Editor’s Pick
OCTOBER 8, 2009 3:45AM
Tom Friedman, the Uncrowned Prime Minister of Mixed Metaphor
(This is a translated and expanded version of an old post from my sadly dormant Norwegian blog. The style in some ways reflects that I was introducing Norwegian readers to the Moustachioed One. American readers who have never followed Friedman closely may find it useful. Others may find it annoying/insulting/redundant.)
A looong post on a laaarge subject. Let the reader beware.
The New York Times has many excellent writers. They also employ Thomas L. Friedman, triple Pulitzer Prize winner, the man who single-handedly revolutionized the art of the political column. Known to connoisseurs as "The Moustache of Understanding" (explained here and here), Friedman is like a gazelle dancing across the ice, always picking up golden seeds as he fearlessly explores the rugged mountains of truth in his reed boat of prose. Words fall from his pen like diamonds from a waterfall, and his lofty metaphors soar above the land with the grace of a mighty penguin.
His reporting style is deceptively simple, even simplistic. As he himself once explained to the New Yorker: "I write my books by writing my books... I don't start with six months of research." In fact, he seems to rely less on research than on accidental conversations with random passers-by, at cocktail parties and golf courses in the large cities of the word. The opening lines of his book Hot, Flat and Crowded is typical:
In June 2004, I was visiting London with my daughter Orly, and one evening we went to see the play Billy Elliot at a theater near Victoria Station. During intermission, I was standing up, stretching my legs in the aisle next to my seat, when a stranger approached and asked me, "Are you Mr. Friedman?" When I nodded yes, he introduced himself: "My name is Emad Tinawi. I am a Syrian-American working for Booz Allen," the consulting firm. Tinawi said that while he disagreed with some of the columns I had written, particularly on the Middle East, there was one column he especially liked and still kept.And with this, Friedman is off, weaving tall tales of the glories of the free market, the limitless promise of globalization and the bright future of green technology from casual remarks he happens to overhear. Most famous is presumably his meeting with the Indian businessman Nandan Nilekani, CEO of Infosys, who casually remarked that "the playing field is being leveled". This caused a revelation which has resulted in two books and more columns and speeches than anyone can count:
As I left the Infosys campus that evening along the road back to Bangalore, I kept chewing on that phrase: "The playing field is being leveled."
What Nandan is saying, I thought, is that the playing field is being flattened... Flattened? Flattened? My God, he's telling me the world is flat!Cynics and nitpickers might point out that Mr. Nilekani's used the word "leveled", which is different from "flat". His point was that the global economic competition was now happening on more equal terms, not that all the world is a pancake. To wit:
The significance of Columbus's discovery was that on a round earth, humanity is more interconnected than on a flat one. On a round earth, the two most distant points are closer together than they are on a flat earth. But Friedman is going to spend the next 470 pages turning the "flat world" into a metaphor for global interconnectedness. Furthermore, he is specifically going to use the word round to describe the old, geographically isolated, unconnected world.
"Let me... share with you some of the encounters that led me to conclude that the world is no longer round," he says. He will literally travel backward in time, against the current of human knowledge.
Friedman explains his foreign policy philosophy with the words: "I'm not out to conquer the world. It's much more an inward-looking patriotism. I want everyone to become an American." His modus operandi has probably never been expressed better than in his columns that preceded the invasion of Iraq. In these agile mental exercises, Friedman carefully constructed the following monument of logical reasoning:
- Nation building in Iraq will be very difficult and requires careful planning.
- Without such planning, the invasion could turn out to be a terrible mistake.
- It seems that the Bush administration is not doing any planning.
- Therefore, I support the war.
Perhaps my favorite Friedman piece of all time. He begins with the delicious image of listening to the Battle Hymn of the Republic on his car stereo, and then moves on to his central idea: This war is a "gut call," and his gut "has told [him] four things." First: This is a war of choice. Second: Reconstructing Iraq will be more difficult than we think. Third: We ought to take our time there once we’re in. And fourth: The majority of the world still hopes to avert war.
