A Book I Will Be Reading

The introduction of Thomas Friedman"s new book, "Hot, Flat and Crowded," immediately changes my reading priorities. Mr. Friedman's last book, "The World is Flat," was a thorough analysis of changing economic conditions, although possibly a bit too optimistic, as recent events have shown.
The new book changes direction slighthly and it is a timely change. Although the review by David Victor in the NYT points out the book's flaws, they seem to be far outweighed by its strengths. Mr. Friedman points out, as I did in a recent post, that Americans were once capable of pulling together as a nation to accomplish great things, but we have long ago lost that sense of cohesiveness. This opens the door for other, more committed, more collectivist, and less debt ridden countries to take the lead, when America should be stepping to the forefront. Mr. Victor frames the argument this way; "...buzz is not the same as revolution" How right he is.
Mr. Victor faults Mr. Friedman for his lack of specifics on improving leadership in America. I can't really say that I hold Mr. Friedman accountable for this deficiency. How else can we improve leadership in America unless we have politicians who aren't on a constant re-election campaign and who are constantly being bombarded by special interests with boatloads of cash who work against the country's long-term interests? I often hear it said that a politician who would propose the kind of solutions we need, which would have to hurt some people in the short term, would be committing political suicide. That causes me to ask, whose fault is that? If a politician was to propose a bold plan for moving forward that would cost billions and would disaffect some people, how should we react? Are we going to laugh, shake our heads and call him or her an idiot? Or are we going to finally realize that burying our heads in the sand and talking about tax cuts is a completely insufficient solution?
Mr. Victor also faults Mr. Friedman for not being thorough enough on the cost of our different energy options. That seems to me to be a Catch-22 situation. I don't think anyone can really offer an accurate estimate of these costs and anyone who does will be assailed with a thousand differing opinions. After all, it is not Mr. Friedman's responsibility to implement the changes we need, simply to make the public aware of them. Maybe if we had a truly visionary leader, he would appoint Mr. Friedman to head a newly formed commission with a blank check to lead an American green revolution. Then we might truly get some revolutionary results.
One thing is clear. The time to act is now. This world is desperate for some exemplary moral leadership. That used to be our natural realm. How quickly we re-assume that position, after years of neglect, will go far in determining the fate of our nation in the 21st century.