Latest news with #ThomasFriedman
New York Times
29-05-2025
- General
- New York Times
Tom Friedman: Will Israel's War Ever End?
The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has spent decades covering Israel and the Middle East. For this episode of 'The Opinions,' the deputy editor of Opinion, Patrick Healy, speaks to Friedman about his latest trip to the region, what he envisions for the future of Israel and how the ongoing conflict in Gaza is going to affect the country. Below is a transcript of an episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio App, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity. Patrick Healy: The war shows no signs of slowing down, and you write about how anger toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is growing, including within his own party. I want to start with your trip. What was the biggest difference you noticed in Israel compared with your last trip to the country, last fall? Tom Friedman: I'll start from the very first morning I was there. I had scheduled a breakfast with Yair Golan, the head of the Democrats party, basically the mainstream liberal party in Israel today. We had talked about a range of things, but after breakfast, as we were walking out of the hotel, I could see his phone was blowing up, and I didn't know what it was about. They explained to me that he'd given an interview, I think the evening before with Israel Radio, in which he decried this war with no end and with no plan, where so many Palestinian civilians were being killed. And he said that Palestinian children were being killed as a hobby and absolutely condemned that. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Mail & Guardian
12-05-2025
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
New world of work requires new minds
The market requires entrepreneurialism, innovation, critical thinking, decisiveness and problem-solving abilities, but most schools and tertiary institutions don't support this. Photo: AFP It's Graduation Season again. This is one of the highlights on the academic calendar, when institutions showcase the scholarly achievements of their graduates. In the life of a student, this moment is a rite of passage to transition from 'gown to town'; from tertiary institution to the world of work. For many graduates, the euphoria will unfortunately be short-lived. After all their sacrifices, struggles with funding and accommodation, as well as the challenges that come with higher education, they will now face the cold, harsh reality of the marketplace. Here different rules and norms apply. It's complex, rapidly changing and highly competitive. Few graduates are prepared for this, which exacerbates the already serious youth unemployment crisis in the country. 'The world doesn't care about what you know. The world only cares about what you can do with what you know and it doesn't care about how you learnt it.' This quote by New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, should be a wake-up call to graduates and higher education faculty alike. After 12 years of secondary schooling and about four years of tertiary education, key questions must be addressed. What are graduates capable of doing with their learning? What problems can they solve? What value do they bring to society? The marketplace thrives on entrepreneurialism, innovation, critical thinking, decisiveness and problem-solving abilities. But, at most tertiary institutions teaching is still done in passive, old-fashioned, teacher-centred, and discipline specific ways. Rote learning is common and there is little emphasis on innovation or entrepreneurial thinking. This affects employability and therefore it's not surprising that unemployment among graduates is on the rise. The Statistics South Africa's Quarterly Labour Force Survey for the last quarter of 2024 showed no substantive change in employment levels. Youth aged 15 to 24 and 25 to 34 continue to have the highest unemployment rates at 59.6% and 39.4% respectively. Even though the graduate unemployment rate decreased by 1.1 percentage points from 9.8% in Q3:2024 to 8.7% in Q4:2024 these are still unacceptably high numbers of unemployed graduates. What's even worse is for job-seekers with just a matric school leaving certificate. They are even more vulnerable with unemployment rates of about 38.2%, while the NEETS (not in employment, education or training) aged 18 to 34 are up from 8.6 million to 8.8 million compared to the same quarter in 2023. High youth unemployment casts a blight on the country's prospects, because we are not preparing the human resources that the country will need in the future both from skills capacity or in terms of growing a tax base to fund future development needs. Education is costly in time, labour and infrastructure and places a significant burden on the public purse. So when graduates and youth struggle to find employment it should ring alarm bells and prompt urgent, decisive action from all stakeholders — government, education institutions, learners, corporates, parents. New minds — new thinking and new ways of doing must be prioritised. This is not only to access employment, but to keep pace with the rapid developments in technology, work processes and sustainability issues such as climate change. Hence educators