February 14, 2005

• In other news, did you know that McDonald's will bring about world peace?
• kenshin, don't be surprised if Friedman steals that idea for his next column.
• He already did. Google "golden arches theory of conflict prevention" and laugh at the silliness.
• I agree with everything, but what's with the Willy Wonka reference? Is Friedman one of the nasty children? Does that mean he will undergo some horrible deformity after falling into a confectionery contraption?
• HA! HA! HA!

  his penchant for Toffleresque gimmickry finally gets the better of him in the chapter titled "The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention." Friedman's "insight," as he calls it, is that "no two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's." A variation on the theory that democracies don't go to war with each other, the golden arches hypothesis was proved false even before his book's publication date by the war between NATO and Serbia (where the Belgrade McDonald's franchises were promptly vandalized). An ethnic and territorial conflict that doesn't have much to do with globalization at all, the war in Kosovo defies Friedman's notion that international relations is now an extension of international economics.

• I agree with everything, but what's with the Willy Wonka reference? When the kids stepped into the chocolate factory they were in a place that was surreal. Much like Friedman's mind. He seems to be filled with the same childlike wonder and naivety with the war on terrorism as the kids in the chocolate factory.
• I think the obvious rebuttal to Friedman (paraphrasing, it's not mine) is that Sayyid Qutb studied in America. Look where that went. (this part is mine) Osama bin Laden will die of old age, eventually, and someone will take his place, and he'll die of old age, etc etc. And it'll keep going on until we can effectively refute what Qutb started. We won't be able to to that if we insist on rewarding people who parrot the party line. (again, elsewhere) A better idea is the Global Americana Institute, although I have no idea whether that ever got off the ground or not.
• Friedman's McDonald's theory. It seems the NY Times pundit's book The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization was published right around the time those MCDees lovers in NATO bombed Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia McDonald's website.
• Sullivan, I think this ventures into the realm of satire. It is obvious that you dislike Friedman, so perhaps you should have titled your post: "I dislike morans and I do not appreciate subtlety".
• I thought Friedman's piece in this morning's IHT was rather good and distinctly not neocon.

  By adamantly refusing to do anything to improve energy conservation in America, or to phase in a $1-a-gallon gasoline tax on American drivers, or to demand increased mileage from Detroit's automakers, or to develop a crash program for renewable sources of energy, the Bush team is - as others have noted - financing both sides of the war on terrorism. We are financing the U.S. armed forces with our tax dollars, and, through our profligate use of energy, we are generating huge windfall profits for Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, where the cash is used to insulate the regimes from any pressure to open up their economies, liberate their women or modernize their schools, and where it ends up instead financing madrassas, mosques and militants fundamentally opposed to the progressive, pluralistic agenda America is trying to promote. Now how smart is that?

