“Make Way for the Radical Center” is exactly the sort of headline that suggests a story one might want to skip. But this is a Tom Friedman column (7/24/11), so you know it’s going to be good for…something.
This time around, the jet-setting third party advocate is writing about something called Americans Elect, which Friedman hails as “a viable, centrist, third presidential ticket, elected by an Internet convention.”
“I know it sounds gimmicky,” he writes. Well, yeah.
Also slightly familiar, to anyone who remembers Unity ’08, which was once described as “an Internet-based third party that plans to select its presidential candidate through online voting.” That description came from one Tom Friedman, on June 16, 2006. Or the Tom Friedman of May 3, 2006, who hoped for an internet-based third party that was “big, strategic, centrist and forward-looking.”
This isn’t to say there’s anything wrong with efforts to challenge the two-party system, which certainly limits political expression. But it’s curious that Friedman assumes that the “center” isn’t being adequately represented–or that, more importantly, a truly democratic nominating process would yield a “centrist” ticket. There’s no reason to believe that would happen. Friedman’s candidate would “challenge both parties from the middle”–but why would the people choose such a candidate? And is a third party “financed with some serious hedge-fund money” really a step in the right direction?
One rule Americans Elect has set down: A presidential candidate has to cross the party line to find his or her running mate–as Friedman puts it, “a Democrat must run with a Republican or independent, and a Republican with a Democrat or independent.”
This sounds like… well, something that Tom Friedman would advocate. Which he did, in 2004: “I want to wake up and read that John Kerry just asked John McCain to be his vice president.” Or consider the Tom Friedman who, in 2007, suggested that if Obama were to win the Democratic nomination, he “might want to consider keeping Dick Cheney on as his vice president.” The reason had something to do with Iran policy: “Mr. Obama’s gift for outreach would be so much more effective with a Dick Cheney standing over his right shoulder, quietly pounding a baseball bat into his palm.” Ah, the magic of centrism!
Tom Friedman already has too much influence in our political discussion. Do we really need hedge fund millionaires organizing a third party in order to bring his columns to life?
It’s tempting to not take this schmenge seriously.
Depressingly, and dangerously, many in a position of influence – including his own self – do.
Thomas L. Friedman notes that Americans Elect, his recommended third-party movement, has a rule that its aspiring presidential candidates pick a running mate outside their own party affiliation. Many knowledgeable candidates however, might regard anyone who voted for George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election as insufficiently aware of the major issues to serve in public office.
It was all there to see — the obsessive secrecy, the irresponsible tax breaks, the emasculation of federal regulatory agencies, the torture, the unjustified war, and an ever-expanding fabric of lies in support of unprecedented folly. But the electorate went along with it, so now the Republican Party proudly supports the same irresponsible policies that brought this country to an economic crisis, and in addition, opposes fiscal stimulation and tax increases, the only measures that can bring about a recovery.
Republicans, of course, have every right to express their views and run for office, but to be required to put one of these latter-day know-nothings on the ticket would be self-defeating for a rational candidate of any other party.
Great piece. I admit, Friedman’s column got me interested enough to sign up for Americans Elect. Once I started filling out their mind-numbingly simplistic multiple choice questions, I quickly lost interest. To give you a taste:
“Do you agree or disagree that reducing government spending creates jobs?”
The options were, of course, “Strongly Agree”, “Somewhat Agree”, “Somewhat Disagree”, ” Strongly Disagree”, and “Unsure”.
That’s what I called the death of political nuance, internet style.
Thomas Friedman and his convoluted, laughable metaphors do not deserve a column in the New York Times. He must be very well connected indeed.
Thomas Friedman is a complete joke. There isn’t a bad “convoluted,” as James above says, metaphor he hasn’t met. And his politics are loathsome. He needs to take a long cruise around the world, where he can claim as he always does to have spoken to this local and that local, like he actually knows anything about what he’s talking about. Then he can find a job as an “entrepreneur,” i.e. cab driver, in one of those “developing” countries he spouts out on, and make a living like the rest of the world he preaches to.
Tom F. needs a telescope pointing down to see more clearly the poor people and center politics so far from the millionaire’s lofty perch that he married into.
His incoherent nonsense about business, government and social dynamics adds credence to those who claim the newspaper business is in its death throes.
Tom Friedman is the most puzzling pundit in the New York Times. I stopped reading him some time ago after reading enough of his half-baked ideas.
He was a Pollyanna for the Iraq war, thinking that it could do some good before coming to his senses once it was abundantly clear to him that it had all the hallmarks of an epic quagmire, he has the same sort of wonder at technological solutions to societal problems as Newt Gingrich, and at a time when both the Democratic and Republican parties are on the political Right, he thinks that splitting the difference is what America needs? Besides, the problem with third parties in the U.S. is that they are always the spoiler, and do more harm to the party that is most similar to them than they do to their ideological opponent.
