Realities neither side will face--interesting editorial

[Nym90]

By Thomas Friedman

Sometimes it's useful to stand back and ask yourself: If I could vote for anyone for president other than George W. Bush or John Kerry, whom would I choose? I'd choose Bill Cosby - on the condition that he would talk as bluntly to white parents and kids about what they need to do if they want to succeed as he did to black kids and parents a few months ago.

The one thing that has gone totally missing, not only from this election, but from American politics, is national leaders who are actually ready to level with the public and even criticize their own constituencies. The columnist Michael Kinsley once observed that in American politics "a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth." We could use a few really big gaffes right now. Because we have not one, but three baby booms bearing down at us, and without a massive injection of truth-telling they could all explode on the next president's watch.

The leading edge of the American baby boom generation is now just two presidential terms away from claiming its Social Security and Medicare benefits. "With unfunded entitlement liabilities at $74 trillion in today's dollars - an amount far exceeding the net worth of our entire national economy - and with payroll taxes needing to double to cover the projected costs of Social Security and Medicare, how can any serious person not call entitlement reform the transcendent domestic policy issue of our era?" asks former Commerce Secretary Peter G. Peterson, whose book on this subject, "Running on Empty," provides a blueprint for a bipartisan solution to this problem for any president daring to lead.

The second group of boomers barreling down the highway are the young people in India, China and Eastern Europe, who in this increasingly flat world will be able to compete with your kids and mine more directly than ever for high-value-added jobs. Attention Wal-Mart shoppers: The Chinese and the Indians are not racing us to the bottom. They are racing us to the top. Young Indian and Chinese entrepreneurs are not content just to build our designs. They aspire to design the next wave of innovations and dominate those markets. Good jobs are being outsourced to them not simply because they'll work for less, but because they are better educated in the math and science skills required for 21st-century work.

When was the last time you met a 12-year-old who told you he or she wanted to grow up to be an engineer? When Bill Gates goes to China, students hang from the rafters and scalp tickets to hear him speak. In China, Bill Gates is Britney Spears. In America, Britney Spears is Britney Spears. We need a Bill Cosby-like president to tell all parents the truth: throw out your kid's idiotic video game, shut off the TV and get Johnny and Suzy to work, because there is a storm coming their way.

The third group of boomers our next president will have to deal with is from the Arab world. The Arab region has had the highest rate of population growth in the world in the last half century. It has among the highest unemployment rates in the world today. And one-third of the Arab population is under the age of 15 and will soon be entering both a barren job market and its child-bearing years. There are eight Saudis under age 15 for every one between ages 45 and 60.

This is why I believed so strongly in trying to partner with the people of Iraq to establish some sort of decent government there that might serve as a beachhead for more progressive governance in the Arab world. I have not given up hope for this, but it may turn out that we made too many mistakes and that Iraqis are too divided for such a project to succeed. If so, the next president is going to need plan B - some combination of oil conservation that reduces our exposure to this region, a new military strategy and a renewed focus on promoting better government there through diplomatic and economic means. The Arab world is not even close to educating its baby boomers with the skills needed to succeed in the 21st century. Left untended, this trend is a prescription for humiliation and suicide terrorism.

I realize that elections are no time to expect honesty from politicians. But we're in this hole because the political season used to stop on Election Day. Now it's a permanent campaign. That is simply not a luxury our next president will have. The boomers are coming - from three directions - and we will not be able to deal with them without a president with a real penchant for gaffes of honesty.

[CollectiveInterest]

You know I'm not going to read "Realities neither side will face" until Friedman gives a "mea culpa" about the reality he won't face: he was wrong to support Bush's Iraq War.

[dazzleman]

By Thomas Friedman

Sometimes it's useful to stand back and ask yourself: If I could vote for anyone for president other than George W. Bush or John Kerry, whom would I choose? I'd choose Bill Cosby - on the condition that he would talk as bluntly to white parents and kids about what they need to do if they want to succeed as he did to black kids and parents a few months ago.

The one thing that has gone totally missing, not only from this election, but from American politics, is national leaders who are actually ready to level with the public and even criticize their own constituencies. The columnist Michael Kinsley once observed that in American politics "a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth." We could use a few really big gaffes right now. Because we have not one, but three baby booms bearing down at us, and without a massive injection of truth-telling they could all explode on the next president's watch.

The leading edge of the American baby boom generation is now just two presidential terms away from claiming its Social Security and Medicare benefits. "With unfunded entitlement liabilities at $74 trillion in today's dollars - an amount far exceeding the net worth of our entire national economy - and with payroll taxes needing to double to cover the projected costs of Social Security and Medicare, how can any serious person not call entitlement reform the transcendent domestic policy issue of our era?" asks former Commerce Secretary Peter G. Peterson, whose book on this subject, "Running on Empty," provides a blueprint for a bipartisan solution to this problem for any president daring to lead.

