I'll admit that I lampoon liberals as mindless automatons hellbent on dragging the rest of us into their form of slavery, but it's rare for them to openly admit their admiration for communism and dictatorships.
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.
Ah, yes, those pesky drawbacks of autocracy, such as oppression, forced abortions, persecution and death. But those aren't nearly as important as forcing your worldview on everybody else in your country. I mean, having an active debate on things like global warming and what kind of health care you want in your country is so undesirable. Better to just have the elites rule your peasants.
And it's not just that Friedman goes on to lie about Republicans.
With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying “no.”
This is patently untrue, given that Republicans did offer a plan more than two months ago. But then, since President Obama hasn't wanted to meet with Republicans since April, there may be a good excuse for Democrats not knowing about Republican interest in health care reform.
It would be one thing if this were just the usual liberal hyperbole, but as Jonah Goldberg notes, this line of thinking has dangerous consequences.
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.
Idiots need to be smacked around every time the spew this stupidity.
|