at all levels need to critically evaluate what they teach, how they teach and, more importantly, how their content aligns with the needs of the modern world. From its Latin roots, education derives from 'educare' which means 'to bring up' or to 'nourish'. So activities in the class and lecture rooms must nurture and harness the natural creative talents latent in each human being and complement these with academic and technical knowledge. It was the late Albert Einstein, not only a brilliant physicist but also an astute social commentator who once defined education as, 'what remains, once we have forgotten everything we learned at school'. Einstein understood the essence of education — education that transcends rote and book learning; education that presents its value in what we're able to do to create a better world. Even though human development is systemic, education should be at the forefront because of the time and resources invested in it. Therefore didactics and epistemology should be updated to align more closely with industry trends and innovations. The explosion of smart technology in the 21st century and its rapid evolution is having a huge effect on the world, economically and developmentally. This shows a clear need for urgent investment and development of skills conducive to a knowledge-based economy. Although there has been significant promotion of the STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) subjects, what needs to be reviewed is when and how these are taught. The logic and rigor of these subjects must be instilled much earlier in a child's life and often through activity-based learning rather than boring theory. After all, Scaled Composites (kit aeroplanes), Square (online payment digital platform), Dry Wash (waterless cleaning gel) and BrickArms (Lego accessory maker) were all started by individuals in their own capacities and driven by their own needs. Today the Therefore learning should be less theoretical and more applied. Laboratories and workshops can rapidly be transformed to become 'maker spaces'. 'Purpose-driven engineering' at the University of KwaZulu-Natal is one such example. Civil engineering students are encouraged to apply their learning to solve problems in their communities and, by doing so, nurture applied learning, problem-solving as well as task management skills. These will serve them well in their future jobs as professional engineers. To shape a truly transformative and meaningful educational experience requires intentional engagement informed by social and professional objectives. Teaching and learning should be vibrant, expansive and aligned to the latest social, economic, political and environmental developments. It shouldn't be limited to the textbook. It requires a dynamic transactional partnership with industry and broader society. This will stimulate curiosity, initiative and accountability. When we look into the eyes of our graduates, we need to see a future in the making; one of hope. We need to see the confidence in young minds who are capable and willing to tackle the big challenges to build a more sustainable future for themselves. Dr Rudi Kimmie is the interim director of the Aerotropolis Institute Africa (UKZN). He writes in his personal capacity.
Arab News
19-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
2002 - The Arab Peace Initiative: A vision whose time has come
RIYADH: The Arab Peace Initiative, which is among the most significant diplomatic proposals of our time, has offered a fair and practical road map to Middle East peace for more than two decades. Recent events, especially the escalation of the crisis in Gaza, have ensured that the principles of the initiative are more relevant now than ever. As Saudi Arabia leads new global initiatives, including a conference in June this year it will co-chair with France to discuss the Palestinian issue and a two-state solution, the API remains both a moral obligation and a practical plan for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Proposed by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the Arab League in 2002, the API was first revealed by then-Crown Prince (later King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in a conversation with journalist Thomas Friedman. In a New York Times column on Feb. 17, 2002, Friedman recounted Abdullah asking if he had 'broken into my desk' after publishing a column days earlier suggesting an Arab peace plan. Abdullah then confirmed he had a speech prepared 'along those lines' and was considering delivering it before the Arab League Summit in Beirut to 'mobilize the entire Arab world behind it.' The API calls for a return by Israel to its 1967 borders, the establishment of a Palestinian state, and a just solution for Palestinian refugees, in exchange for normalization of relations between Arab states and Israel. At its core, the initiative represents a willingness to compromise in the name of Arab unity and peace; it promises justice and sovereignty for Palestinians while giving Israel a historic opportunity to seek regional acceptance. Israel's continuing rejection of the proposal, and refusal even to take it seriously, is a critical missed opportunity. It has only deepened the cycle of mistrust and violence, making the prospect of peace and stability