The second group of boomers barreling down the highway are the young people in India, China and Eastern Europe, who in this increasingly flat world will be able to compete with your kids and mine more directly than ever for high-value-added jobs. Attention Wal-Mart shoppers: The Chinese and the Indians are not racing us to the bottom. They are racing us to the top. Young Indian and Chinese entrepreneurs are not content just to build our designs. They aspire to design the next wave of innovations and dominate those markets. Good jobs are being outsourced to them not simply because they'll work for less, but because they are better educated in the math and science skills required for 21st-century work.

When was the last time you met a 12-year-old who told you he or she wanted to grow up to be an engineer? When Bill Gates goes to China, students hang from the rafters and scalp tickets to hear him speak. In China, Bill Gates is Britney Spears. In America, Britney Spears is Britney Spears. We need a Bill Cosby-like president to tell all parents the truth: throw out your kid's idiotic video game, shut off the TV and get Johnny and Suzy to work, because there is a storm coming their way.

The third group of boomers our next president will have to deal with is from the Arab world. The Arab region has had the highest rate of population growth in the world in the last half century. It has among the highest unemployment rates in the world today. And one-third of the Arab population is under the age of 15 and will soon be entering both a barren job market and its child-bearing years. There are eight Saudis under age 15 for every one between ages 45 and 60.

This is why I believed so strongly in trying to partner with the people of Iraq to establish some sort of decent government there that might serve as a beachhead for more progressive governance in the Arab world. I have not given up hope for this, but it may turn out that we made too many mistakes and that Iraqis are too divided for such a project to succeed. If so, the next president is going to need plan B - some combination of oil conservation that reduces our exposure to this region, a new military strategy and a renewed focus on promoting better government there through diplomatic and economic means. The Arab world is not even close to educating its baby boomers with the skills needed to succeed in the 21st century. Left untended, this trend is a prescription for humiliation and suicide terrorism.

I realize that elections are no time to expect honesty from politicians. But we're in this hole because the political season used to stop on Election Day. Now it's a permanent campaign. That is simply not a luxury our next president will have. The boomers are coming - from three directions - and we will not be able to deal with them without a president with a real penchant for gaffes of honesty.

Very interesting article.  The great weakness of democracy is that in order to get elected, politicians tell voters what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear.  It is a rare politician that forces people to deal with issues that they would rather not deal with, and gets away with it.

Republicans have been less than realistic about the costs of "compassionate conservatism."  At least during the Reagan era, Reagan was seeking to cut non-defense spending, and could not be fully blamed for Congress' failure to control spending.  Today, the Republicans in Congress and the White House are partners in increasing spending, while cutting taxes.

On the other hand, the Democrats in my opinion are even worse.  Bush has increased education spending by 49%, and overall domestic spending, not realated to homeland security, by 25% and it's still not enough for that crowd, even as they flail him over the deficit.  With them in control of both government branches, the deficit would be even worse, and there would not be enough revenue to be raised from the "rich" to put things right.

I think the president has taken some tentative steps in the direction of dealing with the social security program, while Kerry clings to the "no changes" position which is hatefully irresponsible and untenable, and will lead to future disaster.  Clinton had a great opportunity in the late 1990s, with no other real distracting issues and a great economy, to fix social security, but he didn't care enough about the future to spend any of his political capital, lest he need it to deal with his personal scandals.

The democrats have also demagogued the outsourcing issue.  Friedman is right that our kids have to be able to compete globally, and we need to pull up our education system.  Here, the president is being attacked for agreeing to what was essentially a liberal law, that liberals are now attacking because some of their favorite constituencies don't like it.  They are now attacking it on the basis that a 49% spending increase for education is "underfunding."  It's absurd.

We cannot make the outsourcing issue go away by attacking the companies that engage in it.  We can only adapt, and position ourselves best for the future.

[CollectiveInterest]

Why doesn't Friedman have to compete?

He was wrong about the Iraq War. He should go back to the minor leagues and someone who knows which end is up should get his spot in the NYT.

[??????????]

TrollCollective,

If you don't stand for a strong national defense then what do you stand for?

[CollectiveInterest]

TrollCollective,

If you don't stand for a strong national defense then what do you stand for?

If you ask a real question, I'll give you a real response.

BTW, how do I qualify as a "troll"?

[??????????]

TrollCollective,

If you don't stand for a strong national defense then what do you stand for?

If you ask a real question, I'll give you a real response.

BTW, how do I qualify as a "troll"?

