And poli-sci blogger Seth Masket punctured the sense of self-congratulation surrounding Americans Elect’s promise to empower “the community” over “entrenched parties”:
How exactly does a party go about nominating candidates and determining planks on a platform? It involves extensive, messy deliberation and coordination among political activists, major donors, some officeholders, party elders, interest group leaders, and others. In other words, it involves the community. That’s what a party is. A party is not an alien presence imposing its will on the democratic process. Quite the contrary: a party emerges organically from the democratic process.
Are some moderates left out of these communities? Sure. They have a choice. They can form their own new party, although the track record of those isn’t great. They can suck up their objections to the ideological extremists and work within one of the party communities, although that can be frustrating. Or they can stay at home. But they are not somehow more noble because they aren’t part of one of the “entrenched parties.”
Even Friedman’s Times colleague Michael Powell raised an eyebrow on Twitter:
A Hedge Fund backed party railing against ‘special interests’? With no evident irony, Tom Friedman endorses
All good stuff. Still, there’s a steep drop-off in the volume of responses from October; even Masket wrote that hesitated to comment on such “an easy target.”
Smart pundits of the world, don’t give up! The reluctance to repeat yourself is understandable, even admirable. But Tom Friedman is read by many, many people. And in his infatuation with the idea of the “radical center,” he is very, very mistaken. Do your part to improve public understanding of politics, defend American democracy, and grab some Internet bragging rights. The next time Friedman opines on the “radical center”—I’m guessing it won’t be later than the time Michele Bachmann wins the Iowa caucuses—take your best shot at proving him wrong.
This was an interesting Friedman, media critique :
http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2011/07/voice-of-empire-ctd_24.html
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 26 Jul 2011 at 02:31 PM
Jesse Ventura's governorship was relatively successful. Furthermore he was not an independent. He was the Reform Party nominee. The party recruited him to run, he won the party's primary and then he won the general election.
#2 Posted by Richard Winger, CJR on Tue 26 Jul 2011 at 03:15 PM
Take a look at the aerial views of Friedman's house. Makes Al Gore's "green anti-coal" McMansion look like a Tibetan monk's hut.
#3 Posted by Mike Robbins, CJR on Tue 26 Jul 2011 at 03:17 PM
Wow, the great Tom Friedman of The Times is criticized.
I was somehow under the impression that the definition of smart was to always agree with Mr. Friedman. That if he said, “Tomorrow, at daybreak, the sun will rise in the east”, people would say, “Oh my, how profound.”
I have participated in two serious attempts at a third party – with Mac Mathias of Maryland, and later with Gary Hart, Dick Lamm, Bill Bradley, and Paul Tsongas, among others.
The Mathias effort didn’t get very far, and the Hart, Lamm, Bradley, Tsongas effort had a more noticeable impact, but still, in the end, it ended.
Mr. Friedman is not wrong to want a viable third party, but between desire and reality a very great gulf exist. But to criticize him for favoring a third party strikes me as silly.
George Mitrovich
San Diego
#4 Posted by George Mitrovich, CJR on Tue 26 Jul 2011 at 05:21 PM
Thank you. Friedman's capacity or being wrong, for being tone deaf, for failing to comprehend the politics of almost everything shouldn't be a secret. Brooks is merely intellectually dishonest. The Great Friedman is foolish and he writes that way.
steve daley.
#5 Posted by steve Daley, CJR on Wed 27 Jul 2011 at 11:15 AM
I'm amazed the Friedman continues to have a column at the New York Times. His writing always reads like the gushing enthusiasms of a fourteen-year-old boy who believes he has just solved all the word's problems.
#6 Posted by John , CJR on Thu 28 Jul 2011 at 01:00 PM
I don't fault anyone for wanting a more perfect democracy, including Friedman (no relation). However, the notion of a radical center continues, in my opinion, the distortion of a horizontal, rather than vertical political geography. It masks the fact that people of many ideologies feel disenfranchised by these two businessmen's associations, the DP and RP. They have effectively set the rules of engagement, starting with draconian ballot access requirement and current efforts at closed primaries. Independents need to talk more with each other about ideas for opening up the democracy, including supporting and working with candidates of any stripe who will work for that goal.
#7 Posted by Bob Friedman, CJR on Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 12:04 AM
I think we need more diversity when it comes to the type of political parties we have running the government here in California. Someone needs to start a new California political party that can represent the people instead of special interests. Only hope I live to see that day!!!
#8 Posted by political issues in california, CJR on Wed 3 Aug 2011 at 05:53 AM
I think we need more diversity when it comes to the type of political parties we have running the government here in California. Someone needs to start a new California political party that can represent the people instead of special interests. Only hope I live to see that day!!!
#9 Posted by california political party, CJR on Fri 19 Aug 2011 at 11:02 AM