even more difficult to achieve. The deepening crisis in Gaza reveals the urgent need for diplomacy. Ongoing violence, mass displacement and humanitarian catastrophe have pushed the region to its limits. Neighborhoods are in ruins, infrastructure is destroyed, and too many lives have been lost. Saudi Arabia, as chair of the Joint Arab-Islamic Committee on Gaza, has been on the front lines of this humanitarian catastrophe. At the same time, it has continued to seek a political solution. The Kingdom has made clear its view that lasting peace in Gaza, and throughout the region, requires the root causes of the conflict are addressed, including the occupation and the denial of Palestinian sovereignty. Riyadh's commitment to peace was evident even before the conflict in Gaza escalated. In 2022, for example, Saudi Arabia and the Arab League organized round table discussions between members of the API Committee, and other interested parties from around the world, to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the initiative. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chair Yasser Arafat sign Oslo II Accord in Washington, D.C. During the Beirut Summit, at the height of the Second Intifada, Arab League leaders endorse the Arab Peace Initiative, proposed by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, which offers normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for an independent Palestinian state. Leaders of Arab League nations reaffirm commitment to the API during Riyadh Summit. Peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians resume in Washington for the first time in nearly two years after Israel's aggression in Gaza but end with no agreement. On the heels of US President Donald Trump's 'Plan for Peace,' the Abraham Accords normalize relations between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain, in exchange for a halt to planned annexation of the West Bank. Sudan and Morocco later sign up to the accords. During an extraordinary summit in Riyadh, Arab League and other Islamic countries reaffirm support for an independent Palestinian state amid the war in Gaza, and stress important need to activate the API. Arab leaders adopt a $53 billion Egyptian plan for reconstruction of Gaza without the displacement of the population, setting out a path forward after Israel's devastating war on the territory. Building on this, Saudi Arabia joined forces with the Arab League, the EU, Egypt and Jordan in 2023 to launch the Peace Day Effort. This reaffirmed the principles of the API and called on the international community to take meaningful steps toward achieving a two-state solution to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. The aim of these discussions was to breathe new life into the API and reaffirm it as the foundation for Arab and Islamic efforts to achieve peace, and the starting point for future negotiations. The lack of progress toward a political solution highlights the urgent need for fresh dialogue. To that end Saudi Arabia and France will, as noted above, co-chair an international conference at the UN in New York in June. Supported by the EU, Norway and other global partners, it aims to focus on efforts to resolve the Palestinian issue and promote a two-state solution, underscoring the renewed commitment of the world to the principles of justice and peace, and to the vision of the API. The enduring power of the API lies in its balance and fairness. It offers Israel a chance for regional security and integration, while guaranteeing dignity and statehood for the Palestinian people. Its principles, rooted in international law and the frameworks of the UN, remain the most practical foundation for peace. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a reminder of what happens when the world fails to act. Unless the fundamental issues of occupation and Palestinian self-determination are addressed, peace will remain out of reach. Realizing the vision of the API will require bold and deliberate action. Firstly, Arab countries must reaffirm their commitment to the initiative and resist normalization deals that circumvent Palestinian rights. Secondly, the international community must actively support initiatives such as the Peace Day Effort, and hold Israel accountable for illegal settlement expansions and violations of international law. Thirdly, Israel must understand that true security comes not from military rule and occupation, but from justice, coexistence and mutual respect. The API is more than a mere diplomatic framework, it is a testament to the power of compromise and diplomacy. From the response by Saudi Arabia to the Gaza crisis to the country's role as co-chair of the upcoming conference in June, the Kingdom's leadership role reflects the world's renewed commitment to this vision for peace. The principles of the Arab Peace Initiative — two states, mutual recognition and a shared future — are as relevant and valid now as they were in 2002. But time is running out. With each act of violence and each missed opportunity, we move further from peace. The world must act now to prioritize justice and peace. The API offers a clear path forward but only if we choose to follow it. History will judge whether we had the courage to seize this moment or let the vision fade.
