I am just apoplectic with glee at the prospect of having Tom Friedman for a professor. His columns ooze with more than erudition, more than perception, but just complete understanding and almost clairvoyance regarding world politics, economies and other socio-behavioral systems. Today's NYTimes column is about the ineffectual Bush policy toward Iran and North Korea, and why it's failing:
"Have no doubt, I think both are awful, abusive regimes that are driving their respective countries into a ditch. The Bush team is right to want them to disappear and to try to find ways to bring pressure to bear. But the Soviet Union was just as awful and abusive. Yet we engaged in “détente” with Moscow, because the thrust of U.S. policy in the Cold War was to reduce the Soviets’ ability to threaten us — through deterrence and arms control agreements — and then let the information revolution and popular disgruntlement destroy the Soviet Union from within.
What was good for the Soviet Union is good for North Korea and Iran."
I am just going to be so smart at the end of next semester. He's absolutely right in saying that change must come from within, that the people have to actually want it, and understand what they are fighting for, because then they'll be emotionally tied to the prospect of a new government. Fighting for something you are told is good for you has far weaker bonds.
I am desperately trying to write a dress code for this training manual and am failing miserably. I can be funny sometimes, but it's just not happening here, and in a dress code it's important to approach the subject with grace and humor (and not how my high school principal did it, with an authoritarian streak that Machiavelli would have felt threatened by). Ideas?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment