of broken is simple. It is a system in which Republicans will be voted out for doing the right thing (raising taxes when needed) and Democrats will be voted out for doing the right thing (cutting services when needed). When your political system punishes lawmakers for the doing the right things, it is broken. That is why we need political innovation that takes America’s disempowered radical center and enables it to act in proportion to its true size, unconstrained by the two parties, interest groups and orthodoxies that have tied our politics in knots.

That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing.

Enron said...

"But the president had to postpone trips, buy off companies and cut every conceivable side deal to just barely make it happen, without a single Republican vote." I think it was the other way around. Also, what the hell is a democracy expert?

Anonymous said...

Enron: A democracy expert is a person Friedman knows, who works at a think-tank, and whose job is to ignore the beam in the American eye while describing down to the last atom the mote in the Iranian/Palestinian/Russian eye.

Anonymous said...

Friedman clearly lives on another planet; the strange gravity and harsh landscape is almost too much to stand.

TGGP said...

The complete negation of Friedman's view would then be the rejection of both government and society, perhaps going beyond anarchism to an extreme "apocalyptic imperative" form of antinatalism.

George Jones said...

That must be exhausting.

Anonymous said...

@tggp

1.
But then, where would Monsieur find the art prospie-freshmen with their nice faces that he so absolutely adores to decorate?

2.
The soliloqui of Hamlet, bitches. Don't need to turn one the most straightforward issues we face into in headache inducing phylospeak.

That's just lazy.


3. And to my rudimentary understanding antinatalism looks like another man-as-god angle. Didn't Nietzche exhaust the niche?

Capt'n Obvious

augustus818 said...

"How best to promote these hybrid ideas? Break the oligopoly of our two-party system."

Friedman, what could be more radically mainstream center than what is essentially a Red vs. Blue, frat party, gang-bang on crystal meth?

I'm willing to overlook my hypocrisy for a moment and vote for whoever is going to nail Freidman's mouth shut once and for all. He sucks at writing, just like he sucks at life.