Asia Times
18-04-2025
- Business
- Asia Times
The Chinese Century won't mean what most expect
Witnessing America's flamboyantly stupid economic self-harm and its slow descent into authoritarianism has made some people ask whether the 21st century will end up being the Chinese Century. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman says yes: 'There was a time when people came to America to see the future,' [an American businessman in China] said. 'Now they come here.'… President Trump is focused on what teams American transgender athletes can race on, and China is focused on transforming its factories with A.I. so it can outrace all our factories. Trump's 'Liberation Day' strategy is to double down on tariffs while gutting our national scientific institutions and work force that spur U.S. innovation. China's liberation strategy is to open more research campuses and double down on A.I.-driven innovation… [W]hat makes China's manufacturing juggernaut so powerful today is not that it just makes things cheaper; it makes them cheaper, faster, better, smarter and increasingly infused with A.I…China starts with an emphasis on STEM education — science, technology, engineering and math. Each year, the country produces some 3.5 million STEM graduates…[T]he best are world class, and there are a lot of them… Over 550 Chinese cities are connected by high-speed rail that makes our Amtrak Acela look like the Pony Express. Matt Yglesias also recently tweeted (and then deleted): 'For the first time in my life, I really just think America may be cooked and it's gonna be the Chinese century.' Tyler Cowen has his doubts, arguing that Chinese success free-rides on a bunch of American-provided public goods: In the realm of technology, China's advances are impressive. BYD has the best and cheapest electric vehicles…Chinese AI, in the form of DeepSeek and Manus, has shocked many Westerners with its inventiveness…Yet Western and most of all American hegemony is not over yet. These advances by China are real, but they rest on a foundation of Western values and institutions more than it might appear at first… The inconvenient truth, for China, is that its scale relies upon American power and influence. The Chinese export machine, for instance, requires a relatively free world trading order…If the world breaks down into bitterly selfish protectionist trading blocs…where will the Chinese sell the rising output from their factories?… The Chinese growth and stability model also requires relatively secure energy supplies…If the Western alliance system collapses, who is to keep the Middle East relatively stable…China hardly seems up to that task…Another risk on the horizon is nuclear proliferation…The more nuclear powers inhabit the world, the more China is hemmed in with its foreign policy ambitions… There is much to rue in the first few months of Trump's foreign and economic policy, but China is far from being able to take the baton. They are running second, and doing a great job of that, precisely because we Americans – in spite of all our mistakes — still have the lead. Surprisingly, I think Friedman is more right than Tyler here. I've written a bit about this topic over the past few years, and I think that when we look back on the 21st century, we'll probably call it the Chinese Century — or at least, the first half of it. But the reason I say this is because what it means for a century to 'belong' to a specific country will change from what it meant in the 20th — and often in ways that will not be very pleasant. The 20th century often gets called the 'American century', but there's no one reason why. It's just sort of a gestalt impression that the US was the most important country during that century. There were lots of dimensions in which this was true: The US had the largest economy in the world, and was the dominant manufacturing nation. The US was militarily dominant, having the world's most powerful military for almost the entire century. The US was one of the richest economies, setting the standard for what a modern lifestyle should look like. economies, setting the standard for what a modern lifestyle should look like. The US was a technological leader, producing by far the largest share of the scientific discoveries, breakthrough inventions, and commercial products that changed the world. The US was culturally dominant, through its output of movies, music, television, games, fashion, and ideas. The US was geopolitically central; it played a key role in creating and sustaining various international institutions, created the world's largest and most powerful network of alliances, and provided global public goods like freedom of the seas. The US was historically central, playing the most important role in shaping many of the key global events of the 20th century — the World Wars, decolonization, the Cold War, and globalization. In fact, I would argue that our whole modern notion of assigning centuries to countries was patterned after America's unusual importance across nearly every single domain in the 20th century. It's hard to think of other historical examples where one country has had such broad-spectrum dominance. The closest comparison has got to be Britain in the 19th century, which gave birth to the Industrial Revolution and built a globe-spanning empire. But even the UK was never as militarily or culturally dominant as America was in the 20th century. As for older comparisons, only the Mongol Empire in the 13th and early 14th centuries really measures up. The globe was usually just too fragmented, and technological progress too slow, for one country or empire to overshadow all the others. Even the Roman Empire, the Abbasid Caliphate and the Tang Dynasty were more regional superpowers than global ones. Anyway, the point here is that there's no reason that we should believe, a priori, that the 21st century will be dominated by anyone the way America dominated the 20th. The historical norm is multipolarity, with different countries and empires having modest leads in various different dimensions for various periods of time. Now, you can argue that globalization and continuous technological progress are both here to stay, meaning that future centuries are permanently more likely to have one dominant country. I think that's probably true to some extent. But as I'll explain, I also think that the nature of both globalization and technological progress are changing in ways that will bias the 21st century toward multipolarity. And some of these changes will result from the power transition from the US to China. Simply put, 20th-century America invented the game that it won, whereas China will use its power to invent (and win) a different sort of game. You might