Soccer Dad

Friedman's kind of punditry

Thomas Friedman was bothered by something Gov Palin said at the vice presidential debate:

Criticizing Sarah Palin is truly shooting fish in a barrel. But given the huge attention she is getting, you can't just ignore what she has to say. And there was one thing she said in the debate with Joe Biden that really sticks in my craw. It was when she turned to Biden and declared: "You said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America, which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic."

What an awful statement. Palin defended the government's $700 billion rescue plan. She defended the surge in Iraq, where her own son is now serving. She defended sending more troops to Afghanistan. And yet, at the same time, she declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic.

Note the switch. Palin quoted Sen. Biden's assertion that "...higher taxes is patriotic." But somehow, Friedman translated "higher taxes" into "fair share of taxes." There's a difference between the two assertions. Friedman aimed at the wrong barrel!

Sam Dealy:

What Palin did do, however, was call out a politician who, like some relic of the church indulgences scheme, would put a price on patriotism. And just like Biden, Friedman, too, reaches the facile conclusion that the only expression of patriotism is for (other) Americans to pay more taxes.

Dealy argues further:

Here's a third suggestion: Perhaps lawmakers and bureaucrats could show some patriotism by cutting back on spending? Yes, every program has its champions and beneficiaries. But faced with the current economic conditions, surely some priorities--or sacrifices, to use a moral term Friedman might appreciate--can be set? And if that's too inequitable, then why not push for an across-the-board spending cut for every agency and program?

Yes, by obeying the law and paying taxes we fund police, firemen, our military, and social programs. But all Palin was saying in the debate was that paying taxes was not "patriotic" - not that we shouldn't pay them. Friedman confuses why we pay taxes with the plebian necessity to do so. If obeying the law is "patriotic," it cheapens and demeans the meaning of the word. In fact, patriotism is going beyond what is expected of us as citizens and serving our country despite the fact that doing so means we deny ourselves the ability of doing what we want to do in our own interest. Patriotism is having an unselfish and self-abnegating attitude toward the non-material. Taxes certainly don't fit the bill.

At the end Friedman takes some more gratuitous swipes at Palin:

And please also don't tell me she is an "energy expert." She is an energy expert exactly the same way the king of Saudi Arabia is an energy expert -- by accident of residence. Palin happens to be governor of the Saudi Arabia of America -- Alaska -- and the only energy expertise she has is the same as the king of Saudi Arabia's. It's about how the windfall profits from the oil in their respective kingdoms should be divided between the oil companies and the people.

At least the king of Saudi Arabia, in advocating "drill baby drill," is serving his country's interests -- by prolonging America's dependence on oil. My problem with Palin is that she is also serving his country's interests -- by prolonging America's dependence on oil. That's not patriotic. Patriotic is offering a plan to build our economy -- not by tax cuts or punching more holes in the ground, but by empowering more Americans to work in productive and innovative jobs. If Palin has that kind of a plan, I haven't heard it.

The Palin and McCain idea is that we look for alternatives to oil, but in the meantime avail ourselves of the resources we have. I know Friedman's hooked on the "oil is addiction" cliche. (Unfortunately, Presdient Bush seems to be also.) But a better (though still imperfect) analogy would be the cure to a disease. Say we had treatments that could slow the progress of a deadly disease but were still searching for a cure. Would anyone suggest that we not use that (or any) treatment unless we had an total cure? Of course not.

And if we drill for American oil, won't that lower the price of oil that Abdullah is getting for his barrels. Won't that, in the end, hurt him at least a little bit? I mean it's not like Gov. Palin is using her clout to serve as a PR flack for the King of Saudi Arabia.

As far as "empowering Americans," I'm not sure we need a government plan to do that. We have a capitalist economy. When there's a promising technology, talented people will sign on to bring that technology to the public.

As a reporter, Friedman was capable of making astute observations. However as a columnist any observation he makes is followed by an analysis that is colored by his deep seated prejudices. If his column is aobut the Middle East it will colored by his belief that peace requires ever more concessions from Israel to the Palestinians. If his column is political then it must be colored by making sure to subordinate his conclusions to Democratic talking points (I know that's pretty much a tautology because he's a columnist for the NYT) rather than demonstrating an ability to think critically.