What If Thomas Friedman Had Decided Not to Claim In the Opinion Pages of The New York Times That Bernie Sanders Is a COMMUNIST?
What if our 2016 election ends up being between a socialist and a borderline fascist — ideas that died in 1989 and 1945 respectively?
— Thomas Friedman, What If?, New York Times, today
What if Thomas Friedman had decided not to claim in the Opinion Pages of The New York Times that Bernie Sanders is a Communist?
Which, since what died in 1989 was not Democratic Socialism—the government systems of the Scandinavian countries, Holland and Germany, for example, did not collapse in 1989 and remain intact today—is what he said.*
That’s not a rhetorical question, New York Times editors.
Neither is this one: What if major news and opinion outlets like the venerable New York Times had meaningful standards limiting the latitude of its opinion writers to baldly misrepresent clear fact? In other words, what if his editors had refused to let him make that representation of fact?
Appalling. Truly.
—-
*Sentence typo-corrected. 1/20 at 7:36 p.m.
“What if” Thomas Friedman had a better grasp on European political history? If he did he wouldn’t make such inane comments as “What if our 2016 election ends up being between a socialist (he’s talking about Sanders) and a borderline fascist — ideas that died in 1989 and 1945 respectively?” What if Friedman understood that the political economic systemic that fell apart in 1989 was Soviet communism? What if Friedman described Sanders as Sanders actually is, a social progressive who thinks that the extremely wealthy don’t pay nearly their fair share of general taxes and benefit in the extreme from our political/economic system. What if Thomas Friedman understood that a great many Americans agree with Bernie Sanders’ economic positions, especially in regards to health care and taxation? What if the NY Times didn’t go way out of its way to negate the popularity of those ideas amongst progressive voters in our country? What if?
What if there was Thomas Friedman and nobody read.
“What if there was Thomas Friedman and nobody read.”
Then he’d be the taxi driver.
What if Bernie said “I am picking up for Bobby Kennedy”!
What Sandwichman said. “Don’t click on that it will only encourage him and annoy you…”
I’ve heard that he doesn’t get out much :
http://crooksandliars.com/files/imagecache/node_primary/primary_image/15/04/friedman_stache.jpg
Very minor technical point: A “Communist” is a member of a political party that has “Communist” in its name (US Communist Party), while a “communist” is someone who ideologically identifies with the communmist movement. Of course, Bernie has never been either, but I think Friedman has been sloppy about which of these he has used and what he has meant by either.
Welcome back Barkley. They had a fit when I was reaching for my laptop. Please be careful.
And Tommy, do learn what fascism is. A fascist isn’t “someone who talks mean who I don’t like”. Sigh.
Jeff welcome. First time commenters go to Moderation. Once approved you are good to go.
The next six months will be very telling as to whether Friedman continues to reduce complex problems to simplistic slogans.
“Sanders… is a social progressive who thinks that the extremely wealthy don’t pay nearly their fair share of general taxes….”
Is that what you think, too?
My bigger complaint about that column is that he outright lied, JS. The Soviet Union is what collapsed in 1989. The Scandinavian and other Northern European governmental systems didn’t, and are still going strong. Sanders’ proposals bear no resemblance whatsoever to the system that collapsed in 1989. He wants a system somewhat similar to the Northern Europeans’, which look to be in pretty good shape.
Friedman may think the two systems are similar, but if he does he shouldn’t be writing a column in the New York Times.
Warren,
I’ve been clear in all my posts on this site. The wealthiest pay the least when measured by their beneficial gain from our economy. There is no question about that point. Those who benefit most from the economic structure of a country are those who should pay the most to maintain that economic structure. I’d go one step further and note that that economic structure needs substantial revision so that a greater number of people benefit to a greater extent. Yes, income and wealth distribution is absurdly skewed to a very small group and that skew has only been getting more extreme over the past several decades.