Today, 20 Friedman units ago, we got to witness a skillful exercise in taking a good idea and layering it with so many buzz words and “branding” that it becomes almost unpalatable.
“Well, I want to rename ‘green.’ I want to rename it geostrategic, geoeconomic, capitalistic and patriotic. I want to do that because I think that living, working, designing, manufacturing and projecting America in a green way can be the basis of a new unifying political movement for the 21st century. A redefined, broader and more muscular green ideology is not meant to trump the traditional Republican and Democratic agendas but rather to bridge them when it comes to addressing the three major issues facing every American today: jobs, temperature and terrorism.
“How do our kids compete in a flatter world? How do they thrive in a warmer world? How do they survive in a more dangerous world? Those are, in a nutshell, the big questions facing America at the dawn of the 21st century. But these problems are so large in scale that they can only be effectively addressed by an America with 50 green states – not an America divided between red and blue states.”
We’ve seen worse ideas out of Friedman but rarely more execrable expression of those ideas, combined with Friedman’s “common sense” centrist idea that we would be so much better off if the parties would just put aside their differences to do things. What things? You know — things.
Friedman, Thomas L. 2007. “The Power of Green.” The New York Times Magazine. April 15, 2007: 40-51,67,71-72.