After reading John T. Langton's editorial in the Justice last week, I cannot help but wonder if he and I were actually at the same talk by the same Thomas Friedman. Langton's claim that Friedman advocated a "neocon" agenda in the Arab world simply is in direct contrast with everything that Friedman said. Indeed, I have heard numerous people (including Jews, who Mr. Langton offensively claims that Friedman was trying to "manipulate" at his talk) say that they disagree with his "leftist" views. Furthermore, I do not know if Mr. Langton (or the people just spoken of, for that matter) have read any of Mr. Friedman's books or articles. Well, I have, and the major thing that has become clear to me after reading them is that Friedman is the antithesis of a neocon. It is not just that Friedman is a liberal, though. On the contrary, what I admire most about Thomas Friedman's reporting and writing is his keen ability to discern the complicated realities and nuiances of world issues, while not pandering to any ideological agenda, certainly not a conservative one. He is not about serving an image, but looking for the truth, whatever it may be - quite a fit for the Brandeis motto, If I might say so myself. Furthermore, he willingly recognizes when his conclusions prove false, and he learns from them.
At his talk here at Brandeis, Friedman criticized U.S. Middle East policy for telling the Arab world to "keep the oil coming and the prices low, and you can do whatever you want 'out back' [referring to the development of al-qaeda and extremist Islamic groups, mainly in Saudi Arabia]. And on September 11th," he adds, "we got hit with a taste of what was going on 'out back.'" In other words, Friedman states the U.S. leadership (Republican and Democrat alike) has made a grave error in doing whatever it takes to secure cheap oil, even if it means not challenging the corrupt and oppressive regimes in the Middle East and working to promote true democracy for the inhabitants therein. This does not sound like "necon propoganda to me."
I could go on and refute the rest of Mr. Langton's misinterpretations of Thomas Friedman's talk, but it is clear to me that Mr. Langton simply did not go into Mr. Friedman's talk with a willingness to actually listen to or let himself be challenged by what Friedman had to say. Perhaps if he had done this, he would not have come to such inaccurate conclusions about what was said that night. Or perhaps he is so far to the left that even Friedman's views seem conservative to him. Don't take my word for Friedman's views, go read something Friedman himself has written, but only if you are willing to critically examine (not necessarily change) your own views along with his views.