[guest post by Dana]

No, it’s not satire. But then again, none of us are Pulitzer prize winners, so perhaps that explains any disbelief at Friedman’s latest wherein he advises President Obama on what is necessary to simultaneously address ISIS and Putin (two peas in a pod in Friedman’s book). According to Friedman, the president must lean in lead from within, lift the ban on our oil exports, and establish a carbon tax to strengthen us and weaken them. Yes, I know.

This sage advice is followed by a psychological assessment of ISIS and Putin by would-be psychiatrist Dr. Friedman as he seeks to explain their atrocious behaviors. Interestingly, and unbelievably, Friedman ascribes a functioning moral code to both ISIS and Putin, and assures us that they are ashamed of their actions. (Hey, if you had experienced the intense levels of humiliation that they have, you would be chopping off heads, too, and seeking to devour your neighbors.) In other words, they can’t help it. At the end of the day, all these guys really want is a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T:

I don’t know what action will be sufficient to roll back both the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, and Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, but I do know what’s necessary. And it’s not “leading from behind,” which didn’t really work for President Obama in Libya, and it isn’t simply leading a lonely and unpopular charge from in front, which certainly didn’t work for President Bush in Iraq. It’s actually reviving America’s greatest strategy: leading from within.

The most effective leadership abroad starts with respect earned from others seeing us commit to doing great and difficult things at home that summon the energy of the whole country — and not just from our military families. That is how America inspires others to action. And the necessary impactful thing that America should do at home now is for the president and Congress to lift our self-imposed ban on U.S. oil exports, which would significantly dent the global high price of crude oil. And combine that with long overdue comprehensive tax reform that finally values our environment and security. That would be a carbon tax that is completely offset by lowering personal income, payroll and corporate taxes. Nothing would make us stronger and Putin and ISIS weaker — all at the same time.

How so? First you need to understand how much Putin and ISIS have in common. For starters, they each like to do their dirtiest work wearing a mask, because deep down, somewhere, they know that what they’re doing is shameful. The ISIS executioner actually wears a hood. Putin lies through his poker face.

Both seem to know that their ideas or influence are unsellable on their merits, so they have to impose them with intimidating force — “convert to puritanical Islam or I will chop your head off,” says ISIS, and “submit to Russia’s sphere of influence or I will invade you and wipe out your regime,” says Putin.

Both are clearly motivated to use force by an intense desire to overcome past humiliations. For Putin, it is the humiliation over Russian weakness that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, which he once described as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century, which left millions of Russian speakers outside the Russian state. And for ISIS, it is how modernity has left so many Arab/Muslim nations behind in the 21st century by all the critical indices of human development: education, economic growth, scientific discoveries, literacy, freedom and women’s empowerment. Preventing Ukrainians from exercising their free will is Putin’s way of showing Russia’s only real strength left: brute force. Beheading defenseless American journalists is ISIS’s way of saying it is as strong as the United States. Both are looking for respect in all the wrong places.

Our enemies count on this sort of muddle headed thinking. Our weaknesses become their strengths.

If you are so moved, you can read the piece in its entirety here.

–Dana

Heh. I think we’ll know in six months whether Thomas Friedman thinks that we’ll know in six months whether the situation in Iraq will ever turn around. (Via Cori Dauber.)

Watch New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman on Howard Kurtz’s show. The hypocrisy I want to highlight is at 5:44:

KURTZ: I’m surprised you haven’t written a column saying what a disappointing year he’s had, and perhaps, expressing any frustration.

FRIEDMAN: You know, I tend to take the long view. I really don’t, you know, I mean, I’ve seen —

KURTZ: But does the country have that benefit?

FRIEDMAN: Well, whether we have the benefit or not, we’re gonna have to [crosstalk]

KURTZ: You’re saying that even if Obama — I don’t think even his fiercest defenders would dispute this — he’s had a lousy year, in terms of not getting bills through Congress, in terms of the health care debacle — that you are trying to look beyond that?

FRIEDMAN: Yeah, I’m not a big scorecard guy, I mean, generally, so, you know . . .

Yeah, Thomas Friedman is not a guy who keeps a scorecard.

For Democrats, that is.

For Republicans? You betcha!

No scorecards here!

I was in a restaurant at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on Sunday, and it had an NCAA basketball game playing on the TV at one end of the bar and the Iraq war on the other. Most people were watching the basketball game — probably because it’s so much easier to keep score. How will we know if we are winning in Iraq?

[Blather follows]

If you see these things happening, you’ll know that the political ends for which this war was launched are being achieved. If you don’t, you’ll know we’re lost in a sandstorm.

Now, I’m not a big scorecard guy, generally, heh heh, you know.

But . . .