  Seems quite sensible to me. Dammit, half of the major problems of the world - the ecology, middle east peace, even disfunctional semi-urban architecture and obesity - seem to come down, at least in part, to a certain cultural fascination with sodding great big cars. In other news, do get your own blog: we'll all read it, and it will leave the 'filter free of posts to a single op-ed and a sarky comment.
• Come on now Sullivan - buck up your standard of ideological analysis. Tom Friedman is not a Neo-Con. Just because an individuals professed opinions sometimes cross with those of a group, or they support an enterprise that such as group does but based on a different analysis, does not mean that is fair or accurate to label them as part of that group. One of the real tragedies of the modern Left is the inability to discriminate between positions
• I agree with much that has been said. Tom Friedman is a free thinker that really understands the world we live in, and is capable of some pretty insightful analysis. Much better than the dunderheaded triumvirate of Maureen Dowd, David Brooks and Bill Safire (now retired from the Op-Ed pages, thank God). If you want an idiot neocon, look no farther than Brooks for tha Matter. Friedman is far from infallible, but at least he's intellectually honest. He and Bob Herbert represent the last bastions of objectivity on the Times's Op-Ed pages.
• Huh? I didn't know we live in a world where the golden arches theory counts as insightful analysis of true understanding. Oh well. Friedman isn't a neocon, but he is often clueless to the point of silliness. His faith in the power of economics over culture/religion and idiocy/insanity makes me giggle. In yet other news, skipping MoFi threads of little appeal to me remains astonishingly easy. One day I'll get my own blog to extol the wonders of the scroll button, but not before people get theirs to rant against MoFi threads they dislike.
• Sullivan:...imagine George W. Bush or John Kerry (if elected) announcing this plan to the American people. The public would think the president does not take terrorism seriously and has lost his mind. Well, consider: George W. Bush: I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority. Unfortunately, this didn't faze anyone, or at least, it didn't faze the right people enough. I know nothing of this Friedman chap, but it seems to me that while all this derision is being heaped on his head, no one has answered the central question of this column: What do you think would make America more secure? Rewarding one person for turning in bin Laden or putting thousands of young Arabs and Muslims through American schools? [A single influential nutjob like Qutb isn't much of a counterargument, IMHO; there are surely thousands of upstanding Islamic, US-educated businessmen, doctors, teachers, etc. around the world for every Qutb. And no one can say if or how Qutb's life's-work would have gone differently if he had sought education elsewhere.]
• Huh? I didn't know we live in a world where the golden arches theory counts as insightful analysis of true understanding. Oh well. Nice try. That's your imagery, not his. It's possible that his faith in the power of economics might be a little overplayed, but it's at least a valid perspective.
• ...as opposed to some blind belief in the power of democracy. A combined approach in reducing Western consumption of fossil fuels, in concert with attempting to foster economic stability (of the non-centralized variety) in the Middle East makes a helluva a lot more sense than anything I've heard from either the neocons or the Dems, who at this point seem to have the same vision for the region.
• That's your imagery, not his. The golden arches theory is all Friedman; the "insightful analysis" and "really understand the world we live in" evaluations are all you. Which "imagery" is mine? It's possible that his faith in the power of economics might be a little overplayed, but it's at least a valid perspective. ...as opposed to some blind belief in the power of democracy. Where in my three comments do you detect even a hint of blind belief in anything? Faith in democracy is as silly in my eyes as one in economics. Valid perspective? The golden arches theory has already been proven wrong by the Kosovo war. On top of that, Friedman seems to live in a world without China, whose people are increasingly anti-America and anti-Japan despite rapid economical integration. Reducing our dependence on oil is a no-brainer. Helping *everyone* achieve economic stability is good for the global economy as well as our conscience. I don't see how either can bring about world peace, but feel free to educate me how they will ease the tension between, say, the Chinese and the Japanese.
• The use of the "golden arches" imagery is yours. Just thought that reducing what he said to a cartoonish image wasn't productive. And, I apologize for insinuating that that you had blind belief in anything, I was trying to contrast Friedman's views with those of other pundits that have been gracing the pages of the Times lately. Is it a simple view that he espouses? Yes, of course it is, but it's a problem of the form more than a failing of the writer. These guys get paid to write columns of 500 words or so, not doctoral dissertations. In that form, Friedman tends to be more insightful and understanding than most, could be that's a pretty low bar to hurdle, however. I don't have the answers either, but the only way out of fundamentalism or absolutism has been the decentralization of power and broader distribution of wealth (contrast India's development with Pakistan's since 1948) outside of the power elites. Easier said than done, I know, but worth a decent conversation, not a condescending counterpoint.
• Two things, if I may: 1- The purpose of a reward is to give people an incentive to do whatever is required to get the award. Giving scholarships to other people isn't going to make someone risk his family's life by turning in bin Laden. 2- "All we are doing is feeding their egos, and telling them how incredibly important they are, when we not only put a $25 million bounty on their heads, but in the case of bin Laden, double the figure. We are just enhancing their status on the Arab street as the Muslim warriors standing up to America, and only encouraging other megalomaniacs out there who might have similar fantasies to follow suit. We should be doing just the opposite - letting these two losers know that we don't think they are worth more than a penny or a pistachio." To follow this to its logical conclusion, we should never have rewards for turning in criminals here in the US. It merely feeds their egos and enhances their bad-boy outlaw status. In fact, why not decriminalize their actions and show them that they don't mean a damn thing to us! Prosecuting criminals is only feeding their gangster egos and should be stopped at once.
• The use of the "golden arches" imagery is yours. From Sullivan's link above:

  "The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention." Friedman's "insight," as he calls it, is that "no two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's." A variation on the theory that democracies don't go to war with each other, the golden arches hypothesis was proved false even before his book's publication date by the war between NATO and Serbia (where the Belgrade McDonald's franchises were promptly vandalized). An ethnic and territorial conflict that doesn't have much to do with globalization at all, the war in Kosovo defies Friedman's notion that international relations is now an extension of international economics.

