What Friedman wants from America

Thomas Friedman would probably not get pied for his latest column for New York Times. On contrary, the generally liberal college students would welcome his latest ideas on the necessary change in the course in which the U.S. is headed. It has become a customary habit to blame the government for any situation, even if the government itself couldn’t have prevented it, like the current credit crunch or a “poor” state of the infrastructure.

First of all, it’s not the current government that is entirely responsible for the turmoil of the financial markets and the prices of gasoline. The monetary policy of the United States is a responsibility of the Fed, the institution that operates independently on any branch of state, and it was its impassiveness in raising interest rates that led to the sharp and bloody drop last August. It was not Bernanke’s impassiveness, but Greenspan’s in the years following the 9/11. From the Friedman’s side it’s a pure hypocrisy (or populism) when he in his books advocates the globalization and cites its numerous benefits for the American companies, whereas in NYT he decides to question it when the American banks get help from global players.

It might be the naïveté speaking when I see the growing Middle Eastern involvement on Wall Street as not purely harmful. Since those sovereign-wealth funds are profit-oriented, it will be in their interest to keep the political and economic situation in their countries stable, and thus guarantee the best environment for the growth of their investments. The stable and predictable politics there would inevitably lead to better policies and agendas for the citizens at home.

Furthermore, I don’t see any reasons to include the cries about the state of the JFK or Penn Station, other than Friedman’s wishes to capture attention of those always dissatisfied members of society and arm them with yet another audible weapons biased contempt. It’s quite understandable that those brand new, state-of-the-art facilities in Berlin are superior to America’s iconic transportation hubs that have been around for several decades. But will the new Czech national library (if the public figures eventually reach a consensus on just about everything) be lauded and will it surpass the Library of Congress in the graph of greatness, because it’ll be stuffed with the latest technologies and painted in trendy colors? The feel won’t automatically make it better, nor will it elevate Czechia to the same level as the U.S., which is the main idea Friedman’s trying to vent.

The contemporary infrastructure faces other challenges than worn-out seats in the waiting rooms; even though they don’t know it yet, the Americans are waiting for an efficient and affordable system of public transportation that would get them around without depending on their gas-guzzling automobiles. The United States are waiting for the further deregulation of the transatlantic flights, and in the carriers business. It might be longing for, but it doesn’t necessarily need, carpeted glass-and-concrete structures.

In that column, Friedman is searching for the fundamental problems in areas that aren’t yet notorious enough. The best and brightest from all fields are coming over and Mrs Clinton is still sweating the primaries. America is not yet doomed.