Freidman: A Theory Of Everything

As President Bush meets other world leaders this weekend, and tries to patch things up between America and the rest of the planet, I find myself looking back and asking: What's been going on here? After 9/11 people wondered, "Why do they hate us?" speaking of the Muslim world. After the Iraq war debate, the question has grown into, "Why does everybody else hate us?"

I've sketched out my own answer, which I modestly call "A Brief Theory of Everything." I offer it here, even more briefly, in hopes that people will write in with comments or catcalls so I can continue to refine it, turn it into a quick book and pay my daughter's college tuition. Here goes:

During the 1990's, America became exponentially more powerful — economically, militarily and technologically — than any other country in the world, if not in history. Broadly speaking, this was because the collapse of the Soviet empire, and the alternative to free-market capitalism, coincided with the Internet-technology revolution in America. The net effect was that U.S. power, culture and economic ideas about how society should be organized became so dominant (a dominance magnified through globalization) that America began to touch people's lives around the planet — "more than their own governments," as a Pakistani diplomat once said to me. Yes, we began to touch people's lives — directly or indirectly — more than their own governments.

As people realized this, they began to organize against it in a very inchoate manner. The first manifestation of that was the 1999 Seattle protest, which triggered a global movement. Seattle had its idiot side, but what the serious protesters there were saying was: "You, America, are now touching my life more than my own government. You are touching it by how your culture seeps into mine, by how your technologies are speeding up change in all aspects of my life, and by how your economic rules have been `imposed' on me. I want to have a vote on how your power is exercised, because it's a force now shaping my life."

Why didn't nations organize militarily against the U.S.? Michael Mandelbaum, author of "The Ideas That Conquered the World," answers: "One prominent international relations school — the realists — argues that when a hegemonic power, such as America, emerges in the global system other countries will naturally gang up against it. But because the world basically understands that America is a benign hegemon, the ganging up does not take the shape of warfare. Instead, it is an effort to Gulliverize America, an attempt to tie it down, using the rules of the World Trade Organization or U.N. — and in so doing demanding a vote on how American power is used."

There is another reason for this nonmilitary response. America's emergence as the hyperpower is happening in the age of globalization, when economies have become so intertwined that China, Russia, France or any other rivals cannot hit the U.S. without wrecking their own economies.

The only people who use violence are rogues or nonstate actors with no stakes in the system, such as Osama bin Laden. Basically, he is in a civil war with the Saudi ruling family. But, he says to himself, "The Saudi rulers are insignificant. To destroy them you have to hit the hegemonic power that props them up — America."

Hence, 9/11. This is where the story really gets interesting. Because suddenly, Puff the Magic Dragon — a benign U.S. hegemon touching everyone economically and culturally — turns into Godzilla, a wounded, angry, raging beast touching people militarily. Now, people become really frightened of us, a mood reinforced by the Bush team's unilateralism. With one swipe of our paw we smash the Taliban. Then we turn to Iraq. Then the rest of the world says, "Holy cow! Now we really want a vote over how your power is used." That is what the whole Iraq debate was about. People understood Iraq was a war of choice that would affect them, so they wanted to be part of the choosing. We said, sorry, you don't pay, you don't play.

"Where we are now," says Nayan Chanda, publications director at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization (whose Web site yaleglobal .yale.edu is full of valuable nuggets), "is that you have this sullen anger out in the world at America. Because people realize they are not going to get a vote over American power, they cannot do anything about it, but they will be affected by it."

Finding a stable way to manage this situation will be critical to managing America's relations with the rest of the globe. Any ideas? Let's hear 'em: thfrie@nytimes.com.

Rock on, Ozzies. Love you guys. I hope no-one sees my posts as a criticism of America as a whole. As someone who is patriotically Australian I believe that America is still the greatest nation on earth>

God Bless

Mel

Honestly though, that's not what people fear from American culture, and most people who say that are among the few in their nations uttering such statements.

Ask yourself THIS question: Why does a Muslim "conservative" fear American culture? Is it because of porn, or is it because women might become equal partners in society? Is it gangsta rap or the idea that a theocratic system of government will not hold up with Americanized youth?

Why do youth in Iran embrace America? Because of porn? LOL I don't think so. Why did Burmese rebels cheer for the fall of Saddam? Because they know that America was taking down a dictator and wish that we'd help them. They were realistic that we won't, but they appreciated the meaning of our actions.

Even Hollywood movies are not ALL junk. After all, Gladiator successfully transmitted ideas like loyalty and honor to millions of viewers. M. Night Shyalaman makes movies about faith and finding your place in this world.

Yes, a lot is junk. But to overlook the APPEAL of American culture and merely pick out the horrid aspects(really, isn't American porn far more tame than German anyway?) is to completely ignore the appeal of freedom, creativity and the importance of the individual.

For every Britney Spears there's a modest Michelle Branch. For every Don Simpson-type producer there's a sincere artist or defender of liberty.

I know - I agree with you. It was the first book I had really read about the Middle East and the crisis there, and it left a deep impression - I think because I went through the learning process with him, as it were. He and I both started by knowing very little, and by the end of the book I felt I had learned what he had learned and gone through the experiences with him.

I remember, I stayed up nights to read it and took it to school with me. It was very intriguing. The writing style was perfect and it kept me hooked. Almost like a novel; but not quite. Difficult to explain.

Friedman is foolishly determined not to see that it was America's objective, set by the Reagan administration, to be totally dominant militarily in order to win the cold War, that placed the US so far beyond the USSR and, naturally, all the other countries. Friedman will underestimate military might every day of the week and twice on Sunday. He pretends that it is only a question of choice by other countries as to why we arent challenged militarily. This is nonesense.

Damn straight we are benign. But Friedman also wants to underestimate this hegemonic fact about the US. We are the greatest force for good in the world. Strong and reliable. Despite all our errors that make us less strong than we could be,[eg. indulgence of illegal invasion of our borders], we are the strongest and the best. American goodness is not something Friedman wants to admit.

Mainly this is because he believes American exceptionalism is naive. Au contraire, it is the truth.

Gee. Isn't the stuff on censorship an ammendment to the original constitution. I could be wrong there. You might want to look at the intention and spirit of your constitution as well - I am quite sure that the Founding Fathers intended it more so that free speech would not be supressed. They would all have a collective heart attack if they could see what successive generations have done to the Constitution and in the name of it. or are you really trying to tell me they would have been all for porno. Once again I would point out that I am only being critical of your pop culture. You might want to get a firm grasp on what that means before you stand so shoulder to shoulder witht the porn industry. Ha ha loved the bit about comparing me to the Saudis that was really useful.

Try answering the rest of my post. BTW did I advocate changing laws. It's not the conservatives that are changing the laws but rather the Liberals who are either having them changed or reinterpretted by the Supreme Court.

:)Mel

Melsec wrote: Once again I would point out that I am only being critical of your pop culture.

And once again I will point out that it's our pop culture and we're not forcing it down your throats, you're importing and consuming it voluntarily.

Consequently if it's giving you heartburn that's your problem not ours.

I agree with the majority of what you have said and once again you really need to have a look at what is pop culture and what is the ture heart of American culture and where that comes from.

Why did Muslims fear American culture - because of the moral force behind it. Why have many gone from fear to loathing and hate because they do see America as morally bankrupt (I am not saying I agree with that). The fundy Muslims mistakenly beleived that what they saw and heard through American pop culture was a true representation of what Amercia had become.

I am able to compare the level of vulgarity of American v's German porn.:)

I find it very interesting that this nytimes columunist is soliciting opinions with an email address.

The problem with Friedman and this Yalie's words, are that the same can be said about most of the leftist or typical democrats in the US. The criticism hasn't been from without. The world's view of the US, has originated from the leftists inside the US, like Friedman.

The US can't and won't maintain this dominance. Simply because it is too expensive. Empires always collapse under the weight of the bureaucratic/military infrastructure needed to maintain their far flung holdings and interests. Probably the closest parallel to the current US position would be Spain during the 1500's. With the Aztec gold pouring in to their coffers, the Spanish kings were, for a time, the wealthiest and most influential people in Europe. The Spanish dubloon became sort of an internation currency for a time, and Spain maintained a huge armada to protect its interests. But the expense of this influence drained away the hoardes of gold, and within the century, Spain was reduced to a second rate used-to-be.

I never said you were forcing it down my throat and yes it is our problem. I also never suggested at any stage that it was empirialistic. But I see you would rather blindly hold on to some notion that everything is good as long as it's free and that all things are good as long as we can proclaim ourselves unfettered from Government inteference.

Mel

That wouldn't be an issue if the government weren't so damn wasteful. And if we didn't have loads of entitlement programs. Cut THOSE out, leave the Constitutional functions of the federal government in and the US would never find worry over fiscal difficulties with the military.

Melsec wrote: I never said you were forcing it down my throat and yes it is our problem. I also never suggested at any stage that it was empirialistic. But I see you would rather blindly hold on to some notion that everything is good as long as it's free and that all things are good as long as we can proclaim ourselves unfettered from Government inteference.

Mostly I've just had a belly-full of foreigners lapping up American institutions like candy and then ragging on us for the perceived harm that those institutions are doing to their culture.

So when that happens my response is beginning to be "CENSORED you and the horse you rode in on!"

Yes, I've just read that medicare/soc.sec liabilites are projected to top 44 Trillion $ as the boomers start to retire. For a comparison, the total US Fed debt is about 7 Trillion $. Just how the Feds expect to get the money to pay for this, I don't know. My guess is they will try to float more bonds to cover this, but where will the money come from to buy all these bonds? It will take very high interest rates to coax enough money into such a large offering. A better guess is that they will do a combination move: cut entitlements/raise taxes/print money. Either way, we will end up like the 16th century Spanish. Bankruptred into poverty. And all the hand wringing by the Fed Reserve about Deflation...

Thanks for the spirited debate, I really enjoyed it. I do not agree with you but thank God we both live in countries where we can express our opinions without too much fear. I am glad you stuck to your guns and kept coming back at me I am sure it is good iron for keeping our senses sharp.

Must go and actually do some work - that's what they're paying me for!

All the best,

Mel

I will check back later so if you want to get a final word in - "give it to me baby" (pop culture quote LOL).

Hmm sounds more like a giant revolt will occur, wherein the young will kill the old.

Reminds me of the Star Trek episode where once people turned 60 on a certain planet(or was it 50?) they had to submit to ritual suicide to prevent themselves from becoming a burden on society.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.