be surprised to hear this, but I actually think China and the US are very culturally similar, rather than representing distinct, alien poles of 'Eastern' and 'Western' civilization.1 But I'm not much of a cultural determinist; I think technology and institutions tend to matter more. Here, the differences outweigh the similarities. One area where China already far surpasses America is in state capacity. This is from a post I wrote back in 2023: In his book 'China's Economy: What Everyone Needs to Know' (which is excellent and which I heavily recommend), Arthur Kroeber offers a grand unified theory of the country's economy — that it's good at rapidly and effectively mobilizing lots of resources, but bad at using those resources in an optimally efficient way. So in the case of say, building too many apartments, or failed Belt and Road projects, or wasteful corporate subsidies, the lack of efficiency can really bite. But if we're talking about building the world's biggest high-speed rail system, or creating a world-beating car industry from scratch, or building massive amounts of green energy, then China's resource-mobilizing approach can accomplish things on a scale no other country has ever accomplished before… Remember a few years ago, when a bunch of people were sharing this map of a hypothetical U.S. high speed rail system?…Of course, the map and others like it were pure fantasy; in 15 years, California's much-ballyhooed high speed rail project has managed to almost complete one small segment out in the middle of nowhere. That's the extent of the US' high speed rail prowess…But in China, they actually built the map! …In the last 15 years, China, starting from scratch, built a high-speed rail network almost as twice as long as all other high-speed rail networks in the world, combined. I'm not exaggerating; you can look these numbers up on Wikipedia. As of last year, China had 42,000 kilometers (km) of high-speed railways in operation, with another 28,000 km planned. That's compared to just 2,727 km in Japan, with its famous shinkansen. The US used to have much higher state capacity than it does now, back in the middle of the 20th century — it was able to outproduce all other nations during World War 2, build the interstate highway system, and so on. But modern Chinese state capacity vastly exceeds even America's peak. What other nation could have maintained the kind of draconian, micro-managed Covid lockdowns that China kept all the way through 2022? Of course, past a certain point, these lockdowns were probably counterproductive, and they were certainly dystopian. But they were certainly a demonstration of the awesome power of the Chinese party-state. China is also bigger than the US, and so if its economy continues to mature, it will eventually be even more economically dominant. The UN predicts that by 2030, China will represent 45% of all global manufacturing, higher than the US ever achieved, except for a brief moment after World War 2. But also recall that manufacturing is falling as a percent of China's GDP, as service industries grow. So unless China somehow turns out to be uniquely weak in the service sector, we can probably expect its overall economic dominance to be just as big as America's was, or bigger. Nor do I think the loss of US export markets will hurt China much. Tyler asks: 'Where will China sell the rising output from their factories?' The answer to that question is 'China.' Contrary to popular belief, China is not that export-intensive of an economy, compared to the likes of France, Germany or South Korea: Source: World Bank China had a brief period of export-oriented growth in the 2000s, but that's basically over. Now, China sells most of what it produces to Chinese people. Even the vaunted 'Second China Shock' is mostly an overflow phenomenon; for example, China has become the world's top car exporter, but the vast majority of the vehicles it makes are for domestic consumption. Source: Brad Setser In this sense, China is becoming more like the 20th-century US — a very large economy that has some prominent exports but is fundamentally domestically focused. Lack of demand from America is highly unlikely to cripple or even substantively reduce China's economic progress, especially as the Chinese economy shifts to services. (And no, China's current real estate bust will probably not derail its economic rise, any more than the Great Depression permanently derailed America's.) With economic dominance will come military dominance. The smaller nations of the world are probably more able to resist conquest and domination by their larger neighbors now, thanks to nuclear proliferation and the shift of technologies toward tactical defense (basically, drones and missiles blow up vehicles, and guns shoot down drones). But China's size and manufacturing strength will allow it to overwhelm any nation that resists it and that threat will be enough to overawe most. But the similarities probably stop there. China's vast size, smaller resource endowments and inefficiently high level of government involvement in the economy will probably stop it from attaining the kind of world-beating living standards that America enjoyed (and still enjoys, at least for the moment). China will be the world's biggest economy, but only because it's four times the size of America; it probably won't be the richest. This means that although the people of the world may admire China's vast train stations, soaring skyscrapers and endless infrastructure, they may not be clamoring for the chance to live as the Chinese live. In terms of technological leadership, China will certainly shine — but not in the same way America did. In a post last month, I argued that China overall is a highly innovative country, but that due to weak IP protections and other institutional factors, its innovations tend to be a blizzard of incremental improvements with few dramatic breakthroughs. To American ears, this sounds like a condemnation of China's system, but to China's leaders, this is probably just fine. If China simply appropriates or copies any new invention and scales it up more efficiently than anyone else can, it still comes out on top. And my sense is that coming out on top is far more important to China's leadership than furthering the aggregate progress of human knowledge and prosperity. If weak IP protections discourage breakthrough discovery and invention all over the world, so what? That just reduces the risk that the rule of the Chinese Communist Party will be destabilized by the emergence of new techno-economic paradigms. Some might argue that AI will change this equation. If people all over the world are able to create breakthrough innovations on their mobile phones