This week's column

Losing America's middle ground means losing our way

For a decade now, I've had a high enough profile in national-security issues that I routinely receive e-mails concerning American foreign policy from strangers living all over this country and the world. Because I've always been easy to find on the Web, people reach out to me in the hope that I'm somehow powerful enough -- alas -- to effect the change they seek, unloading their fears and anger in often disturbing ways. Let me explain why that worries me.

Having worked professionally all over the national-security community for the past 18 years, meeting more people than I can remember and going everywhere you might imagine, I know there are wings and factions on every issue, and that, generally speaking, they duke it out under roughly fair conditions in the best interest of the United States.

Read on at Scripps Howard.
Read on at KnoxNews.

Comments

[CitSAR]

People who care look for a simple answer to mind blowing questions. PNM/BFA provided a simple way to breakdown complex problems. The concept of a process of increasing "connectivity" and the part it plays in global development was a mind opener.

Its natural they look to you for influence. Who else can they actually talk to? Try sending an email to a Senator or Representative - I love those stale and meaningless position papers they send back....

The people have a great mistrust. I feel the mistrust comes from politicians who say or do something one moment and then say or do something quite differently at another (I.E. "Coming to the middle"). Many people hear only what they want to hear the first time and then tune out. But, sometimes they notice that traditional and not very subtle "180 degree change". If they behave this way to get elected, certanly they are expected to behave the same way after they take office?



RE: The Government"They meddle, they hav'nt the right;"

RE:The People"We are all just folk...;" "...with a mighty need to eat."

"Serenity"

[andyinsdca]

The reason that there is such a distrust of the government is that so much is done in secret. FISA/warrantless wiretaps, a multi-hundred page "PATRIOT Act" that was passed without much review by Congress in the name of the "War On Terror," etc. Much of the distrust of the government comes from the continual foot-shooting done by the Bush administration. Add to the mix that the press generally hates Bush, with a n eye to making him look bad, and this is what you get.

Even the conservative movement is sick of Bush and his doubletalk. If McCain gets elected, expect more of the same.

[VoteWithTroops]

Dr. Barnett,

You need a movie deal, perhaps your life story for beginners.

It is no wonder Americans mistrust their government, stemming from all the regularly exposed corruption of politicians and all the Evil America conspiracy movies and websites.

Individual humans actually control almost nothing, all too often not even their own behavior. People are self absorbed, over medicated and have incredibly over sized egos. Making it worse, a patriotic media or Hollywood is nearly non-existant these days.

Your life story and your take on reality, properly documented, would do wonders to boost American patriotism. Maybe your publishing agent can get some momentum started on this idea, not for your own ego or prosperity but for your continued, important service to America, to human dignity and to freedom.

We again need patriotic news reports, entertainment and web sites ... like our air waves were saturated after WWII.

An even better idea might be Thomas Barnett for President, Secretary of State or Secretary of Everything Else ....

[Paul in Austin]

We each have our way of coping with dissatisfaction with our government. Some rant, some deny, and some choose to be part of the solution.My modest response is to support campaign finance to lessen the influence of special interests and allow candidates to explore more pragmatic public policy. And Redistricting reform to level the playing field for candidates who want to represent the moderate majority rather than the vocal extremes.

[Christopher Thompson]

I was interested how a background of cumulative communications seemed to click for you watching "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." Then I got to the crux of your piece:

1. What's missing in those responses and in much of our national discourse right now is any sort of middle ground, and that's dangerous.

2. ... and you realize there is a profound mismatch between our current grand strategy fixated on terror and what most Americans feel needs to be something visionary and more positive -- not just the future to be prevented but the one worth creating.

3. To me, that's Barack Obama's appeal in a nutshell.

So there is a discourse, a mismatch and an appeal. That left me wondering about what is perception and what is reality...

[farhad]

american people are very democratic and freedom loving people,theproblem is the government has come through years(after wwII) torepresent a small minority big corperation's special interests,againstthe majority of the people's interest.and thier policies whether foriegn or domestic reflects it. that is why we see all these lies and the distrust. Dr Barnett says ; our system is so that the president has so much power,or the supreme court has that much power, I sayit shouldn't be so.we should be able to inforce the will of the people(majority) on any important issue at any time,and not be hopeless todo anything till the mad man leave the office,to wait in hope of a honest one.

[Robert L]

I like the idea of Tom as Secretary for Everything Else. Barring that, then as National Security Advisor, SECSTATE, or SECDEF. But we really need his talents as "SECEVEL".

[Tom Barnett]

Don't we all Christopher.

Usually historians figure that one out.

[Anonymous]

Robert, that's shockingly close to SECEVIL, don't you think? ;-)

[Robert L]

I don't work for the Bureau of Acronyms, so maybe that title isn't the best for Tom. BUT, he's still the leading candidate to be the head of the Dept of Everything Else....whatever we call it.

[Louis Heberlein]

The phrase 'middle ground' has been contaminated by our politicians and media over the last century. It too often sounds like a publicity gimmick that provides little real benefit.

Perhaps it would be better to think of an arch point, like on a roof, that served all of the range of basic functions and interests below it. However, such a concept would need to be fleshed out by showing some nuts & bolts type relationships benefiting from the arch, rather than just talking in glowing, fuzzy terms.

Can you imagine IKE's national highway system and JFK's aerospace moon venture, both of which had profound positive impacts on our economy and culture, being successfully promoted as 'middle ground' ventures, even though they both involved nitty gritty dealing to get approval?

[Tom Barnett]

I would submit that Steve DeAngelis is the obvious choice for SECEVEL.

There is say and there is do.

I sincerely think there is only so much time for me to get things out and then I disappear.

[VoteWithTroops]

Barnett disappear? Not likely ...

You have decades of work ahead of you and the world will continue to need your vision.

William F. Buckley comes to mind, who after decades of influencial work, was recently found at his desk, deceased, while still in the saddle, as it were, working ....

in 2050 you will still be providing a diminishing human population with an optimistic vision of a future worth creating ... what are you gonna do, retire? Dream on brother ...