Unwittingly, Friedman has led his reader on a tour through the four chambers of his stomach. He has literally revealed to the world that he is a cow. It would take a genius on the order of Shakespeare to invent a character capable of writing such a thing.But Friedman is not about facts or logic, but language. Most of all, he is about the metaphor - an artform he takes to unexpected heights. Indeed, the blog The Mustache of Understanding, which is devoted to the analysis of Friedman's work, has noted his ability to create linguistic imagery with the speed of a "human Gatling Metaphor Gun":
Suppose you find yourself in the following situation. You're writing an article or giving a speech and have a point to make. The length of your article or speech is limited. You think that you might best be able to get your point across by using an analogy. However, after giving it some thought, you come up with not one, not two, not three, but four perfect analogies.
Do you:
A) include just the best one, in the interest of brevity?
B) include the best two, because repetition might help the point stick?
C) include the best three, on the theory that all good things come in threes?
D) include all four, because you're in love with the idea of yourself and overly enamored of your own analogy-making abilities?
See if you can guess how our beloved Mr. Friedman would answer that question, taking this section of his latest column as a hint:
"... our bailout of Detroit will be remembered as the equivalent of pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the mail-order-catalogue business on the eve of the birth of eBay. It will be remembered as pouring billions of dollars into the CD music business on the eve of the birth of the iPod and iTunes. It will be remembered as pouring billions of dollars into a book-store chain on the eve of the birth of Amazon.com and the Kindle. It will be remembered as pouring billions of dollars into improving typewriters on the eve of the birth of the PC and the Internet."Friedman really is a sight to see. Behold this conversation with Ted Koppel:
FRIEDMAN: And so I’ve kind of developed an answer that to me India and China are both two six-lane superhighways. And everyone’s going really fast.
Now China’s a six-lane superhighway — perfectly paved roads, perfect sidewalks, streetlamps on a lot of these highways. Just one problem. Off in the distance there’s a speed bump called political reform. And when 1.3 billion people going 80 miles an hour hit a speed bump, one of two things happens: your car jumps up in the air, slams down, everyone says, You O.K.? You O.K.? I’m O.K., drives on; the other thing that happens, car jumps up in the air, slams down and all the wheels fall off. And what will happen in China’s case? I have no idea. All I know is I’m rooting for the first scenario.
Now India’s also a six-lane superhighway — cracked cement, half the sidewalks aren’t finished and three-quarters of the streetlights don’t work. But off in the distance it looks like it smoothes out into a perfect six-lane superhighway.
KOPPEL: Because?
FRIEDMAN: The question with India: Is that a mirage or is that the oasis? So those are the two big questions I have —
***
From this literary Horn of Plenty, I pour some of Friedman's finest moments (with my comments):
It’s OK to throw out your steering wheel, as long as you remember you’re driving without one.Friedman recommended this procedure regarding US policy towards Saddam's Iraq, but I hesitate to recommend it for regular driving.
The first rule of holes is when you’re in one, stop digging. When you’re in three, bring a lot of shovels.Exactly how you can find yourself in three holes at the same time is somewhat unclear, but at least Friedman provides important information. You might think that it was even more urgent to stop digging when you're in no less than three holes, but no! You have to keep digging more than ever. For this, it seems you need lots of shovels (presumably they wear out).
The next six months in Iraq—which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there—are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long time.Friedman's prediction that the war in Iraq will be decided within the next six months have been issued with such frequency that it has given rise to a new way of measuring time: The Friedman Unit (F.U.). This is defined as "a unit of time equal to six months in the future", but like the horizon, the Friedman Unit always recedes before you, no matter how long you chase it. In the time between the first recorded instance of Friedman's prediction of a decision within six months in November 2003 and May 2006, the group Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) documented that he had repeated it on 13 different occasions. As far as I know, Friedman has never confirmed that the decisive six months have ended.