You don't debate the opposition. You accuse them of some great world takeover conspiracy and tell them to grow up..See my new thread in "The Atlas".

[CollectiveInterest]

TrollCollective,

If you don't stand for a strong national defense then what do you stand for?

If you ask a real question, I'll give you a real response.

BTW, how do I qualify as a "troll"?

You don't debate the opposition. You accuse them of some great world takeover conspiracy and tell them to grow up..See my new thread in "The Atlas".

Is there anything you want to debate? Or do you just want to engage in namecalling?

[??????????]

TrollCollective,

If you don't stand for a strong national defense then what do you stand for?

If you ask a real question, I'll give you a real response.

BTW, how do I qualify as a "troll"?

You don't debate the opposition. You accuse them of some great world takeover conspiracy and tell them to grow up..See my new thread in "The Atlas".

Is there anything you want to debate? Or do you just want to engage in namecalling?

Its not worth debating partisan Democrats such as yourself.

[CollectiveInterest]

Its not worth debating partisan Democrats such as yourself.

Why are other people worth debating and not me?

What makes me a "partisan Democrat"?

Is the reason you don't want to discuss policy issues the fact that you are trying to defend the indefensible?

[??????????]

Its not worth debating partisan Democrats such as yourself.

Why are other people worth debating and not me?

What makes me a "partisan Democrat"?

Is the reason you don't want to discuss policy issues the fact that you are trying to defend the indefensible?

I stand by the presidents foreign policy. They are reasonable and sound.

[CollectiveInterest]

I stand by the presidents foreign policy. They are reasonable and sound.

Since invading Iraq the Bush administration rationale for war has changed. What is the core reason for invading Iraq? And why has the Bush administration changed its justification?

[??????????]

I stand by the presidents foreign policy. They are reasonable and sound.

Since invading Iraq the Bush administration rationale for war has changed. What is the core reason for invading Iraq? And why has the Bush administration changed its justification?

Oil? WMDs? Terrorists? Who cares? I, for one don't because all I ever cared about was getting that butcher out of power. Whatever the reason.

[CollectiveInterest]

I stand by the presidents foreign policy. They are reasonable and sound.

Since invading Iraq the Bush administration rationale for war has changed. What is the core reason for invading Iraq? And why has the Bush administration changed its justification?

Oil? WMDs? Terrorists? Who cares? I, for one don't because all I ever cared about was getting that butcher out of power. Whatever the reason.

I'm thinking the families of the killed and wounded servicemembers care about why Bush invaded. What's the answer? Why did Bush invade Iraq?

[??????????]

I stand by the presidents foreign policy. They are reasonable and sound.

Since invading Iraq the Bush administration rationale for war has changed. What is the core reason for invading Iraq? And why has the Bush administration changed its justification?

Oil? WMDs? Terrorists? Who cares? I, for one don't because all I ever cared about was getting that butcher out of power. Whatever the reason.

I'm thinking the families of the killed and wounded servicemembers care about why Bush invaded. What's the answer? Why did Bush invade Iraq?

Let me guess you answer...Oil..and ok fine..he did it for the oil! Point? Want to ride a bicycle everywhere?

[CollectiveInterest]

Let me guess you answer...Oil..and ok fine..he did it for the oil! Point? Want to ride a bicycle everywhere?

I will answer your question and assume you have the good faith to answer the one I already asked.

I'm not certain why Bush invaded Iraq, but there's probably a confluence of interests.

* To exert more influence over the oil supply. To stabilize the supply coming from the region.
* To remove one of Israel's regional rivals.
* For domestic political considerations. It was good for the GOP in the 2002 election.
* To finish the job for his father. He thought it would be an easy legacy.
* To create contracts to reward friends (domestic and foreign).
* To make the UN more subservient to the United States.
* To demonstrate US willingness to use force to get its way.
* So the US could project power in the region from Iraq in the future.
* Cuz Bush's people like going to war on a gut level. It makes them feel important.

[??????????]

Let me guess you answer...Oil..and ok fine..he did it for the oil! Point? Want to ride a bicycle everywhere?

I will answer your question and assume you have the good faith to answer the one I already asked.

I'm not certain why Bush invaded Iraq, but there's probably a confluence of interests.

* To exert more influence over the oil supply. To stabilize the supply coming from the region.
* To remove one of Israel's regional rivals.
* For domestic political considerations. It was good for the GOP in the 2002 election.
* To finish the job for his father. He thought it would be an easy legacy.
* To create contracts to reward friends (domestic and foreign).
* To make the UN more subservient to the United States.
* To demonstrate US willingness to use force to get its way.
* So the US could project power in the region from Iraq in the future.
* Cuz Bush's people like going to war on a gut level. It makes them feel important.