The scorecard here is easily read: My anonymous tipster: 1, Friedman: 0.

[guest post by JVW]

From NRO, earlier today:

The Biden administration announced Wednesday that it will extend the existing Covid public-health emergency for another 90 days in response to the latest variant of the virus.

The announcement, which marks the twelfth time the state of emergency has been extended since it was first implemented by President Trump in 2020, preserves a suite of executive-branch powers that have been used to implement longstanding progressive policy goals, such as increases to Medicaid benefits.

You don’t have to be as cynical as I am to start to wonder if Democrats in general and progressive Democrats in particular don’t love the COVID state of emergency as it allows them great latitude to advance lefty aims such as student loan repayment pauses, increasing health benefits, changing voting rules, and a whole host of other programs, some of which are patently illegal, without having to go through that whole pesky legislative process that the totally uncool and out-of-date Constitution requires. This is evocative of that ridiculous gasbag Thomas Friedman’s musing that it would nice to have China’s system of government for a very short period so that we could enact all of the great environmental regulations that would otherwise stand no chance of passing a duly elected legislature, representative of all of the citizens and not just the bureaucrat/media/academic/entertainment consensus that runs today’s Democrat Party.

At least when a villain like Gavin Newsom holds on to emergency power he is doing so at the behest of a supine and frivolous legislative body controlled by his allies, not like the Biden Administration who appears to be working to prevent their political adversaries from carrying out their appointed tasks. I mentioned this in passing on an earlier thread at the end of last year, but the continued abuse of power by the Executive — which didn’t originate with Joe Biden’s Administration but seems to have achieved its maximum effect thanks to them — will likely lead us to articles of impeachment being filed by the House, and I for one will probably find myself supporting his removal from office.

– JVW

[guest post by JVW]

We’ve been kind of hard on New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof over the years, calling him out for his namby-pambysm and his gullibility in service of the progressive narrative, among other sins. At times, however, we have shown him at least some modicum of love when he’s been willing to deviate away from his newspaper’s incessant editorial direction and to challenge the wisdom of some deeply-held leftist beliefs. All in all, I think that Nick Kristof is less of an outright blowhard than his colleague Thomas Friedman, less of a spittle-flecked partisan than his colleague Paul Krugman, less of a smug and sanctimonious scold than his colleague Charles Blow, yet, alas, a little bit (though thankfully just a little) of all three.

But one thing that I did want to salute Mr. Kristof for is his recent decision to follow Teddy Roosevelt’s exhortation not to be the critic but instead be the man in the arena, by announcing his candidacy for governor of his native state of Oregon. At long last, one of the elite opinion makers from big media would descend from his lofty perch at the Indispensable Newspaper in the Greatest City on Planet Earth and deign to lead the citizenry in a far-flung state, albeit one that is achingly progressive. To set aside the snark for a moment, Mr. Kristof, who grew up on his family’s farm, has pledged that a main focus of his would be to bridge the ideological chasm between rural, conservative Eastern Oregon and the western part of the Beaver State which is dominated by the Portland-Salem-Corvallis-Eugene stretch of Interstate 5. Given that the Kristof family farm is located in suburban Portland, it’s not a stretch to imagine the candidate envisions cajoling the rubes in Pendleton and Baker City to adopt big government and woke agenda items, in return for the city sophisticates not making fun of them and maybe agreeing not to kill the timber and mining industries through environmental legislation right away.

Unfortunately for the campaign, Mr. Kristof and his political team appear to have made a big miscalculation:

Shemia Fagan, Oregon’s secretary of state, notified longtime New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof Thursday morning that he was ineligible to become Oregon’s next governor.

Fagan’s office issued a press release after informing Kristof of her decision to reject his filing, citing the fact that “Article V, § 2 of the  Oregon Constitution  requires a candidate for governor to have been a  ‘resident within this state’ for three years before the election. ”

“The rules are the rules and they apply equally to all candidates for office in Oregon,” said Fagan.

Whoopsie. You would think that a guy who was chock-full of policy advice for Presidents, Premiers, Prime Ministers, Popes, Puppets, Paupers, Pirate, Poets, Pawns and Kings (sorry — really got carried away there for a moment) might have ensured that he was indeed eligible to run in the election before resigning from his enviable gig, but I guess the smartest people in the room are forever assuming that they can outmaneuver the local yokels in something as basic as state constitutional law. Mr. Kristof argues that because he has owned property in Oregon for several years and because he visits his place now and again, why, that ought to satisfy any of your provincial old residency requirements. His campaign may yet win out in court, and even if they lose it’s pretty likely that Times Square will accept him back in their good graces, so let’s not worry for a moment that Mr. Kristof will end up in the bread lines any time soon. But if the Kristof Team can’t handle the most basic of rudimentary campaign tasks, what would make anybody think he has what it takes to be chief executive of the state?