So here’s how I feel. I feel as if the president is presenting us with a beautiful carved mahogany table–a big, bold, gutsy vision. But if you look underneath, you discover that this table has only one leg. His bold vision on Iraq is not supported by boldness in other areas.This mahogany table seems to balance quite well on its one leg, as Friedman has to look underneath it to discover its deficiencies. But as the world's foremost Friedmanologist, Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone, has pointed out: "This must be derived from the popular expression: 'He sure has guts. Like a mahogany table.' Only in this case, the guts only have one leg."
In short, Iraq is not a vase that we broke to remove the rancid water inside, and now we just need to glue it back together. We have to build a whole new vase. We have to dig the clay, mix it, shape it, harden it and paint it.Friedman is married to one of the wealthiest heirs in the US, Ann Bucksbaum, and this may explain his rather careless attitude towards personal possessions (cfr. his propensity to throw the steering wheel out of his cars). Someone should probably inform him that it is possible to remove water from a vase without breaking it.
America is surely the only nation that could — in the same decade — go to war against a president named Hussein (Saddam of Iraq), threaten to use force against a country whose most revered religious martyr is named Hussein (Iran) and then elect its own president who’s middle-named Hussein.
Is this a great country or what?I'll take his word for it. The logic of this argument seems watertight.
So, I have a confession and a suggestion. The confession: I go into restaurants these days, look around at the tables often still crowded with young people, and I have this urge to go from table to table and say: “You don’t know me, but I have to tell you that you shouldn’t be here. You should be saving your money. You should be home eating tuna fish. This financial crisis is so far from over. We are just at the end of the beginning. Please, wrap up that steak in a doggy bag and go home.”
Friedman's concern for the future of our planet and the US economy is legendary, so his anger at seeing these gluttons in his favourite restaurants is understandable. If only everybody could live in the same modest style which Friedman and his wife enjoys in their simple Maryland home.

The Golden Straitjacket is the defining political-economic garment of globalization. […] The tighter you wear it, the more gold it produces.A gold-producing straightjacket is presumably a useful garment.
The walls had fallen down and the Windows had opened, making the world much flatter than it had ever been--but the age of seamless global communication had not yet dawned.It is unclear whether the windows were opened before the wall fell down, or if someone opened them afterwards (for some reason or other). But we are obviously talking about a massive wall here, as it flattened the world when it fell. As previously explained, the theory that the world is flat is central to Friedman, who developed it in his book The World Is Flat.
Over the next couple of years, two very big countries, America and China, will give birth to something very important. They’re each going to give birth to close to $1 trillion worth of economic stimulus — in the form of tax cuts, infrastructure, highways, mass transit and new energy systems. But a lot is riding on these two babies. If China and America each give birth to a pig — a big, energy-devouring, climate-spoiling stimulus hog — our kids are done for. It will be the burden of their lifetimes. If they each give birth to a gazelle — a lean, energy-efficient and innovation-friendly stimulus — it will be the opportunity of their lifetimes.It is an impressive beast indeed that is capable of giving birth to pigs, gazelles and human babies. I suppose we will know which one we're getting in 3-4 Friedman Units.
We’re getting perilously close to closing the window on a two-state solution, because the two chief window-closers — Hamas in Gaza and the fanatical Jewish settlers in the West Bank — have been in the driver’s seats. Hamas is busy making a two-state solution inconceivable, while the settlers have steadily worked to make it impossible.Clearly, these windows are in a car, rather than a wall. Interestingly, the car seems to have two driver's seats. I wonder if it has any steering wheels?
The fighting, death and destruction in Gaza is painful to watch. But it’s all too familiar. It’s the latest version of the longest-running play in the modern Middle East, which, if I were to give it a title, would be called: 'Who owns this hotel? Can the Jews have a room? And shouldn’t we blow up the bar and replace it with a mosque?'There really aren't enough plays with titles which contain three sentences and 23 words. Incidentally, is it customary to build mosques inside hotels in the Middle East?
