Tom Friedman's most recent column is the #1 most e-mailed story on the NYT website. Tragically, though, I fear that most of those who have e-mailed it approve of his words wholeheartedly. It's not that that I disagree with his most important conclusion:
My fellow Americans: We are a country in debt and in decline — not terminal, not irreversible, but in decline. Our political system seems incapable of producing long-range answers to big problems or big opportunities. We are the ones who need a better-functioning democracy — more than the Iraqis and Afghans. We are the ones in need of nation-building. It is our political system that is not working.
I continue to be appalled at the gap between what is clearly going to be the next great global industry — renewable energy and clean power — and the inability of Congress and the administration to put in place the bold policies we need to ensure that America leads that industry.
My problem is is that Friedman absolutely misses the point on why his conclusion is correct:
I do not believe nation-building in Iraq is going to be the issue come November — whether things get better there or worse. If they get better, we’ll ignore Iraq more; if they get worse, the next president will be under pressure to get out quicker. I think nation-building in America is going to be the issue.
The central problem here is that Friedman is at best glossing over the relationship between the war in Iraq and our economic problems -- and our energy security problems. These are not problems that can be compartmentalized; Iraq is not an irrelevancy.
Not only are we spending in the range of $150 billion per year on the Iraq war (the Senate just passed a $162 billion funding package for both Iraq and Afghanistan), but we've also severely diminished our international prestige and influence. We've also deprived our country of the men and women we need to help protect against natural disasters, whether its Hurricane Katrina, or flooding in Iowa.
Barack Obama has articulated this relationship clearly, though the media has not reported on it. How many news reports told Americans that shortly before John McCain announced $300 million prize for a better battery, Barack Obama proposed a $150 billion plan to invest in R&D for alternative energy sources, the cost of one year in Iraq? How many news reports told Americans that one week before John McCain proposed additional offshore drilling, Barack Obama proposed a $60 billion plan for infrastructure development right here in the United States, including a more secure power transmission grid? And how many were told that Obama's plan is funded by asking Iraq to use its oil wealth to fund its own reconstruction, instead of having U.S. taxpayers continue footing the bill?
So as much as I may agree with Friedman's conclusions, I can't agree with how he got there, and how he got there is important, because it's how we all got here, where we are now.
:: ::
(Edit: I moved these paragraphs lower down in the post as they are somewhat tangential.) As an aside, Friedman also makes an absurd assertions about Obama's running mate:
Just a few months ago, the consensus view was that Barack Obama would need to choose a hard-core national-security type as his vice presidential running mate to compensate for his lack of foreign policy experience and that John McCain would need a running mate who was young and sprightly to compensate for his age. Come August, though, I predict both men will be looking for a financial wizard as their running mates to help them steer America out of what could become a serious economic tailspin.
There was no such consensus, except perhaps amongst a certain class of pundits. Moreover, Obama has clearly demonstrated superior judgment to McCain on Iraq, Afghanistan, and host of other national security issues. Picking someone like Friedman describes would be destroy Obama's claim to superior judgment, and for that reason alone he was never going to do it.
© Jed Lewison