There are pretty much loads of reasons for why one should really dislike Thomas Friedman most of the time. However, this is not one of them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-bankers.html
For a good, other-view of the situation, I recommend this - http://dealbreaker.com/2011/10/federal-judge-wants-to-know-why-sec-is-only-charging-citi-15th-as-much-as-it-charged-goldman-for-ripping-off-cdo-investors/#more-57007 - but that's not the issue.
Where I do end up agreeing with Friedman is not in his gung-ho "I know what the OWS and Arab Spring protests have in common" attitude, but I like the fact that he's actually proposing fairly sensible changes. I probably only really agree with no's 1 and 4 on his little list, but it's high time that we start discussing actual plans for democracies to make sure that our institutions are stronger and our politicians less able to be fall for professional flattery, if not outright bribery. Now, I hate to say that this kind of thing should be regulated, for I still believe that the best way to get people to behave is for them to develop a sense of shame about the kinds of things that are not seen as acceptable behaviour. However, when things are this much fun to get into, the sense of shame becomes a nagging feeling rather than an actual impulse to stop doing what you know you shouldn't for some sense of morality which no-one really respects. It is like this with all things, really, and I think the greatest problem is that the 1%, or 10% or whatever the elites actually are, no longer see themselves as guardians of the state. They always say that it comes with money and great wealth passed down through generations, but I don't think that's a determinant: there are a lot of really horrible people who have great wealth passed down to them. It's about a sense of collective responsibility, and also a sense of knowing that you are a part of that elite, and that it's not something that should be treated lightly.
What deserves praise, then is the fact that we are wanting to talk about how to best govern and how we want to be best governed again. The fact that we're going to want to create a list of demands for our politicians shows that perhaps we'll be free of the messiahs and the caretakers that for too long have been the requirements for leaders*. No system of representative government will be made whole until people bring their lists, responsibly and intelligently drawn up, to every election.
* - as a side note - that's exactly what the 2012 election will be for me: the battle between the man that may have the silver bullet (Obama) if only he were unshackled, and the steward that will sail the ship safe back to port, and while weather-beaten, able to henceforth operate in the same seas as before (Romney). Unfortunately, Obama is a product of that same system and works too well within it as the supposed outlier, and I have no faith that Romney understands the sea changes that are taking place and I don't believe he has the personal force of personality to hold sway over the winds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-bankers.html
For a good, other-view of the situation, I recommend this - http://dealbreaker.com/2011/10/federal-judge-wants-to-know-why-sec-is-only-charging-citi-15th-as-much-as-it-charged-goldman-for-ripping-off-cdo-investors/#more-57007 - but that's not the issue.
Where I do end up agreeing with Friedman is not in his gung-ho "I know what the OWS and Arab Spring protests have in common" attitude, but I like the fact that he's actually proposing fairly sensible changes. I probably only really agree with no's 1 and 4 on his little list, but it's high time that we start discussing actual plans for democracies to make sure that our institutions are stronger and our politicians less able to be fall for professional flattery, if not outright bribery. Now, I hate to say that this kind of thing should be regulated, for I still believe that the best way to get people to behave is for them to develop a sense of shame about the kinds of things that are not seen as acceptable behaviour. However, when things are this much fun to get into, the sense of shame becomes a nagging feeling rather than an actual impulse to stop doing what you know you shouldn't for some sense of morality which no-one really respects. It is like this with all things, really, and I think the greatest problem is that the 1%, or 10% or whatever the elites actually are, no longer see themselves as guardians of the state. They always say that it comes with money and great wealth passed down through generations, but I don't think that's a determinant: there are a lot of really horrible people who have great wealth passed down to them. It's about a sense of collective responsibility, and also a sense of knowing that you are a part of that elite, and that it's not something that should be treated lightly.
What deserves praise, then is the fact that we are wanting to talk about how to best govern and how we want to be best governed again. The fact that we're going to want to create a list of demands for our politicians shows that perhaps we'll be free of the messiahs and the caretakers that for too long have been the requirements for leaders*. No system of representative government will be made whole until people bring their lists, responsibly and intelligently drawn up, to every election.
* - as a side note - that's exactly what the 2012 election will be for me: the battle between the man that may have the silver bullet (Obama) if only he were unshackled, and the steward that will sail the ship safe back to port, and while weather-beaten, able to henceforth operate in the same seas as before (Romney). Unfortunately, Obama is a product of that same system and works too well within it as the supposed outlier, and I have no faith that Romney understands the sea changes that are taking place and I don't believe he has the personal force of personality to hold sway over the winds.
