Thomas Friedman, I suppose, thinks of himself as a moderate. Maybe like Matt Miller from KCRW’s Left,Right, and Center who advocates for “radcial centricism” (or something like that). This species of thinking imagines that the “left” and “right” can only be correct up to a point. Hence, the one good path towards progress must, by definition, be some thing “in between.” Friedman, especially, excels at taking what seem like irreconcilable differences and with his wise words, turn them into new consensuses that if only the irrationally passionate partisans of left and right would accept would lead us into a shiny tomorrow.
Friedman’s recent op-ed in the New York Times is a classic. He argues that the great debate of our times is over “which capitalism?” instead of “which -ism?” Fair enough. In this context, he defines “American Capitalism” as- that’s right- the perfectly moderate mix of opposites, of public and private. I suppose that European “safety-net” socialism is unbalanced by inference from his argument.
To regain our American mojo we need to rebalance public and private. Hence, he calls for a series of “grand compromises.” Between cutting the federal budget and raising taxes. Between paying for “nursery schools and nursing homes.” (Nice line). Between labor and management. Between environmentalists and extractive industries. And so on. Between Dogs and Cats. Yankees and Red Sox. No, not the last two.
I find this seductive. Yes, let us come together and find common ground. What a story: can we not have politicians who can use language, influence, guile, and all their dark arts to bring these differing parties to Friedman’s round table of Grand Compromises? I want to be in that story!
But I am afraid it is a fairy tale. Continue reading