So George Mitchell is, in effect, “Super Sub-Secretary of State for Nurturing a Coherent Palestinian Authority and a Coherent Israeli Negotiating Position So That the Two Might One Day Be Able to Strike a Deal Again.” Richard Holbrooke is “Super Sub-Secretary of State for Bringing Coherence to the Afghan and Pakistan Governments So That They Can One Day Be Internally Stable and United Against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.” And Dennis Ross is “Super Sub-Secretary of State for Amassing Global Leverage on the Incomprehensibly Byzantine Iranian Government So That It Will Terminate Its Nuclear Weapons Program.”
***
Reading Friedman is fascinating–the same way that it’s fascinating to watch a zoo gorilla make mounds out of its own feces. The gorilla is a noble, intelligent animal that will demean itself in captivity. Friedman is a less noble animal of roughly the same intelligence, whose cage is the English language. It’s an amazing thing to behold.
By the way: Do you want to learn how to write columns like Tom Friedman? You will find a handy guide here.




Salon.com
Comments
I love the notion of writing best-selling books based entirely on what random strangers tell you at cocktail parties. Why didn't the rest of us think of that?
"I was visiting London with my daughter Orly."
Is her last name Taitz, by any chance...?
I enjoyed your observation: "...who casually remarked that "the playing field is being leveled". This caused a revelation which has resulted in two books and more columns and speeches than anyone can count..."
Never underestimate the power of one good idea to propel a book, or books, or even a whole career.
One of my favorites you pointed out: “You don’t know me, but I have to tell you that you shouldn’t be here. You should be saving your money. You should be home eating tuna fish. This financial crisis is so far from over. We are just at the end of the beginning. Please, wrap up that steak in a doggy bag and go home.”
If they're taking it home in a doggy bag, wouldn't they have to pay for it first?
After reading your post, I've decided that these make-believe Norwegian actors had a better grasp of American culture than Friedman does of the rest of the world or the English language.
My mother used to teach English. I wonder how she would have graded Mr. Friedman's prose in these passages. The passage about giving birth to pigs might have given her a good laugh.
Full disclosure: as my hard drive is a mess, I sometimes post stuff like quotes, interesting links or videos on my blogs just to know where I've got them. This post originated as a collection of Friedmanisms.
Then I read the WONDERFUL "Idiot Proof" by the estimable Francis Wheen. His is the definitive take down (Taibbi notwithstanding) of the empty suit -- the hole-within-a-hole, the privileged smarmapalooza, the truly cheap mind -- of Thomas Friedman.
I believe you will love it, Norwonk.
Thanks you for this piercing and funny and very smart essay. I love letting cruddy thinkers/writers make the case with their own words, as you do here. Vastly entertaining.
Since *From Beirut to Jerusalem*--a book I remember enjoying eons ago, because much of the reporting seemed counter-intuitive--it's been all downhill for Friedman. The more bucks he rakes in through consulting fees, the more of a blowhard he becomes. (As I recall, some of his female colleagues at the N.Y. Times had some really choice things to say about his bloviating in Nan Robertson's *The Girls in the Balcony*.)
My favorite of many ridiculous images, explained by Taibbi: "This must be derived from the popular expression: 'He sure has guts. Like a mahogany table.' Only in this case, the guts only have one leg."
I want to have your baby. If you're willing, mail me some sperm. I'll let you know what kind of creature we give birth to in 6-9 Friedman units.
the world is driven by personalities, unfortunately. but that doesn't mean you are compelled to give lightweights like palin and friedman any time in the light. be nasty to obama, he's standing on the bullseye now, and richly deserves it.
norway is a relatively civilized place, but it is a parliamentary monarchy and infested in the upper levels with politicians. i'm sure you have some amusing stories to tell about them...
Appreciate the laughs and poignant discussion on Friedman, but I would care to add that Friedman hasn't really been writing "books" per se, but rather a single book that has been continuously revised via interesting conversations with charming participants at lavish parties. After you've read one, you've pretty much read them all.