– JVW

[guest post by Dana]

Earlier this week, I put up a post wherein Thomas Friedman opined that the terror group ISIS feels shame at what it is doing. I found myself simultaneously unsurprised and yet incredulous that he would ascribe a functioning moral code to a group like ISIS. Because really?

MDinPhilly commented:

Some people just refuse to believe there is such a thing as evil, and such a thing as good.
Maybe they have a deep down and intense desire to refuse to deal with the implications of such moral and spiritual realities.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/9/2014 @ 7:18 am

I agree with this and as such, have been thinking about the reluctance or inability of some to assign a reality of evil in this world. Of course, the reluctance to believe it exists in human form is nothing new. More than sixty years ago, a smart man understood that in order to convince the world of a very real manifestation of pure evil and to prevent any attempts at erasure or denial, it would be necessary to record and visually preserve what had taken place. However, as this new face of evil becomes increasingly defined and personified in its brazenly brutal demonstrated reality, can a tipping point ever be reached that would actually compel the Friedmans of the world to, and without hesitation, acknowledge and agree that there is evil? A shameless, nonredeemable evil that seeks to destroy all who get in its way, an evil from which there is no coming back, no rehabilitation possible, and no want of it either for it does not value life and the currency preferred is death? Perhaps those who soft-pedal evil simply cannot wrap their minds around the breadth and depth of brutality – in spite of visual evidence and confirmation. However, I tend to believe that it’s that their own personal fear that demands any possible declaration of evil be kept at bay, lest it shatter core foundational beliefs that all people are inherently good. And if a dismantling of that core belief happens, what is one left with?

Consider the Catholic, Washington-based Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns and 53 national religious groups trying to persuade the president that military efforts are not the answer to stem the onslaught of ISIS:

“U.S. military action is not the answer. We believe that the way to address the crisis is through long-term investments in supporting inclusive governance and diplomacy, nonviolent resistance, sustainable development, and community-level peace and reconciliation processes.”

Further, presenting bullet points of advisement in the name of Jesus, they claim they want to protect all people, but there are “better, more effective, more healthy and more humanizing ways” to accomplish this:

*Stop U.S. bombing in Iraq “to prevent bloodshed, instability and the accumulation of grievances.”
*Provide “robust humanitarian assistance” to refugees fleeing the violence, “in coordination with the United Nations.”
*Engage with the UN, all Iraqi political and religious leaders, and others in the international community on diplomatic efforts.
*Support community-based nonviolent resistance strategies to transform the conflict and meet the deeper need and grievances of all parties.
*Strengthen financial sanctions against armed actors in the region by working through the UN Security Council.
*Bring in professionally trained unarmed civilian protection organizations.
*An arms embargo on all parties to the conflict.
*Support Iraqi civil society efforts to build peace, reconciliation, and accountability at the community level.

With what I consider a mind-boggling view of human nature, I question if that elusive tipping point would come even if these Friedmans of the world most horribly found themselves with their own necks under the murderous blade of ISIS.

–Dana

[Posted by Karl]

Over the weekend Rep. Paul Ryan reviewed The Price of Civilization, the new book from Jeffrey Sachs, which apparently argues that America needs to adopt Euro-socialist policies, rather than learn from the misery inflicted by the worst of democratic socialism there.  Rather than rehash that debate, I want to focus on the totalitarian and liberal fascist aspects of the book Ryan mentions. 

According to Ryan: “The Constitution imposes too many restrictions on government interference for Mr. Sachs, and we’d be better served if we moved toward a ‘French-style’ constitution that consolidated the executive and legislative branches and empowered experts to help us manage the ‘complexity of our economy.’ ”  Ryan also notes that Sachs echoes the arguments of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the Utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham.  Ryan does not mention that Rousseau’s theory of the general will is the forerunner of modern totalitarianism and Bentham’s idea of Utopia was a prison under his total control.

It is worth noting that Sachs is not considered a fringe character.  He has been named one of TIME magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World” twice and Vanity Fair magazine put him on its list of 100 members of the New Establishment.  Moreover, Sachs is hardly alone in indulging these sorts of thoughts on the left. 

Ed Driscoll collects a few examples.  Gov. Bev Purdue (D-NC) recently suggested “we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover.”  Former Obama budget director Peter Orszag wrote a piece for TNR arguing “we need to jettison the Civics 101 fairy tale about pure representative democracy and instead begin to build a new set of rules and institutions that would make legislative inertia less detrimental to our nation’s long-term health.”  (Ezra Klein’s defense of Orszag shows the disdain for bicameralism or checks and balances you would expect from someone who finds the Constitution too old and confusing to be anything more than a political football.)  Lastly, Driscoll recalls NYT columnist Thomas Friedman’s desire that we be China for a day (a proposal that would likely ensure that we were China for a very long time).  Although Driscoll also found a tantalizing video of Pres. Obama finding tempting the idea of acting on his own, you have to read the NYT to find Obama complaining that it would be so much easier to be the president of China.