using open-source AI algorithms, the cost of breakthroughs might come down so much that IP protections don't really matter. If so, the world will enjoy a technological golden age. But even in that scenario, China will likely be able to appropriate, scale, and commercialize all of those innovations. It will still be the technological leader, just not the kind the US was. In the cultural realm, I expect China to be more isolated and less influential than America was. Partly this is because of language — English is far more internationalized than Chinese will ever be (though AI will erode this barrier significantly). But partly it's because of social control. China is a deeply repressive nation, with universal surveillance, fine-grained media and speech control and ubiquitous censorship. That's the kind of society where only anodyne, cautious artistry can flourish, except in tiny subcultural pockets too small for the government to worry about. China's leaders will also probably remain paranoid about allowing in foreign ideas. They will continue to use the Great Firewall to 'protect' Chinese people from the memes and ideas produced by the rest of the world. So artistic and cultural ferment will arrive in China only weakly, and with a lag. It will be orphaned from the global discussion, and the country's creativity will instead be channeled into the technological and commercial space. So while I expect China to produce some hit video games and big-budget movies, I don't think it will do much to push the boundaries of culture, despite the individual creativity of its people. Chinese tech products like TikTok will have an influence on global culture, but the key content will be produced elsewhere. As for geopolitics, I think Tyler is certainly right that China will provide fewer global public goods than America did. It will be less interested in creating freedom of the seas for other nations and more narrowly concerned with protecting its own trade. Its military will make sure energy supplies reach Chinese shores, but probably won't be interested in making energy globally abundant. Research is another example; China's government will make sure China dominates every frontier technology, but won't care as much about expanding the frontier. And global security is yet another; for all the sneers directed at America's self-appointed role of 'world police', it was more willing to stand up to regional conquerors than China has proven so far. But I think Tyler overestimates the negative impact on China from the collapse of American public good provision. If America stops protecting Chinese shipping and energy supplies, China's military will become perfectly capable of doing it themselves. There is nothing unique about the US Navy, just like there was nothing unique about the British Navy. And in fact, since I predict China will guard only its own trade and energy supplies and leave other countries out to dry, the Chinese Navy may be able to accomplish its goals more cheaply than the US could. In other words, I expect China to be a far more selfish power than America was in the late 20th century. It'll be more like the US of Teddy Roosevelt's time — mostly inwardly focused, but occasionally intervening in smaller countries' affairs out of economic self-interest or desire for glory. International institutions and forums will become either irrelevant or will be vehicles for China to boss smaller countries around. In sum, I predict that this will be a 'Chinese Century.' This may not hold as strongly in the second half, when China's low fertility rates start to bite and India really starts hitting the top of its own trajectory. But for the next few decades at least, I expect China to be the world's preeminent economic and technological power — a historically unmatched marvel of size, resource mobilization and innovation. America's orgy of self-destruction will only hasten this future. And yet I think that the Chinese Century will be disappointing in many ways, especially to people living outside China itself. A world where every invention gets grabbed and copied by Chinese state-sponsored companies is a world less filled with wonder (though AI may help here). A world where Chinese warships guard Chinese trade and leave other nations to fend for themselves is a more chaotic, less secure, less egalitarian world. A world where China produces everything for itself but has no need of foreign manufactures is one where other developing countries have less opportunity to grow. A world where China tolerates regional conflicts and preserves peace only in its own backyard is a more dangerous, violent one. And a world where the premier nation hides its culture from everyone else is a more drab, less creative one. In other words, I'm more confident than Tyler about China's ability to prosper, build, innovate and dominate in a world where America collapses in on itself. I think Thomas Friedman is right, and that unless something big changes, China is headed for at least half a century as the globe's preeminent power. But that prospect makes me fairly glum, because a Chinese Century will, in many ways, be a downgrade from the American Century. Perhaps the US efflorescence was a very rare and special thing, whose like we will not soon see again. 1 This deserves a much longer post, but in brief: America never had a single traditional culture, while China destroyed much of theirs in the Maoist period. Both countries have substituted consumerism and technological progress for traditional cultural relationships. Americans and Chinese people both dress sloppily, cut corners at work and drive to the mall in crocs and shorts, eat high-calorie greasy food and harbor grandiose, vague, usually unrealistic dreams of personal wealth and success. On the other hand, both maintain close, often contentious family relationships, with 'amoral familism' a widespread attitude in both places. Both have a passion for real estate. Both are large, diverse nations, with deep social divisions; in America these are mostly racial, in China they're mostly urban/rural and class divisions, but they function similarly. In addition, both 'Han' and 'white' are synthetic ethnicities created to unify large, diverse populations. Both Americans and Chinese people tend to have pride in the size and power of their countries. It is my casual observation that Chinese people assimilate to American culture even faster than other immigrant groups and Chinese people feel markedly less 'foreign' to me than people from Europe, Canada or Australia. Your mileage may vary, of course. This article was first published on Noah Smith's Noahpinion Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become a Noahopinion subscriber here.
