One thing Thomas Friedman demonstrates over and over is that you don't need to know much to be an expert. Take today's column (New York Times, 4/13/11), which is based around a contrast between the European wave of democratization in 1989 and the current "Arab spring":
Think about the 1989 democracy wave in Europe. In Europe, virtually every state was like Germany, a homogenous nation, except Yugoslavia. The Arab world is exactly the opposite. There, virtually every state is like Yugoslavia–except Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco.
That is to say, in Europe, when the iron fist of Communism was removed, the big, largely homogenous states, with traditions of civil society, were able to move relatively quickly and stably to more self-government–except Yugoslavia, a multiethnic, multireligious country that exploded into pieces.
In the Arab world, almost all these countries are Yugoslavia-like assemblages of ethnic, religious and tribal groups put together by colonial powers–except Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco, which have big homogeneous majorities. So when you take the lid off these countries, you potentially unleash not civil society but civil war.
Does Friedman remember 1989? Not just Yugoslavia, but also the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia ended up dividing along ethnic lines. In fact, of the 20 formerly Communist nations of Eastern Europe, only five–Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Albania–are not the result of these ethnic splits. And the countries that remain are far from homogeneous, either ethnically or religiously: Latvia is only 59 percent Latvian, Ukraine is 78 percent Ukrainian, Russia is 80 percent Russian, Moldova is 78 percent Moldovan (and involved in a secession battle with the other 22 percent). And so on. (I get these figures from the CIA World Fact Book–handily available online for use by columnists and media critics alike!) Even Germany, which is Friedman's model of homogeneity, is just 92 percent German.
As an example of the lack of homogeneity of the Middle East, Friedman cites Saudi Arabia as being 90 percent Sunni and 10 percent Shi'ite Muslim. Compare that with supposedly monolithic Bulgaria–83 percent Bulgarian Orthodox, 12 percent Muslim. Or, for that matter, with Egypt, which Friedman says had an easy transition from authoritarianism because it's an exception to the region's multiculturalism–yet has a Christian Coptic minority that makes up 9 percent of the population.
Friedman starts off his column with an anecdote about an Egyptian hotel worker who, when she finds out he works for the New York Times, asks him, "Are we going to be OK?" I'd advise her to ask the next guest who checks in at random–she's almost certainly going to an opinion that's at least as well-informed.
Corrected: Replaced a "Christian" that should have been "Muslim."


[...] [adv search] « Tom Friedman: Being a Columnist Means Never Having to Say You Researched [...]
Jim, I'd add that being a corpress columnist also means never having to swear fealty to the facts.
It makes making your perverse points so much simpler, doesn't it?
He didn't mean those things to be factual statements, he was just making a point (â¸Â®).
As Martin Malia and others have explained with regard to the former Soviet republics, almost all of them had "minorities of their citizens in other republics, and minorities of neighboring ethnic groups within their own borders". And that was the "divide-and-rule" Soviet policy, applied not only in the Caucasus, but in the Baltic and other states as well, completed by deportations of local populations and settlements of Russian citizens in their stead for the purpose of diluting homogeneity. As for unleashing civil war, does he not remember Nagorno-Karabakh?
[...] http://www.fair.org/blog/2011/04/13/tom-friedman-being-a-columnist-means-never-having-to-say-you-res… . [...]
Does anyone know the percentages in the USA?
Or Canada?
[...] yesterday's New York Times (5/25/11), columnist Tom Friedman issues yet another call for Palestinians to practice non-violence: May I suggest a Tahrir Square [...]
[...] Thomas Friedman's column today (7/27/11) is a great example of this. Aside from what sounds like a call for a series of Tom Friedman impersonation festivals (i.e., "a series of hearings under the heading: 'What world are we living in?'"), what he's asking for is basically just what Obama's done: For starters, two years ago Congress and the Obama administration would have collaborated on a series of hearings…. Then we would have put together "The National Commission for 21st Century America."… We then sit down with a blank sheet of paper and say, "OK, given our current fiscal predicament, where should we cut spending and where must we raise new tax revenues so that we can bring our government back to solvency and, at the same time, reinvigorate our formula for growth and success."… [...]
[...] York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is doing what he does best–traveling the world. In today's column (3/28/12) he finds [...]
[...] The recent New Yorker piece by Ryan Lizza about the development of Barack Obama's foreign policy includes this memorable line: Obama had always read widely, and now he was determined to get a deeper education. He read popular books on foreign affairs by Fareed Zakaria and Thomas Friedman. [...]
[...] York Times columnist Tom Friedman is, for reasons that remain entirely unclear, considered a wise man in elite media circles. His [...]
[...] York Times columnist Tom Friedman is, for reasons that remain entirely unclear, considered a wise man in elite media circles. His [...]