The three ways that I know of which could make a third party viable would be with instant runoff voting, a parliament, or if the two parties move so far to one side of the political spectrum that they left the voters no choice but to vote for a third party. Given the heated partisan rhetoric between the Democrats and Republicans though their policies haven’t been closer in decades, I don’t see any hope for the latter, and while I would love it if America employed either instant runoff voting or a parliament, the chance of that happening is nil.
That’s right, Jeff. There is, right now, no chance for sane things like instant-run-off voting, or just getting the money out of politics. Forget about a parliamentary government, too, though that would be very good for us, I think. There’s nothing wrong with partisan rhetoric–the problem is, there’s the Right-wing lunatics, and the center-right Corporatists of the Democratic party doing all the yelling (and our current President is most certainly a center-right Corporate type). We’re doomed with either of these entities; it will just happen faster with the Bagger-Republicons in charge.
Tom Friedman apparently doesn’t understand what is happening to our government and the critical position we are all in as fascism slowly (or maybe not so slowly) creeps up on us. There is only one way out to change what is happening and that is a very progressive liberal (2 adjectives?) third party that makes the other two look as sick as they are. I wonder if we really need the two parties who have come together as one to continue to rule us so that every normal person finally begins to see what is actually happening here? Currently there is no reason to vote either Democratic or Republican as whatever differences there are don’t amount to anything important. The time has come for the lesser of two evils type of voting to cease and until a real progressive party becomes the third option, we should all refrain from voting for the traditional candidates who neither represent any kind of real change nor do they give a damn about we the people. For them, it’s just we the government, we the rich, we the powerful, we the industrialists, etc., etc.
That’s so true, Roger. It’s time to opt out–I’m told that if I don’t support Obama, a Republicon President will put another right wing nutzoid freak on the Supreme court, and we’ll be doomed. I noticed some time ago that the Democrats continually take a step or two back every time the Cons step over the line in the sand. Until we stop playing this game of Retreat With The Democrats, we’ll never get anywhere. In poll after pll overwhelming majorities of Americans say they want a government and leaders that would give the Social Democracies in Europe a real run for their money. Universal health care, high taxes on the rich and Corporations, a strong and fair regulatory state . . . all these things we overwhelmingly want, but won’t get, until we opt out of the two party regime. The biggest obstacles? Our lousy, sycophantic press (as we read about daily here at FAIR), and scare-mongering by the parties in power. It’s going to take a long time, but it can be done, one step at a time. Me? I’m done playing the game, and will be sitting out the Presidential vote in 2012.
Tim i have never seen any poll or indication that Americans want a socialist tainted “social democracy”like the sinking ships of Europe. Although Germany has some up sides(having nothing to do with socialism)the rest are trying to retrofit away from that as we speak. Someday the socialism summer in Europe will be seen for what it was.PAID FOR BY AMERICA! Paying their defense costs alone allowed them to be…. EUROPE!When you say we all want universal healthcare…high taxes on the rich….a strong fed(regulatory state,) it really is easy to see where you are going.It’s a la la land.A nanny state.The government takes from those who are the stupid worker bees, to support everyone else.It takes over our lives for the betterment of all. Philosophically we could argue all day the idea. Economically we only have to remember two things. Socialisms problem is sooner or later you run out of other peoples money. Europe has run out of our money …. and theirs . And any government given massive powers like you seem to want over its population ,will invariably abuse those powers.As certain as day follows night.It is like wishing on a star.I wish everyone was taken care of and we were all divvied out the exact same swill in this life so all would be fare.Tim that is probably well meaning but……..Well i will just leave it at BUT
Actually i do have one more thought.In this socialist perfect world of yours, why would anyone in his right mind complete high school,college,med school, residency,specialization….. horrible hours, and pressure when I could philosophically get the same outcome going fishing everyday? Unless you believe some people are just mindless worker bees who would pound forward with or without any profit motive.Or should we all work in a kabutz situation?For the greater good?No Tim i would be fishing. All day everyday. Probably right next to you.
The genius of “the middle position” comforts us with its big-boy, grown-up, moderate sense of fairness and reasonability:
If one side says it’s a sunny day, and the other side says it’s raining cats & dogs, then the truth must be that it’s a little drizzly. We don’t even need to look outside! Doing so would constitute observation, and observation is part of scientific methodology; and we all know that science can’t find answers to anything!
Praise be the corporate media for ignoring facts and stridently keeping us focused on what matters: treating “both sides” as equals, no matter what.