A New Bloghome II.

    

Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett is not only his own man, he’s his own webmaster. 

Having embarked on a major overhaul of his longstanding and very successful blog, which had been steered previously by Critt Jarvis and then Sean Meade, Tom rolled up his sleeves, engaged his creative eye and went “hands-on” and shaped the new look himself ( he is still tinkering with it), an impressive decision given the magnitude of the details involved. 

It’s good. I find the redesign to be warmer but still crisp. A much more personal, less “corporate”, look with greater balance between text, visual imagery and negative space. It reflects more of Dr. Barnett’s different interests. Check it out:

Thomas P.M. Barnett’s Globlogization

I also like the long margin Twitter-feed, a nice wrinkle that puts two web 2.0 platforms together well. Much better than a little window plug-in would work in terms of reader attention.

Very nice.

5 comments on this post.
  1. seerov:

    I think Barnett’s new blog is more "corporate."  Instead of the Thomas Barnett blog, its "globlogization."  It’s a product, and it even has a slogan: "shrinking the gap, one post at a time."  This is evidence that Barnett its attempting a new marketing strategy. 
    .
    The world isn’t looking good for the gap shrinkers.  Besides global economic problems, politically integrated entities are starting to weaken (like the EU).  The United States is probably past the point of no return when it comes to having a grand strategy that a majority will support.  We’re probably entering a time when the focus of the country’s energy will be inward.  
    .
    The most pertinent issues currently relate to basic concepts of citizenship and identity.    In fact, Barnett is probably 20 years too late with his gap shrinking program.  The American population of the 80’s and 90’s may have been able to pull that off, but not any more. 
    .
    If the USSR fell in the 70’s and the technology was there, Americans may have gotten behind the great gap shrinking adventure in the mid 80’s.  But we don’t have that population dynamic anymore.  Americans can’t even agree on whether it OK or not to have religious symbols in public places.  The world is not flat, its not the end of history, and before people sign up for "a future worth creating," first they’re going to to ask "is it good for the _____fill_in_the_blank." 

  2. seerov:

    Of course, I will still read "globlogization" because he does offer solid analysis.  I just don’t share his vision of the future.  The main expertise I look to Barnett for are his presentation skills and his techniques for forecasting/thinking about the future.  But my main interest is his power point presentation skills.  This is his area of genius. 

  3. morgan:

    Well, he did pat himself on the back in his first book as being the Pentagon’s best briefer.

  4. zen:

    Ah, no love from the readership for Dr. Tom today 😉

    .
    We are looking inward, I agree – but will still be interested in markets, critical resources and the stability of the global financial structure. The latter is particularly important in the short and medium term. There’s no "Fortress America" or autarky possible, just shifting priorities to be somewhat less of an enabler of global free ridership on our dime as it was 1975 or 1955
  5. seerov:

    "There’s no "Fortress America" or autarky possible" (zen)
    .
    Well, anyone who knows anything knows that.  The best way I can describe "looking inward" is this(for now):
    .
    The country traditionally had a foreign policy and domestic policy.  The main issue for domestic policy is maintaining order at home. Maintaining this order is a function of many forces (economic conditions, government transfer payments, available living space, opportunity, demographic conditions, legitimacy of elite/government).   Right now many of these forces are experiencing "rule set re-set," and as a result of this, the decision makers will need to transfer available resources inward to maintain order. 
    .
    Of course, I’m not suggesting that America will become protectionist, its still the global hegemony and our country’s interests are linked everywhere.  I’m just suggesting that the decision makers are probably getting concerned with issues closer to home.  You wrote a fine blog about the American elite recently.  These people have to plan and react to all contingencies. I assume they see "fly over country" (middle America) as a near peer competitor?  Middle America is also reacting to the forces I described  above and starting to get uppity. 
    .
    The American transnational elite need middle America the same way that the Han Chinese need the various ethnic groups on their periphery.  The American transnational elite will take action to maintain its periphery.  There’s also a narco war for control of drug supply chain routes in Mexico, which the Mexican government is struggling with.  
    .
    From the transnational elites point of view, "America" must be maintained, or it ALL falls apart.  Russia can gain its influence back on its periphery, Iran can get nukes, Wahhabis can run around Afghanistan, but they cannot allow North America to slip away.