They all say one thing: American corporate liberalism is the one thing that Friedman truly believes in. That is, sadly, where his opinions and critical thinking begins and ends.
Alan Nothagle: "'I was visiting London with my daughter Orly.'
Is her last name Taitz, by any chance...?"
One would certainly hope not... ;-D
T.S.: "Charles Krauthammer...now there is a journalist!"
Chuckie? Really?
I'll give him this: he does have the courage of his convictions. Too bad they include defending torture.
Traveller1:
Nilekani has a book? Probably better to read that than Friedman's paraphrase.
a he:
Friedman does know a thing or two about the Middle East, and I suspect he was doing more straight journalism back in the old days. These days, he seems to have reached a pinnacle of power and prestige where no editor dares to reign him in...
Julie Tarp: "If they're taking it home in a doggy bag, wouldn't they have to pay for it first?"
Oh, there you go, bringing logic into the discussion! Can't you just share his righteous anger? ;-)
Dan Lybarger:
For a moment there, you had me really intrigued: An SNL writer on my blog? But alas!
Norwegian actors usually know a thing or two about New York, though. So I reject and condemn SNL's shameful racism. ;-)
Greg Correll:
Thanks for the tip! I'll have to check it out. The title alone is tempting.
Ursula Mander:
One shudders to think what diabolical offspring we might produce... What is the postage on sperm these days, anyway?
hadac: "Friedman reminds me of the late Stephen J. Gould."
An interesting comparison. I'll have to think about that one. Gould certainly beats Friedman in the brain department, though.
al loomis:
You're quite right about the small doses. I actually didn't think most people would bother to read this at all.
As for Obama, you'll enjoy my latest post. And Norwegian pols - ah, the stories I could tell! But you won't know who they are, so it won't be as much fun. I'll say this for them, though: They are no smarter than their American colleagues, but they do seem more grown up, and far less corrupt. Then again, there's little money in Norwegian politics.
Irma Arkus: "Friedman hasn't really been writing "books" per se, but rather a single book that has been continuously revised via interesting conversations with charming participants at lavish parties."
Good point. And his opinons aren't always wrong or bad. It's just that he so predictably follows the prevailing winds that he becomes an unreliable guide.
deering: "It's a sin and a shame that Friedman and Brooks get any NYT space."
I tend to agree. It's not that they are completely useless; both of them express the conventional wisdom in their way (though dear god Friedman needs a ruthless editor!). But I'd love to see more original thinkers besides Krugman on the NYT op-ed page. It's not all bad: Gail Collins and Frank Rich are smart and funny, while Kristof, Herbert, Cohen and Blow are sober but a little bit dull. Douthat is essentially a young George Will. And Dowd is a gossip (though a pretty good one, in her annoying way). You'd think the newspaper of record could do better.
Ric Caric:
Friedman certainly provides entertainment.
James Stewart: "To be fair, I think he actually makes some fair, if obvious points (when he's not war mongering), in his own unique, convoluted style."
True. One of the mysteries of Tom Friedman is the fact that he actually saw that the Iraq war would be very difficult, and that the Bush administration were likely to bungle it. But somehow, he still ended up supporting the invasion. I suppose his knowledge of the Middle East (it seems uneven, but not inconsiderable) collided with his tendency to follow the herd. In the end, conventional wisdom won.
I think I get this one. So you've got two cars: the Palestinian car driven by Hamas, and the Israeli car driven by fanatical Jewish settlers. And they've both got their windows open, and they're driving towards each other on a two-lane road. The question is, when they pass each other, will they keep the windows open, and exchange the high-five of peace? Or will they close the windows, and give each other the middle finger of war? This also leads to the question of whether they'll be driving slow enough to high-five safely. It's quite a metaphor.
When my boss (a high school principal) began touting "The World is Flat" as the must read book to "understand" the future of education (?), and included excerpts and an exhortation to read the book in his Friday Newsletter to teachers...I drew the line, and shot back a missive similar to that which you have written here.
Why oh why is this person SOOO popular?