Although some may be upset by this column of Thomas Friedman, this observer - agreeing with this one - thinks there might be some truth to what Friedman says. Ron Beasley summarizes my view quite well: a country doesn’t need a “common enemy” as much as it needs a “common purpose.” This doesn’t mean that Western countries shouldn’t fight against Muslim fundamentalism, extremism (not the same) and terrorism, but it does mean that we’ve got to stand for more than that, and that we must do more that merely fighting.
Especially in America, I find it quite interesting to see that frontrunners continue to focus completely on terrorism. Terrorism is an important issue, yes, but there’s more to politics than that. My guess is that this is one of the major reasons that people like Ron Paul receive quite some passionate support. People are - in the long run - less passionate about a common enemy than they are about a common purpose. Give them a purpose in life and people suddenly find themselves and have more energy than you every suspected.
The politicians in America today have to learn this lesson (again): for now, they seem to believe that ‘the war on terrorism’ is a major inspiration and that they can hammer on it time and again (and be elected and have a passionate and united country). Sadly, that’s not the case. Even with regards to the war on terrorism, leaders should be wise to emphasize time and again that you’re not acting out of fear, but out of ideals (and self defense). That you’re not acting because you fear another terrorist attacks as much as you’re acting to spread the ideas of liberty, equality for the law, and human rights.
But even that isn’t nor should it be enough for the average voter. Voters need their leaders to ‘feed’ them. They’ve got to feel inspired by their leaders. “If it was up to me, we’d double Guantanamo Bay” may sound nice to some, but it inspires no one. Such an approach may result in victory in the short run, but in the long run it only makes people less passionate about politics (so they’ll stop voting) and about their country in general.
Yes, Ronald Reagan talked about communism in a certain way, but he didn’t won because of what he said about fighting the Soviet Union, he won because he had a vision for America. He didn’t inspire people by calling the Soviet Union the “evil empire,” he inspired people by his message of less government, personal responsibility, a better and growing economy, more freedom for business owners and those who work hard to make a profit, the American Dream. That’s what made him win.
More at Jules Crittenden’s place, Thomas P.M. Barnett’s place, Conservative Belle and the All Spin Zone. For more views, go to Memeorandum.
9/12 has made Thomas Friedman Stupid–Presenting h
The only requirement for winning this award is to have made the stupidest or most asinine comments or publication in the previous week. You have earned it Thomas Friedman, congratulations.
Excellent post. Very well said.
“People are - in the long run - less passionate about a common enemy than they are about a common purpose. ”
Tom has lost his edge of reason after Iraq. He supported that war and instead of maintaining that support, which was morally sound, he submiteed to the preposterous demand from some loud mouth Lefties that he show proper “recantation”. This article is in the spirit of that penance he is required to pay.
The fact is a common purpose is the cause why a common enemy emerges from time to time. However, the common purpose is not always clear to some people. Thus, when some claim that it is the very freedoms and rights of people in the West (the common purpose) that are endangered by the Islamists (the common enemy), they are dismissed as warmongerers.
noganote: umh - I’m right-of-center for Americans, and downright conservative in the Netherlands and quite hawkish in regards to foreign policy matters.
No, you’ve got to come up with something else to dismiss what I say .
No, it’s what do you emphasize? Do you emphasize the “they want to hurt us” or do you emphasize the “this is my ideal for America”?
To say, we fight against them because we believe in liberty and they don’t and want to kill us because we’re not Muslims, is nót giving people a common purpose. Just “we savior liberty! we value democracy!” isn’t a purpose. Look at Reagan or a Thatcher, or a Sarkozy for purpose.
Tom Friedman urged that we viciously attack Iraq to teach the world a lesson about how powerful we are. Well, the world learned that the best military in the world cannot win a war that makes no sense and which is led by perhaps the most corrupt leaders to which we have ever subjected our precious nation. The loss of prestige, money, power, influence, and moral purpose will be felt for decades to come–and decades only if we are lucky. Tom Friedman had a big hand in that blind, corrupt, childish, wrongheaded, and evil set of actions.
The war in Iraq occurred for a number of reasons, some of them are still valid and some of them have proved invalid over time.
Tom Friedman is a sort of litmus-test on the prevailing winds, and I agree with the commenter above in that he is being urged to recant more vigorously by his NYT Overlords and their camp followers.
But REALPOLITIK is something that is more inflexible than the wavering support/opposition of chattering-class slackers from NYC [which was pro-British in the Revolutionary War and anti-war in the Civil War & nearly always wrong in its affections and affectations.
Friedman knows he’ll never get another Pulitzer from the CSoJ Politburo if he doesn’t assume the position & take his medicine from the Upper West Siders.
In the meantime, serious people can still consider 911 as a sort of religious version of Pearl Harbor, and I as an Arabist & former Middle East FSO, believe that even though Iraq is a mistake, we are dealing with a shame culture & not a guilt culture. They will see any sign of compromise as a defeat for us, believe me, and redouble their efforts on all fronts to turn the Middle East into a Wahhabi Salafi redoubt.
Which would actually be good in the long run, if they seek to humiliate us further. There is still a large majority of Americans who may think Iraq is a failure, but who would redouble our own efforts were an Iraqi submission turn into a religious war on the USA.
The Middle East is the story of the Scorpion & the Frog, endlessly repeated.
I’d like to second that, since everyone else wants to talk about Tom Friedman.
But I’m not sure what common purpose would motivate the vast majority of Americans. We’re such a large and diverse population, I’m not sure there is any one issue which would unite nearly everyone.
I’m confused here. You’re saying that, even though we’re right smack in the middle of a global war, our President shouldn’t bother uniting us on the idea of actually defeating the enemy and winning the war? I’d say you’re picking an awfully small nit here.
Ronald Reagan did, in fact, unite us on defeating a common enemy, among other things. He was absolutely implacable on the subject of defeating communism anywhere and everywhere it showed up, to the point of war in Grenada of all places. He spoke on it often. Some of his most memorable quotes weren’t about his vision for America but his antipathy for communism and his resolution that it be brought low.
And you have to admit, “defeat the people who are trying to kill us” worked in a couple World Wars. Of course, you have to have a good portion of the country to remember that we’re actually fighting the war. The biggest flaw in Friedman’s argument is that he’s forgotten we’re in one. What’s egregious about his column is that he wants the rest of us to forget as well.
I’d submit that one of the things George Bush has tried to do is unite us on the common idea that human beings everywhere have the basic right of freedom. It’s hardly all his fault that the left has decided that their own political power is more important than an issue on which they have been quite supportive in the past.
I agree with the basic premise, that a positive message of who we are and who we aspire to be is better than a negative definition of who we aren’t and who we need to fight against to define ourselves.
But I have to agree with Jimmie too; first, it’s a false dichotomy and the Reagan example proves that. Reagan spoke of morning in America, but he also used the imagery of the bear in the woods. He was able to masterfully balance the positive and the negative, and I think that was his secret formula in rallying conservatives as well as the “Reagan Democrats”.
The combined message resonates with conservatives because it’s positive but reality based; it says, ‘let’s focus on America’s greatness and strive for peace, but peace through strength’. It resonates with centrists and center-left, moderate Democrats because (I think) it’s not a fearmongering type of message. It’s hawkishness is not a blithering response to imagined threats, it’s a real world view that we can’t have peace without dealing with those who would seek to dominate if the US was weak. And, by refraining from making this the only campaign issue, it also shows that we can walk and chew gum at the same time; we can continue to focus on domestic issues while also dealing with the external threats.