With the exception to your last point I agree with that list and think all those reasons are good!

[CollectiveInterest]

Let me guess you answer...Oil..and ok fine..he did it for the oil! Point? Want to ride a bicycle everywhere?

I will answer your question and assume you have the good faith to answer the one I already asked.

I'm not certain why Bush invaded Iraq, but there's probably a confluence of interests.

* To exert more influence over the oil supply. To stabilize the supply coming from the region.
* To remove one of Israel's regional rivals.
* For domestic political considerations. It was good for the GOP in the 2002 election.
* To finish the job for his father. He thought it would be an easy legacy.
* To create contracts to reward friends (domestic and foreign).
* To make the UN more subservient to the United States.
* To demonstrate US willingness to use force to get its way.
* So the US could project power in the region from Iraq in the future.
* Cuz Bush's people like going to war on a gut level. It makes them feel important.

With the exception to your last point I agree with that list and think all those reasons are good!

OK. Invading Iraq for Israel, domestic politics and for the ability to feed at the public trough are bad reasons to go to war. They justify firing Bush if not prosecuting him.

How would you feel if your brother died so Halliburton could get a contract or so the GOP could win a Senate seat in Georgia?

[Gabu]

I'm going to completely ignore this stupid argument and just respond to the actual topic at hand.

I completely agree with the fact that politicians are absolutely notorious for not telling the truth and instead just saying what people want to hear.  However, I personally don't think you can blame the politicians for it, just as I don't think you can blame the politicians for running negative ads.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people are very content with "ostrich tactics", i.e., sticking their head in the sand and hoping problems with go away.  If a politician attempts to show them the reality of the fact that politicians cannot solve all of their problems, the people will become very indignant at this person's "defeatist attitude" and will vote for the person that promises them world peace and economic stability forever.  Then they'll wonder how they ended up with idiotic, incompetent representative who didn't live up to the given promises.  Come election time, however, they'll go right back to believing the person who promises them the world and will once again become indignant at the person who tells them that there is no magic bullet to fix all the problems in life.

Politicians will never stop lying until the people begin to realize that those promising less than the world are the ones who they can actually trust.

[Nym90]

I'm going to completely ignore this stupid argument and just respond to the actual topic at hand.

I completely agree with the fact that politicians are absolutely notorious for not telling the truth and instead just saying what people want to hear.  However, I personally don't think you can blame the politicians for it, just as I don't think you can blame the politicians for running negative ads.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people are very content with "ostrich tactics", i.e., sticking their head in the sand and hoping problems with go away.  If a politician attempts to show them the reality of the fact that politicians cannot solve all of their problems, the people will become very indignant at this person's "defeatist attitude" and will vote for the person that promises them world peace and economic stability forever.  Then they'll wonder how they ended up with idiotic, incompetent representative who didn't live up to the given promises.  Come election time, however, they'll go right back to believing the person who promises them the world and will once again become indignant at the person who tells them that there is no magic bullet to fix all the problems in life.

Politicians will never stop lying until the people begin to realize that those promising less than the world are the ones who they can actually trust.

Great points. Why should the politicians be the ones getting blamed? They are just saying what they have to say to get elected.

The blame should lie with the voters for electing politicians who lie and not electing politicians who tell the truth. We have the power to elect whomever we choose. If politicians are all liars, it's our fault; we elected them.

Ultimately, we always get the government that we deserve. That's the way democracy works.

[J. J.]

How would you feel if your brother died so Halliburton could get a contract or so the GOP could win a Senate seat in Georgia?

I would:

A.  Feel sad because he was out of my life.

B.  Feel proud because did so in the service of his country.

C.  Feel pleased because, if he did, he did so doing what he wanted to do, and what he volunteered to do.

BTW:  If he died drive a race car, I'd feel A and C.  If he died of prostate cancer at 65, only A.

[John Dibble]

While I agree that we need to consider that China, India, and other countries will become very economically powerful in the tech sector in the future, I have to disagree with one comment:

We need a Bill Cosby-like president to tell all parents the truth: throw out your kid's idiotic video game, shut off the TV and get Johnny and Suzy to work, because there is a storm coming their way.

Video games are good - unlike television they are interactive, which means the kid actually has to work his brain. Video games develop hand-eye coordination and critical thinking skills. Even with games like Grant Theft Auto the player has to put problem solving skills to work(you can't always go in guns blazing - you have to strategize). Also, you'll notice lots of engineering and programming students play video games on a regular basis - in fact, video games are the reason I decided I wanted to be a computer programmer. Of course, all things in moderation.

As far as TV goes, moderation and partial replacement with books.