  These guys get paid to write columns of 500 words or so, not doctoral dissertations. Friedman devoted an entire chapter of his book to the golden arches theory. I'm willing to cut him some slack on 500-word columns, but his own book? My apology if I come across too harsh. There's no (longer) ill feeling on my part toward the guy, just amusement.
• Fair enough, Kenshin. I missed that. Just wanted to defend him becuase he annoys me far less than David Brooks does with his lazy pop-sociology (exurban bobos, etc) and Mo Dowd with her lazy pop-psych (Bush's biggest problem is his Oedipus complex)... but Friedman seems to be afflicted with the same problem but in a different pseudo-academic field. Call it: pop-econ?
• The Golden Arches theory wasn't proven wrong by the Kosovan actions - because it wasn't meant to be a literal theory. It's not that, literally, no two McDonalds hosting countries will fight each other. It's that countries or regions with massively intertwined economies are much less likely to do so then those with no connections at all. The McDonalds bit is just the demonstrative meme, not a literal truth. In the case of China and Japan, mentioned earlier, you have to also distinguish between sabre rattling for domestic purposes and an actual Let's Go! attack. It serves a lot of purposes for the Chinese to foster a bit of preparation for a war in the area, just as it fostered a lot of purposes for the US to prepare for war with Soviet Russia: a lot of people make a lot of money, and lot of infrastructure gets built, and a lot of young men get off the streets and into jobs. The Chinese are only doing what the US did in the 50s: militarising their way into industry and building patriotism. It doesn't mean they'll actually invade, the still present feelings about Nanjing notwithstanding. Building economies there will make the preparations look worse, but the actual threat of war less, just as the theory says it will.
• Recap this rebuttal on my digs on Friedman. Who the hell will support a "$1-a-gallon gasoline tax?" No Democrat or Republican would get re-elected. Remember what the gas crisis did to Carter? If you don't you should brush up on your history. To say that Saudi Ababia is suddenly going to become a democracy just because the oil money stops is foolish. Friedman's living in the chocolate factory. Where's the oil money for Vietnam and Cambodia during the killing fields? I'm with Matt Yglesias on this.

  For one thing, as Brad Plumer writes, this idea, like so many Friedman ideas, seems to suffer from an acute case of the "Friedman magic policy wand" syndrome. There's no real reason to think there's any way to accomplish what he thinks we should be accomplishing, and even if it could be accomplished, the time frame for getting it all done would be much longer than it would take to produce the sort of results he's looking for. More to the point, in many ways, if a crash conservation program succeeded in drastically reducing demand and lowering the price of crude, the result would be an increase in demand and a resumption of rising prices. This is roughly what happened during the 1980s and it's more-or-less written into the fabric of capitalism. The assumption that impoverishment naturally leads autocratic governments to reform themselves in hopes of boosting economic growth, meanwhile, is strikingly lacking in empirical support. North Korea would be racing headlong toward freedom if this were right. And oil-poor Arab states like Egypt and Syria would be bastions of democracy rather than Egypt and Syria. Last but by no means least, in addition to the policy lag between the time when we implement our conservation program and we actually see $18 barrels of oil, the lag between when the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments start reforming their education system and when the newly-educated cadres take over the country would be enormous. The United States is currently governered primarily by people educated in the 1960s and looks set to continue to be so governered by quite some time now. Such is like. We Millenials will have our day, but it's going to be a long time off. The No Child Left Behind kids won't be running things until the 2040s. And then there's the point that the dogmatic belief that an absence of secular education is a primary source of terrorist motivation seems to be way off base. Some jihadis went to madrassas (primarily in Southeast Asia) or were products of whatever it is they do in the Saudi school system, but many had technical educations of just the sort that a self-consciously modernizing regime would provide, often in the west. Now I think it would be equally silly to conclude from this that technical education leads to terrorism (though the MIT kids do have an affinity for pranks that involve blowing things up) but the lines of causation here are pretty confusing.

  I'm all for conservation. The question is what are we suppose to replace oil with in the short term? Zero point energy? That might be Friedman's next column.
• The Golden Arches theory wasn't proven wrong by the Kosovan actions - because it wasn't meant to be a literal theory. In which case Friedman shouldn't have called it a "theory" to begin with. In the case of China and Japan, mentioned earlier, you have to also distinguish between sabre rattling for domestic purposes and an actual Let's Go! attack. ... It doesn't mean they'll actually invade, the still present feelings about Nanjing notwithstanding. Building economies there will make the preparations look worse, but the actual threat of war less, just as the theory says it will. 1) Building a successful economy led Japan directly into WWII. That and a desire to further integrate East Asian economies. 2) I don't think either China or Japan is interested in invading the other, certainly not with Big America watching. More likely are military skirmishs over Taiwan or Diaoyu Islands.
• kenshin, Friedman is like a great used car salesman. His pitch sounds good until you get a mechanic to look under the hood.