But wait… there’s more.  US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) delivers a harangue that could have been titled, “All Your Wealth Are Belong To Us,” and the video goes viral.  The left lapped up a relatively unvarnished argument that the people are slaves to the state.  When Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) was asked “Of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think I deserve to keep?”, there is a reason she did not have an answer.  When Fareed Zakaria pines for the US to adopt a parliamentary system, he is in tune not only with Sachs, but also Woodrow Wilson, who was not a big fan of separated powers or checks and balances.  When a legion of lefty pundits argue that Republican “obstruction” of Obama’s agenda shows that “the system is broken,” they reveal an Orwellian contempt for the system of separated powers our Founders envisioned (and argued for in no less than five of the Federalist Papers) for the protection of our liberties.

This Fall, it seems that liberal fascism is the new black — and it likely will remain in style for the foreseeable future.  After all, progressives think they are losing and black is the color for mourning clothes.

–Karl

The New York Post observes:

Obama is one slow reader.

The commander in chief’s list of beach books for his Martha’s Vineyard vacation includes an environmental best seller that he bragged about reading almost a year ago on the campaign trail.

Obama was so taken with Thomas Friedman’s “Hot, Flat and Crowded” that he quoted it at a rally last September in Flint, Mich., and one media outlet described it as the book that was currently on the then-candidate’s nightstand.

He’s famously smart.

[Posted by Karl]

Steve Kroft asking Pres. Obama whether he is “punch-drunk” on 60 Minutes was fitting capper to a weekend which found spreading skepticism of his agenda and ability to govern.  The skepticism now comes not only from the Right, but also from Obamacons like Kathleen Parker and David Brooks, as well as Frank Rich, Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd and The New York Times editorial board.  Vanity Fair’s Michael Wolff calls Obama a terrible bore and narcissist on the scale of Jimmy Carter.  Memo to Wolff: We seem to get this every 16 years.

Keying off the Obama Administration’s botched handling of retention bonuses paid to employees of the crippled American International Group, the Times of London observes:

It was not just that the White House misread popular outrage at the Wall Street hot-shots rewarded for running their company into the ground; there were rumblings of discontent from a wide range of disillusioned Obama supporters complaining about everything from his lack of support for gays to his plans for a new military “surge” in Afghanistan.

***

Stung by popular anger over the AIG saga, several other Democratic senators have been quietly distancing themselves from the Obama team, suggesting it may have bitten off more than it can chew… Even Peter Orszag, Obama’s budget director, was obliged to concede that the CBO-projected deficits, if accurate, were “ultimately not sustainable”.

Guess what? The CBO estimates likely understate those unsustainable deficits.  That realization buttresses the growing resistance to Obama’s “too much, too soon” left-wing agenda in the general public, though balking Democratic Senators may be sufficient to halt it.  Michael Goodwin has escalated in the span of a week from suspecting Obama is incompetent to calling him “the most radical President of our times, far outside the mainstream of our political philosophy.”  (It is not an either/or proposition.)  Even people like Josh Marshall are fretting that the populist rage Obama tried to harness will destabilize the financial system the government is allegedly trying to salvage.  Thus, it is no wonder the White House is rethinking the AIG bonus tax, even though a rethink will not play well with the fevered masses Obama spent last week trying to court.

As it stands, Obama’s admirers will point to his rather average job approval numbers as evidence that all is well.  However, beneath the surface, independents now give GOP Congressional candidates the edge by 14 points.

Don’t follow leaders; watch the parking meters. You don’t need Bill Ayers to know which way the wind blows.

–Karl

[Guest post by DRJ]

Driver, who comments here on occasion, hosts a blog that covers a wide range of topics: Music, education, politics, and the military. I learned a great deal from a recent entry entitled “On Sheepdogs …” which links to a fascinating Atlantic article by Robert D. Kaplan, “Rereading Vietnam.”

Kaplan is a professor at the US Naval Academy at Annapolis. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman “calls Kaplan among the four ‘most widely read’ authors defining the post-Cold War (along with Francis Fukuyama, Harvard Prof. Samuel Huntington, and Yale Prof. Paul Kennedy).” His Atlantic article is excellent and worth the read. In it, he reflects on the role and attitudes of the professional soldier/warrior by reviewing the books they read and write:

(more…)