Misunderestimated

A good column today by Thomas Friedman. Why does the left always give him such a hard time? About 90& of the time he sounds like a rich Beltway version of Michael Lerner (or a younger Jimmy Carter) - two-state solution based on '67 borders, minor territorial swaps, shared Jerusalem, Global Marshall Plan, etc etc. I mean, does David Brooks get treated as shabbily by the right? (The same could be said about Dershowitz, but this is a discussion for another time...)

I guess the answer lies partly in the important distinction between left and liberal. This distinction has collapsed somewhat since the 1960s, but it hasn't disappeared completely and never will. In fact, it's worth preserving because it has analytic utility: liberals still have to distance themselves from leftists when they, let's say, run for office, and leftists still have to hold liberals in contempt (and nothing establishes left credentials more than attacking a paradigmatic establishment-type like Friedman).

Anyway, it's the collapsing of the distinction that makes things like this so vexing. "Left" and "liberal" are crude and confusing shorthand... but don't muddy the waters even further by using the term "left-leaning" or suchlike! I guess basically I'd object to any ideological moniker for Friedman except "establishment liberal."

So there it is, in one post I've managed both to vigorously defend and to dismissively categorize Tom Friedman.