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Can Congress dig itself out of its three holes?
The first rule of holes is, if you find yourself in one, quit digging. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman embellished on that proverb a few years back when he wrote: When you find yourself in three holes, bring a lot of shovels. Friedman was writing in the context of America's growing number of global economic competitors. But his advice can also apply to the state of Congress today. The three holes it has fallen into involve not living up to its basic constitutional roles of first exercising the powers of the purse; second making all laws necessary and proper to maintain the union; and third checking and balancing the other branches against abusing their authorities. Congress is not in good standing with the American people on any of these fronts. Its job approval ratings, according to Gallup, have been running in the high-teens to mid-20 percent ranges for the last several years. On the fiscal front, Congress has still not finalized its 2025 spending numbers, half-way through the fiscal year, limping along instead on short-term continuing appropriations resolutions. All these continuing resolution battles have been driven by the dire prospect of government shutdowns. With each new deadline looming it's a shame-game kabuki dance of trying to blame the other party. It's not a game the American people enjoy watching, nor are they into partisan score-keeping over such a spectacle. Their common reaction is, stop fighting amongst yourselves and start getting things done for the country. The deficit has doubled to nearly $2 trillion over the last four years and the statutory debt limit was breached in mid-January, threatening another government shutdown crisis if the government runs out of patchwork gimmicks and loses its borrowing authority to pay its bills. The second hole into which Congress is falling deeper is its duty to make all laws necessary and proper to maintain a more perfect union. It is a more nebulous duty since there is no metric to gauge just how many or what laws are needed, let alone whether they are the product of thoughtful deliberation. What we do know is that the people are united in their perceptions that Congress and the executive are not addressing core problems such as higher prices and job security. The administration's tack of reducing federal funding for programs already on the books and the number of people needed to administer them is running into court challenges that will take some time to sort out. Thousands of federal workers have been fired from their jobs and the services they delivered have been discontinued causing serious economic distress at the state and local levels. How Congress will react to these new edicts and downsizing is uncertain. The cherished belief that authorized programs cannot be altered or abolished without changes in the law is losing its credibility as the president argues the 'unitary executive theory' that he alone makes the final determinations as to what the law is and whether and how much to spend on what. For instance, the continuing resolution enacted last week, carrying things through the rest of the fiscal year, actually gives the president more authority and flexibility to reallocate funds to other areas than previously was allowed. Finally, the third hole of taking care that the laws are faithfully executed, oversight of the executive, naturally follows the second hole. Such authority loses any meaning if the unitary executive theory prevails over congressional checks on any abuses by the executive. The current lack of consultation between the branches before taking unilateral action has already set that precedent. Congress can hardly uphold the law by vigorous oversight if the very essence of that law has been shredded. With the same party controlling both Congress and the executive, the will is not there to make early course corrections. It matters little how many shovels you bring to digging Congress out of its three holes if the executive branch has already supplanted them sitting atop its new mounds of power. Restoring trust in Congress will take a concerted effort over time to move overly zealous executive officials back into their proper constitutional boxes. To restore trust in Congress requires that Congress first regain trust in itself. That requires the first branch showing respect for its power and the intent to exercise it. That will mean restoring the primacy of committees over legislating and oversight, and reducing party leadership dominance proportionately. It also means confining the executive branch to working within the statutory parameters Congress sets. It is a tall order but achievable if Congress can rally self and the people behind it. Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief-of staff for the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of, 'Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial' (2000), and, 'Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays' (2018). Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
