SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
thomas friedman
Elon Musk, Taylor Swift, Antony Blinken, China, and the Idiocy of Tom Friedman
What the venerated NYT columnist saw in Beijing and what he didn't learn.
Jan 01, 2025
Thomas Friedman probably thought he was being clever when he titled his most recent article How Elon Musk and Taylor Swift Can Resolve U.S.-China Relations. It’s a headline meant to catch your attention– appealing to the Swifties, who think Taylor can save the world, the Musketeers, who are certain Elon can save the world, and, of course, their anti-fans who follow their every move with just as much zeal, and perhaps even more. It was the New York Times version of clickbait, because why bother with solid journalism when you can piggyback off the success of billionaires?
It was clickable, but it was hardly readable.
Friedman starts his piece off with a kernel of truth, just enough to shock the regular NYT’s readers who are very rarely fed a positive bit of news about China:
“I just spent a week in Beijing and Shanghai, meeting with Chinese officials, economists and entrepreneurs, and let me get right to the point: While we were sleeping China took a great leap forward in high-tech manufacturing of everything.”
Nobody that knows anything about China can argue with that, though a majority of Americans certainly still view the far-away country through the lens of Soviet communism and rural backwardness. The correlation is that the majority of Americans know nothing about China, have never been, and will never go.
He then goes on to express how Donald Trump’s tariffs and anti-China rhetoric jump-started China’s manufacturing prowess, mentioning how Trump’s name on Chinese social media is “Chuan Jiaguo” meaning “Nation Builder.”
Friedman’s general lack of understanding about China was a let down. But mostly I was disappointed because the title had me anticipating a much different read—something with a bit of creativity, and maybe even an original thought.
No. It was not Donald Trump that ushered in China’s “Sputnik moment,” as quoted by business consultant Jim McGregor. Trump is merely an amusement to China’s general public—a strange American enigma whose hard lines are overshadowed by unexpected candor and comical behavior. For China, the last 40 years has been a continuous Sputnik moment—from the elimination of extreme poverty to unprecedented shift to renewable energy, China has been on the rise, and Donald Trump has never been the yeast making that happen.
And then comes the meat of Friedman’s theory, what he calls the “Elon Musk-Taylor Swift paradigm.” Instead of suddenly raising US tariffs against China, which will lead us into a kind of supply-chain warfare that benefits nobody, Friedman suggest a gradual rise in tariffs, that would allow the US to “buy time to lift up more Elon Musks” which he describes as “more homegrown manufacturers who can make big stuff so we can export more to the world and import less,” as well as give China more time to “let in more Taylor Swifts” which are “more opportunities for its youth to spend money on entertainment and consumer goods made abroad.”
Friedman isn’t wrong about the idiocy of a US-China trade war, but his prognosis is tone-deaf, and very clearly the result of a Western capitalist tormented by the concept of zero-sum competition:
“It’s important to the world that China continues to be able to give its 1.4 billion people a better life — but it cannot be at the expense of everyone else.”
He does, unsurprisingly, make the Soviet comparison:
But if we don’t use this time to respond to China the way we did to the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik, the world’s first artificial satellite, with our own comprehensive scientific, innovative and industrial push, we will be toast.”
Toast! Don’t we all collectively like toast?
He talks of the dangers of China’s rising economic dominance. How China “owns the future” because it is the main producer of Electric Vehicles. How China is domestically self-sufficient. How China will soon account for nearly half of all global manufacturing. How all of China’s gains will be everyone else’s loss. How China is going to export robot-run factories to other countries, and thereby steal labor opportunities— as if the West hasn’t exported their own factories and exploited impoverished communities for cheap labor over decades.
“But here’s what’s scary: We no longer make that many things China wants to buy. It can do almost everything at least cheaper and often better.”
That must be incredibly scary to the average American who would rather pay a few bucks for a Temu version of an item rather than shell out tens of dollars for anything made by local businesses. It’s not their fault. The U.S. is incredibly unaffordable and the government does not seem to care.
