Thomas Friedman is a longstanding contributor to the New York Times editorial page. Friedman, a centrist writing for a centrist audience, has written several books about American politics and government. In his most recent column, he appears to have glued two different articles together. His prose lacks any connective tissue. In the beginning of the piece, Friedman discusses the failures of Trump's Muslim ban, health care bill, and border wall. He also argues that although Trump's more dangerous policies have been blocked, the American people still need protection, ideally from the State of California. This marks a sharp tone shift in the article. After enumerating the failures of Trump's first 100 days, Friedman posits that California's wealth, legislature, and "aspirational goals [sic]" make it "the most powerful opposition party to Trump." He then goes on to list California's natural and legislative assets.
Friedman can't seem to decide what kind of column he wants to write. Is it a post-mortem on the lackluster start of a presidency? Or, is it a profile or America's most successful state? In this article, there is potential for insightful commentary on the institutions that have kept Trump from fulfilling his more outlandish campaign promises. There is also potential for commentary on the lessons we can learn from California's government and economy, but these are two separate articles. I agree with both of Friedman's points; he provides evidence to support them both. However, the structure of his column is confusing, and the length is insufficient for the arguments he is trying to make.
No comments:
Post a Comment