in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| WSJ | World: Europe Girds for Greek Exit |
0 |
| Shark Tank | Developing: Wasserman Schultz On Verge of Being Cancelled at Temple Israel |
0 |
| T’graph | 0 | |
| NYT | Policy: Romney Calls Education ‘Civil Rights Issue of Our Era’ and Urges Shift |
0 |
| RCP | Campaign 2012: Why Tuesday’s Democratic Primaries Matter |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
Tom Friedman comes out of the closet
And admits to the world what most conservatives already know:
Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.
Our one-party democracy is worse. The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing. With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying “no.” Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste. Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist. But if he’s forced to depend entirely on his own party to pass legislation, he will be whipsawed by its different factions.
He goes on to write that if it weren’t for the evil GOP, President Obama and the Democrats could do ‘what’s best for America’ without any ‘hassle’ from the opposition. Questions? We don’t need to ask no stinkin’ questions.
Jonah Goldberg sez, in a nutshell, that liberal fascism has struck again:
So there you have it. If only America could drop its inefficient and antiquated system, designed in the age before globalization and modernity and, most damning of all, before the lantern of Thomas Friedman’s intellect illuminated the land. If only enlightened experts could do the hard and necessary things that the new age requires, if only we could rely on these planners to set the ship of state right. Now, of course, there are “drawbacks” to such a system: crushing of dissidents with tanks, state control of reproduction, government control of the press and the internet. Omelets and broken eggs, as they say. More to the point, Friedman insists, these “drawbacks” pale in comparison to the system we have today here in America.
I cannot begin to tell you how this is exactly the argument that was made by American fans of Mussolini in the 1920s. It is exactly the argument that was made in defense of Stalin and Lenin before him (it’s the argument that idiotic, dictator-envying leftists make in defense of Castro and Chavez today). It was the argument made by George Bernard Shaw who yearned for a strong progressive autocracy under a Mussolini, a Hitler or a Stalin (he wasn’t picky in this regard). This is the argument for an “economic dictatorship” pushed by Stuart Chase and the New Dealers. It’s the dream of Herbert Croly and a great many of the Progressives.
The Heritage blog calls Friedman an “Eco-Communist wannabe.” I’d say he’s not a “wannabe” – he’s already there. Make sure to read the full Heritage post to see takedowns of some of Friedman’s various ‘arguments’ – including one in which he recently defended 9-11 Truther and disgraced former Obama “green czar” Van Jones. One of the arguments Friedman used to defend Jones was his belief that the Internet is “an open sewer of untreated, unfiltered information.”
Well … at least Friedman’s latest column has come to us untreated and unfiltered, and the publishing of it has finally – at long last – made his fascistic tedencies officially official.
Now if only the rest of the NYT’s liberal columnists would follow suit. Just for the record.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Boggles the mind, don’t it? China a shining paragon of virtue…I guess he is trying to get on their good side before they try to collect on our national debt.
Yikes…..I think I now know why they want to bankrupt this country…then China would rule us by proxy….setting up their own puppet government…they wouldn’t have to go far, just keep the same democratic jokers in office to do their bidding..
I need a martini…
China’s impressive economic growth is largely a function of the *relaxation* of central control. The heroes of the Chinese economy are guys that went out and started a small textile factory or toy factory or electronics factory and built it into something bigger///not a bunch of “czars” in Beijing./
Tom Friedman was obviously being provocative to make a point. Those familiar with Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” will get his point; others, like Jonah Goldberg, who clearly didn’t realize Tom had his tongue in his cheek didn’t.
David Foster: I tip my hat to ya. You nailed it.
Interesting but not suprising coming from a guy who’s done his best to ruin his own country in favor of the enemy. At least we know who’s side he’s on….
and it ain’t ours!
If China is going full tilt boogie on only alternative energy options, then why did I read about them drilling for oil?
When Mao was running China, he decided on an “innovative” approach to iron and steel production. Instead of large facilities like those in the US and the Soviet Union, China would have thousands of “backyard blast furnaces.” There was, no doubt, some kind of ideological reasoning behind this approach.
It was an economic disaster. (And one shudders to think about the injuries that must have resulted from tens of thousands of untrained people, under heavy government pressure, trying to work with molten metal.)
I suspect that with Friedman and his friends in charge, we would get something much closer to the backyard blast furnace era than to something resembling China’s economic performance of more recent days.
Leslie, you’re joking, right?
Friedman was not talking tongue-in-cheek. Read what he said again. Sadly, Friedman’s attitude is all too typical of the liberal elite.
China is excelling in “green” production for one reason and one reason only: they know there’re fools in the west who will buy whatever crap product they put out that has the label “green”.
If they were so concerned about the environment they wouldn’t be stoking the atmosphere with millions of tons of carbon pollutants weekly.
And that’s bottom line.
Leslie said “… Tom had his tongue in his cheek.”
He did? Hmm, to have his tongue in his cheek requires that the said tongue is not being stuck out to the US in general and conservative in particular.
Compare this piece with his usual output and you find out that this one is not so far out. Just spelled out more clearly.
Well, Tom, maybe Leslie has already undergone the re-education program that was so popular during the cultural revolution….tongue in cheek,I think not! Friedman is out there all the time waving the socialist flag.
Kate – nope, Leslie hasn’t gone through any re-education camp. I disagree with him on this, but know that he’s his own thinker, and doesn’t think on a party line basis.
Thanks for the defense, ST. I’ll stand by my remarks about Friedman. I read him every Wednesday and Sunday, and I hope it doesn’t sound immodest to say that I’m quite familiar with his style and I think I know when he’s exaggerating to make a point. If Sunday he apologizes for having gone to far, I’ll point it out here myself.
As for Jonah Goldberg–if this were a just world, he’d be quoting YOU instead of the other way around, ’cause you make more sense and have more passion.
Salud!
I think if Friedman had written “A Modest Proposal,” it would have been wise for Irish parents to keep a close eye on their children.
Thanks for the info ST and my apologies to Leslie…I was being a little sarcastic…and with tongue-in-cheek. If you have the opportunity to read all his columns that’s fine by me. It’s just not convenient for me to keep up. However, I wonder if he would consider an apology or has done that in the past? Is it in his nature to do such a thing and would the NYT allow it?
Kate and Leslie: Liberalism, like love, is never having to say you’re sorry. You will never hear an apology from Friedman, unless, of course, it is tongue-in-cheek.
From time immemorial we have been regaled by those luminaries advocating rule by “philospher kings” who would benevolently manage all of our mundane affairs. I don’t know what’s more depressing, the concept of being under the thumb of these pallid humorless scolds or considering the kind of bland mushy headedness that chafes to take charge of the minutia of everyone’s daily life.
No, I don’t think Friedman is being tongue in cheek. But if he is, how are we to tell, since his fantasy is identical to that of every progressive throughout history? If he is serious he’s got plenty of good company, including H.G Wells and George Bernard Shaw.
And besides, I am far past the point where I am going to assume the best of anyone on the left. They have squandered any benefit of the doubt they might wish extended them, having spent the past decade shrieking vile imprecations at me and accusing me of the worst possible crimes against humanity. So no slack for would be Commisar Friedman. He and his fellow travellers have already shut down debate.