At the same time, Friedman criticizes the lack of consumption within China:
“If I were drawing a picture of China’s economy today as a person, it would have an awesome manufacturing upper body — like Popeye, still eating spinach — with consuming legs resembling thin little sticks.”
It is the fate of a capitalist to view nonconsumption as a societal malady rather than a sign of good health. The truth is those that consume less have other more nourishing and sustainable ways to fill their souls. At a time when consumerism and overspending are contributing to the destruction of the planet, this is a rather thoughtless point to make. Imagine if society applauded community-building rather than the pointless expenditure of money to temporarily fill a gaping emptiness left by a lack of community and an overemphasis on hyperindividualism? It is very American to look for quick solutions rather than address the root cause.
To his credit, Friedman does state the importance of China providing for its 1.4 billion population, but it is a mere drop of humility that does little to balance the western self-righteousness. He does not comment on the fact that China’s population is greater than the US and Europe combined. Neither does he comment on the West’s own role in exporting labor for cheaper prices— because a capitalist system is run on greed, and wherever a buck can be saved, you bet it will be. Even at the expense of the people.
Friedman suggests that China should “let their people have more of the supply.” Apparently, they want to buy more stuff from us. Stuff that Friedman claims they are being starved of under the rule of the Communist Party of China. Things like art and entertainment. Majors in gender studies and sociology.
“Its youth need more outlets for creative expression — without having to worry that a song lyric they write could land them in prison.”
I have doubts that Friedman ever ventured out to a concert in Shanghai, let alone listened to some of China’s latest indie music. Culture is something that China definitely does not lack, and to make that claim is so wildly misguided that I question whether he has any understanding of China at all. One merely has to take a walk along the riverside in literally any city, and they will be bombarded by musicians, performers, and an impressive amount of outdoor public karaoke. There are as many artists as there are consumers of art, and indeed, a fair share of students pursuing the humanities.
He concludes:
“In sum, America needs to tighten up, but China needs to loosen up. Which is why my hat is off to Secretary of State Antony Blinken for showing China the way forward.”
What did Antony Blinken do that was so impressive? He stopped at a record store in China and bought a Taylor Swift album.
Maybe, just maybe, Friedman is just one giant Swiftie. But more likely, he threw the article together with a preschool level understanding of the WTO, and an opinion that almost sounds like an opinion, but doesn’t really say much of anything when you give it a thought.
I would have been more impressed if Friedman suggested sticking Elon Musk and his federal spending chopping block DOGE on the over-bloated Department of Defense, and booking Taylor Swift a highly-publicized multi-city tour around China.
The only difference between sudden tariffs and gradual tariffs is time—and what will time do? In our 4-year system, time is as fickle as our word. Either way, China will still be pioneering the green energy revolution, selling affordable EVs and renewable energy equipment around the globe while the United States, as the NYT Beijing bureau chief Keith Bradsher says, will “become the new Cuba—the place where you visit to see old gas-guzzling cars that you drive yourself.”
And if the US continues its threatened posture around anything coming from China—including green energy tech—the world will continue to heat up, and we will all face the consequences.
Friedman’s general lack of understanding about China was a let down. But mostly I was disappointed because the title had me anticipating a much different read—something with a bit of creativity, and maybe even an original thought.
I would have been more impressed if Friedman suggested sticking Elon Musk and his federal spending chopping block DOGE on the over-bloated Department of Defense, and booking Taylor Swift a highly-publicized multi-city tour around China. Send Blinken along with her, if he’s such a big fan, and have him venture outside of his strict China perimeter to meet, talk with locals, and experience a version of China that he never would in his fancy hotel rooms and secure government buildings. Maybe then he would form an opinion based on his own experiences rather than the lines he memorized over the course of his typical Ivy League education, and the subsequent falling-in-place that one must do to become the Secretary of State of the United States. A selling out of the soul, if you will.
