His motivation is the same as classical liberal internationalists (read imperialists) along “Wilsonian” ideals. His ideal status quo would be the world arrangement right after World War II with a “benign” but powerful America that will lead the world. He would simply like to replace (or add to) Europe and Japan with India and China, because he clearly recognizes the demographic shift in importance (read they will buy more arms from the US. If we don’t sell, someone else will).

He wants the US government to spend on science (NIH, NSF, NASA etc.), compel big business to focus on American interests, intervene abroad militarily or otherwise to promote democracy (read markets for American companies). In other words he wants a nanny American state that will subsidize cost, privatize profit, and be socially liberal. If that means a few governments have to be toppled, and a few corrupt dictatorships supported, hey “grow up, that’s the price of doing business”. He is very clear about it when he talks about the iron fist behind the velvet glove.

This approach relies very heavily on the approval and stability of the American white collar managerial class. A few million educated Indians and Chinese, coupled with free capital mobility, is sufficient to shake up this stability, at least temporarily. So, somehow their interests have to be protected without impinging on corporate freedom. It is a difficult job, and it costs something. So, government intervention is necessary, and people have to be riled up to get it to act without disturbing big business.

Now, if you are a certain variety of patriotic American (I am not talking red state fundamentalists) who believes in America’s image of liberalism, tolerance, a force for good et al, this is very appealing. Especially, if your job is in jeopardy. If you are big business, this is very appealing because it smacks of government subsidies for research and development. If you are part of the emerging jetset in developing economies and seek approval from the West, you feel pretty smug and happy. If you are the Saudi or Pakistani establishment that comes in for lots of criticism, you don’t care anyway because you have US support already.

So, he advances his agenda while being everybody’s friend, and threatening nobody. I’d say, he is one clever son of a bitch, and a very dangerous one. Do not underestimate his ilk.

glad to see i am not alone in my dark little world

http://www.prasnation.com/cinematicrain/?p=597#more-597

this link has a more meaningful denoucement of Friedman’s work. Its a good read.

I agree with you. To use the Titanic example, just because it took all that time ,labour and money to buid the ship, didn’t mean it wasn’t substandard. People found out the hard way. A critical review by no means is an instant ticket to glory, it could be a valid argument to get people to reflect and inspect the issue from an other point of view. Unfortunately critical thinking and free speech these days seem to be oxymorons.

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 1 [...]

As t.k. pointed out, Friedman was an enthusiastic cheerleader of Bush’s illegal war in Iraq. It was that fact that soured my opinion of Friedman. But once again, I repeat, it is my personal opinion and I may be entirely mistaken and Friedman may be one of the most astute observers of our times and he writes absolutely fantastically.

As to Kiran’s comment: funny you should say that. I was about to use a similar analogy. Here is how I was going to put it. Have you ever seen a movie and thought that it sucked? Well, I guess you have. Now your assessment that the movie sucked cannot be countered by saying, “Hey, if you thought that the movie sucked, why don’t you make a movie better than that yourself?” Because otherwise no one can ever be critical of movies unless one is a George Lucas or a Quentin Tarantino or Alfred Hitchcock.

To belabor the point, one does not have to be a star director before one concludes that a particular movie sucked majorly. So also, one can be reasonably dissatisfied with a particular book without being a best-selling author. And just as it is not a crime to be a huge fan of some author, it is also not a crime to be a severe critic as well. It is a free world out there and reasonable people may disagree in their various assessments.

Now take a cheapstake like me who had neither the patience, dedication nor the talent to emulate you. So what is my easiest ticket to ride on your fame – fame that you have rightfully earned after decades in the business? I will “swim against the tide” and write one hell of a parody on your movie – criticizing every aspect of your master piece – giving every scene a twist that makes it sound ridiculous (yes anyone can do that to any movie). Now should someone sit back and laugh at my parody or should they spit on me in disgust? I am sorry but I feel the latter towards this Taibbi character.