Thomas Friedman's Paean to Globalization 'The Lexus and the Olive Tree' Is Back, but We've Moved On

The Lexus is shiny and modern, the olive tree old and rooted, put them together and, dude, there's your simplistic guide to globalization.

The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization

Publisher: Picador
Length: 512 pages
Price: $17.00
Author: Thomas L. Friedman
Publication date: 2012-08

When Thomas Friedman’s The Lexus and the Olive Tree was first published in April 1999, globalization was in, the Cold War was out, the NASDAQ was up, and our computers were about to be eaten by the Y2K cookie monster.

A dozen years later, Friedman’s paean to globalization -- and forerunner to his even more successful The World is Flat -- is being republished; but history has moved on. Since then, 9/11, disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, economic crisis on a scale not seen since the Great Depression, Wikileaks, and mounting geopolitical rivalries in the Middle East and Asia have made the world a far less rosy place than Friedman, for all his bet-hedging caveats, had hoped it would be.

His anonymous techie friend was wrong to forecast that by 2010 ‘about 100 million toasters should be online’ (356); the European Monetary Union wasn’t a ‘godsend’ (178) after all; and that ‘flourishing junk bond market’ turned out to be, not a symptom of the ‘democratization of finance’ (55), but of a speculative bubble that ruined many people’s lives. Oh, dear.

Of course, hindsight is easy; but the hazards of predicting the future aren’t the main reason this book fails the test of time. Although Friedman is an accomplished writer -- and three-times Pulitzer winner -- his grasp of big issues is shaky. Partly, this is because he’s too attached to the current social system to perceive its colossal failures; and partly, it’s because he tries to explain the world ‘through simple stories, not grand theory’ (19). Hence such pseudo-concepts as ‘globalution’, the ‘Electronic Herd’, and ‘Microchip Immune Deficiency Syndrome’ -- not to speak of his ‘Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention’.

Alas, social and economic phenomena are much too complex and important for this kind of treatment. Friedman’s poor method (hedge-fund managers are some of his ‘best intellectual sources’, p26) and annoying-cheer-leader style quickly fall down. Take his assertion that ‘every inch’ of road in central Hanoi is ‘occupied by people who have traded their sandals for a bicycle, their bicycle for a motor scooter, their motor scooter for a Honda Civic, their Honda Civic for a Toyota Camry and, yes, even their Toyota Camry for the occasional Lexus’ (349). Or his argument that bankrupt European businessmen would be ‘welcomed with open arms in Palo Alto’ (370). Sorry, this isn't just bogus, it’s cruel.

Hedge-fund managers aren’t actually the worst of Friedman’s sources. ‘Consider Enron’, he urges us on page 387. Well, yes, consider Enron, but don’t listen to a word its former CEO, Kenneth Lay, says in this book. Lay went on to die in 2006, after defrauding his shareholders, sinking his company, and leaving thousands of employees without jobs. (Watch Enron, the Smartest Guys in the Room, if you really want to know the truth about this story). Named ‘America’s Most Innovative Company’ by Fortune magazine every single year from 1995 to 2000, Enron had been innovative alright; but only at fleecing its customers and cooking the books.

As for the once-fashionable notion of globalization, Friedman mostly uses it to paint a facile and overstated contrast with the Cold War. The Cold War built walls, he says, today’s globalization knocks them down; the Cold War was slow, globalization is fast; the Cold War was about top-down control, globalization is about democracy; and so on. All this ignores the fact that the end of the Cold War left the world’s wider problems and conflicts virtually intact. Look at Russia today, for example, or at any other country for that matter, and it’s still some combination of economic corruption, political repression, and self-interested attempts to either build walls against foreigners, or bulldoze down other people’s walls.

It would be more sensible to think of globalization, technological change, and democratization -- interwoven trends Friedman rightly favors -- as unfinished processes that began not only before the Cold War, but even before capitalism. When our ancestors spilled out of Africa into the rest of the world, when they invented the plough, when Genghis Khan marched across Asia, the French wielded the guillotine, and the Beatles got bigger than Jesus – those were all steps in a journey towards a more advanced, humane, and, yes, more global society. Yet they were only partial and halting steps, taken in harsh social conditions and often themselves brutal. Friedman is probably correct that the pace is quickening, but even so it’s the same journey, still taking us through rough and contradictory terrain.

Friedman pretends that globalization and the free market are one and the same thing, when they aren’t, and in the process conveniently forgets that today’s markets aren’t really free anyway. He poses as a champion of innovation, but isn’t innovative enough to imagine life without capitalism. (Most people in the Dark Ages couldn’t imagine life without feudalism either, but feudalism came to an end all the same). He’s not even a true globalizer, since his flag isn’t the planet’s, but the stars and stripes (globalization is mostly made in the USA, he argues; and also tells of his ‘covering Secretary of State Baker when he went out on his fund-raising trip for the first Gulf War. All the reporters on the plane pitched in and bought him a tin cup’, p 240).

Globalization wasn’t made in any one country; it’s (gradually) doing away with countries. It's the work-in-progress of humanity, carried out by people who, in the past, rarely understood the significance of their own actions. Today, we have the chance of making history in a wiser and more civilized manner -- but only if we learn to be critical of the powers that be, and respectful of the need for sound thinking. Too bad this book isn’t any of that. Too bad the cookie monster didn’t eat Friedman’s computer back in the year 2000.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.