And maybe the well being of the people—of all people—would be considered for once, rather than the flimsy monetary aspirations of the already-wealthy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Outrage over Bigotry, Islamophobia in Wall Street Journal & New York Times
'These outlets should apologize publicly & diversify their staff & perspectives to meet their ethical and moral obligations as journalists.'
Feb 04, 2024
The nation's leading newspapers were under fire this weekend after publishing opinion pieces seen as "Bigoted," "Islamophobic," "Racist," and "Reckless."
A Wall Street Journal opinion piece published on Friday afternoon read 'Welcome to Dearborn, America's Jihad Capital.'
And on Saturday, The New York Times published a piece by long-time columnist Thomas Friedman titled "Understanding the Middle East Through the Animal Kingdom."
Dearborn, Michigan, a city with the largest Muslim population in the US, has increased its police presence, fearing hate attacks after the Wall Street Journal branded it America's 'jihad capital.'
The Islamaphobic article was written by Steven Stalinsky, who is a commentator on' terrorism' and has served as executive director of the pro-Israel Middle East Media Research Institute based in Washington, DC.
The mayor of Dearborn, Abdullah H. Hammoud, said Saturday that the city's police officers were ramping up their presence across places of worship and major infrastructure points following the publication of Stalinsky's piece that he called "bigoted" and "Islamophobic." The Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee condemned the piece as anti-Arab and racist for suggesting the city's residents, including religious leaders and politicians, supported Palestinian Islamist group Hamas and extremism.
In response to the Wall Street Journal piece, President Joe Biden tweeted Sunday afternoon:
"Americans know that blaming a group of people based on the words of a small few is wrong. That’s exactly what can lead to Islamophobia and anti-Arab hate, and it shouldn’t happen to the residents of Dearborn – or any American town. We must continue to condemn hate in all forms."
Shortly after Biden's tweet went out, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer tweeted:
"Dearborn is a vibrant community full of Michiganders who contribute day in and day out to our state. Islamophobia and all forms of hate have no place in Michigan, or anywhere. Period."
Friedman's piece in the New York Times entitled, "Understanding the Middle East Through the Animal Kingdom," posited Iran as a metaphorical "parasitoid wasp" with proxies in Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria as caterpillars. Friedman claimed, "We have no counterstrategy that safely and efficiently kills the wasp without setting fire to the whole jungle," suggesting that the US militarily destroys the entire Middle East to annihilate Iran and its allies. He concluded that he could "contemplate" the Middle East by watching Animal Planet.
Abed A. Ayoub, Executive Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, tweeted:
"Go ahead and say this about any other people and see the reaction - @tomfriedman would be fired before the ink dries. This election season kickoff is a reminder that anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia are mainstream. That’s why this trash is acceptable to so many, and there will be no accountability."
Erin Overby, former Archive Editor at The New Yorker, tweeted:
"This @nytimes column by Thomas Friedman comparing countries in the Middle East to animals, pests & insects is so virulently racist it could have run in Der Sturmer or on Radio Rwanda pre-‘94 genocide. It’s appallingly offensive & Friedman should be fired."
2 reasons why antisemitism is on the rise:\n\n1. Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people.\n2. Zionists like Thomas Friedman & Steven Stalinsky who opine Jews as ethnically superior to Arabs.\n\nThis is why we say Not In Our Name. We must end the genocide now.— (@)
Keep ReadingShow Less
Thomas Friedman Is Wrong (Again) on Who Failed Peace in Israel/Palestine
It was US and Israeli policies that sunk any hope for a stable and secure Palestinian state as they intentionally sabotaged economic progress in the West Bank and Gaza.
Jan 08, 2024
Last week, the New York Times carried a lengthy Tom Friedman article, “What Is Happening to Our World.” In it, Friedman makes the claim that Hamas could have turned Gaza into Dubai if only they had made the right choices in 2005. I hold no brief for Hamas. Their suicidal policies have brought terrible pain to Palestinians, but Friedman’s argument, which I’ve heard others make, is so fanciful and ahistorical that it must be rebutted.
