A Theory of Everything ("Dumberer" at the NY Times)

New York Times ^ | June 1, 2003 | Thomas L. Friedman

[Oldie]

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.

[Oldie]

Of all the stupid columnists at the NY Times, surely Thomas L. Friedman is the by far the stupidest. He has proven this beyond doubt with his columns over the years

Still, not content to rest on his laurels, his most recent column is among the finest examples of his art.

Here, he actually suggests that 9/11 was tied in with the world populations' desire to have a "vote" (yes he really uses that term here) on how American culture is "seeping" into other cultures.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"[1] The only people who use violence are rogues or nonstate actors with no stakes in the system, such as Osama bin Laden. [2] 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.'

[3] Hence, 9/11."

---

Which is the stupid part? (1), (2) or (3)?

[Admin Moderator]

Please don't change the title of articles. Thank you.

[headsonpikes]

I wonder if there's any chance of American culture seeping into HIS consciousness?

Probably not, to answer my own question.

[Mark Felton]

What I read of the posted part of the article is fairly reasoned.

[Oldie]

The whole context: ... poor Osama didn't get to vote on globalization and on how American culture is seeping ... that's the problem. Boo Hoo

[optimistically_conservative]

Previously posted here: Freidman: A Theory Of Everything

[Lorianne]

The article makes some valid points about resentment towards American cultural and economic dominance. To me, at least the way I read it, he is not "blaming" America, merely pointing out how we are recieved by some factions in the world. Regardless whether it makes sense or not, the resentment is there and it behooves us to realize and acknowledge it.

He is not suggesting we change our culture, indeed such a thing is not possible, its too grand a scale for policy changes. We cannot just say "OK we're going to stop having to be so influential around the globe". Doesn't work like that. Acknowledging that some people hate those who are successful is not saying anything against being successful.

[jpl]

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."

Given that the overwhelming majority of the protestors at Seattle (and most of the other World Bank conferences) are Americans, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"The whole context: ... poor Osama didn't get to vote on globalization and on how American culture is seeping ... that's the problem."

That's not what he said. The claims about Osama were that (a) he has no stake in the system; and (b) he's trying to destabalize rule of the House of Saud and any attack on its patron, the United States, is a means to that end.

[Uncle Miltie]

"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."

To paraphrase: We became exponentially more powerful because of the collapse of the Soviet Union and advent of the Internet.

What a crock. Had the Soviet Union never existed, we would still exactly this powerful due to our freedom and entrepreneurialism. The Soviet's existence and collapse had nothing to do with it.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

So is your answer to my post #2 that NONE of his claims are stupid?

[mushroom]

Once again, I'm confused.

How is it that others eat our burgers, watch our movies, buy our computers, listen to our music, etc. and then complain about our culture taking over theirs? Where's their responsibility in all this?

[Uncle Miltie]

I watched the WTO battle in Seattle from my office window. The vast majority of trouble makers were anarchists from Oregon, communists from Berkely, assorted wacko leftists from Seattle, etc.

I can attest that the vast majority were American English speakers, both serious and violent. The AFL-CIO and the AFSCME were a huge presence.

It seemed a general rant against capitalism and free trade.

[jpl]

It seemed a general rant against capitalism and free trade.

Definitely. The "cultural hegemony" thing is just so much B.S.

[moyden2000]

Excellent article. The US is simply a convenient scapegoat for the failures of others.

Let them whine.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

This just in:

Scientists say that an amazing occurrence has happened in the space-time continuum. The Liberal press and academia has lived in such a created world so far detached from reality that their reality has somehow detached itself from the normal reality that the rest of us have no choice to live in. They are now plummeting through space and time that they have no idea where to find our reality. They may not even know it has happened. This is extremely dangerous to them as their world is full of doom and gloom without hope of recovery. There may be no escape for them. Even if they do return, there will not be any employment for them.

On the other hand, since they have been gone, the stocks are rebounding and there is a sign of peace finally in the middle east. It seems that things are finally looking up. The last thing the real world needs is a pessimist.

[lasereye]

I don't know what the spread of U.S. culture has to do with the Saudi royal family. They have run Saudi Arabia as an Islamic theocracy, largely insulated from western culture. Outside of the Taliban era in Afghanistan, it's probably the purest example of an Islamic nation in history.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

You must have misread the article.

He offers two explanations why foreign resentment of American power has not led to organized military resistence.

He then qualifies his second explanation --Global economic interdependence -- by noting that it doesn't apply to "rogues or nonstate actors with no stakes in the system, such as Osama bin Laden".

He never suggests that Osama is motivated by the spread of US Culture. On the contrary he states that Osama is motivated by a desire to unseat the House of Saud, and his interest in attacking its partron, the United States, is as a means to that end.

Note that an essay with this structure was described as particularly stupid. I find that ironic given the misinterpretations offered here.

[lasereye]

He never suggests that Osama is motivated by the spread of US Culture. On the contrary he states that Osama is motivated by a desire to unseat the House of Saud, and his interest in attacking its partron, the United States, is as a means to that end.

That explanation makes no more sense than if he was doing it to stop the spread of U.S. culture in Saudi Arabia. The 9/11 attacks didn't lead to our dropping support for the Saudi government. Nor would any rational person think they would have. Perhaps Bin Laden's not rational, but then that simply points up the idiocy of the whole Friedman thesis, that we need to soften the world's impression of us as the hegemonic superpower in order to stop future 9/11's.