The reasons for the Palestinian Territories’ lack of development go back 10 years before the fateful elections of 2005 that brought Hamas to power. I know because I was there and watched this disaster unfolding in real time. While Palestinians were not without fault, it is cruel to blame them for Israeli policies that deliberately strangled the Palestinian economy and the failure of the US to take effective measures to counter them.
From 1993 to 1996, I co-chaired a project, Builders for Peace, launched by Vice President Gore to promote U.S. investment in the Occupied Territories. In that capacity, I chaired the session on the Palestinian economy at the 1994 Casablanca Economic Summit and traveled to the region with Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown. And on several occasions, I led delegations of U.S. business leaders to the West Bank and Gaza to promote business partnerships that would spur economic development.
We were motivated by a World Bank study that observed that the Palestinian private sector in the territories could be the engine for growth if they could secure investment and had the opportunity to freely engage in trade with the outside world. We knew, as Vice President Gore noted, that expanding economic opportunities wouldn’t bring peace, but that without these opportunities achieving peace would be impossible.
Our initial delegation visits gave us hope. Prominent US businesses were impressed with the Palestinian businessmen they met, and some deals were struck. In the months that followed, it became clear that the Israelis were unwilling to allow Palestinians or their US partners to import raw materials or export finished products without Israeli control or an Israeli middleman. As a result, the deals we had lined up collapsed.
The problem ran deeper. One day I received a call from an official at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. There was a shipment of 50,000 flower bulbs the U.S. had tried to get into Gaza. The bulbs sat awaiting Israeli clearance for so long that they rotted. Israel didn’t want competition for its own flower exports. The Agriculture Department had enough funds for another shipment of bulbs but didn’t want to risk the expenditure if the result would be the same.
In frustration, in 1995, I wrote a lengthy memo to President Clinton. I also testified with a number of my colleagues from BfP before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee detailing the Israeli impediments to investment and economic growth in Palestinian lands.
In my letter and testimony, I noted that the situation—less than two years after Oslo—had become dire. Israel’s closure of Palestinian lands and imposition of internal checkpoints across the West Bank following Baruch Goldstein’s massacre of Muslims in the mosque in Hebron had taken a toll in Palestinian support for peace. Settlements were growing, as was Palestinian unemployment. In the West Bank unemployment was over one-third of the workforce, while in Gaza it had reached a staggering 62%.
Specifically citing Gaza, I noted:
Despite promises from the international community, not a single job-creating infrastructure project has begun. Open sewage remains a serious health hazard. Instead of real progress, Palestinians got observers, studies, pledges, and unfulfilled promises, and blame.
Young Palestinians want nothing more than to have a job, live a meaningful life, raise a family and see them prosper. Their anger is the product of despair—born of fear and frustration that they have no future. If peace is to survive, we must attack this crisis with all the resources and capabilities we have to show Palestinians that the promise of peace can be realized.
Our asks were straightforward: that the Palestinian private sector be able to secure investments; that Israel be pressured to allow Palestinian businesses to import and export with the outside world; and that international donor funds be directed to job-creating projects. One of my BfP Jewish colleagues noted that the onus was on the US and Israel, not the Palestinians, to make these happen.
While President Clinton and the Senators expressed support, our recommendation that Israel be pressured to let go of the reins and allow Palestinians to breathe and grow was rejected by the administration’s “peace team.” They argued that any pressure on Israel would impede their negotiating efforts.
All this happened in the 1990s, not 2005. In a real sense, Hamas didn’t create the mess; they inherited and preyed off of the despair that was left to them by Israel’s suffocating control and US neglect and acquiescence. Hamas handled it badly, to be sure, but the reason why Gaza didn’t become Singapore, which is what Yasser Arafat had set as his North Star, or Dubai, had less to do with Hamas’ choices and more to do with those who failed Palestinians and peace.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular