Thomas Friedman–scary

Is this any surprise? FDR and his generation of "Progressives" openly admired those progressive European governments that were doing what needed to be done to move society forward into the Brave New World. Mussolini pulled the nation together and made the trains run on time. Hitler said some wacky things, but achieved amazing industrial progress in Germany. It was only when those progressives attacked the progressives to the east of them that our progressives started to have second thoughts. Maybe if China were to attack Cuba or Venezuela ...

If Obama isn't a socialist, then who is?

I made a couple of slash and run comments on this subject but hadn’t taken the time really read Friedman’s article until now.

If this is the best he can do to make an intellectual case for anything, then he is an abject failure. His article in support of the idea that a one party autocratic system is superior for the nation now is written with all the disingenuous ignorance that I see in the common article written about the validity and applicability of the Social Security program and Title 26 the Income Tax. In other words Friedman throws in assumptions, conventional wisdom, and a demonstrated will to distort history.

To begin with, his opening paragraph is his assumption that because the democrats hold the two most important legs of government, that the other 51% don’t matter, an assumption proven wrong by the recent Town-hall meetings. Somehow Friedman lets this fact slip pass and never gets it on paper.

The second paragraph is a direct rip-off of the intellectual observations and postulations of Fareed Zakaria in his book, The Post American World. And, it comes from the chapter where Zakaria was presenting his understanding of the difference between the progress made possible in China, through its one-party autocracy, in building such things as infrastructure, and the difficulty in India of doing the same with its, now, more open, multi-party democratic state. As Zakaria pointed out, the differences means that India is leading China in industries that do not necessarily depend on infrastructure such as roads, railways, and huge factories, in other words India produces a lot of Information Technology, as does the USA. Comparing China to the USA today and claiming China has the competitive edge because of its one-part autocracy is disingenuous at best, an outright deception at worst, because our infrastructure is already been in place for many decades and China has one hell of a long way to go to catch up to that. Our problem is not the lack of a one-party autocracy with its central power, the problem with the USA is to damn much autocracy and central control.

China’s problem with its one-party autocracy is that they have to slack off on the brakes and decentralize or they will not catch up now than they did in their other past disasterous “Great Leaps Forward”. When they slack off the brakes and decentralize, people experience that first incomplete breath of freedom and want more. People who can think free and feel free will see the obstacles and difficulties that central planning brings to the job and will work to further decentralization; and, if they truly are intelligent, they’ll understand that the answer is not to reapply the brakes but to release them all the way. When that happens, China’s one-party autocracy is in deep trouble.

It seems to slip Friedman’s mind, or again he is being disingenuous, and he isn’t alone, that the USA became the powerhouse of the world in developing industry, infrastructure, entrepreneurship, innovations, inventions, and ambition right out of the gate beginning in the 1790s, accelerating at a truly astounding pace during the industrial revolution, and again after WWII; and, it did that with very little central interference.

What hit us in the 1960s was the fruition of the interference that FDR began to put in place and was expanded by that long period of democratic control of both houses of congress.

The third paragraph is such stupid blatant demagoguery that it isn’t even worth destructing. But, since the loonies control the MSM, and a large portion of mainstream America is public school educated, he can get away with it.

The fourth paragraph presents the case for cap and trade as if it is a proven necessity and that it will actually do what he says it will; and, that is deception at worst, disingenuous at best, because the whole man-caused part of climate change is still unproven. But, Friedman’s objective is not action on climate change but about increasing the one-party autocracy here in the USA with the looney left being the one-party.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 are just plain speculative bull shit and scare tactics from people who know better, or should, unless they too are products of public schooling.

Paragraph 7 presents the assumption that Mitt Romney waved a magic wand and gave Massachusetts a pure GOP health system, a pure republican system, based solely on GOP ideas and input and pushed through the Massachusetts legislature with no donkey participation at all. Do you buy that crap? I don’t.

In paragraphs 8 & 9, Friedman presents the standard looney left assumption that either business or government should be involved in an individual’s health care, and evidently in his eyes preferably government.

The American people made this land great not because of government, but in spite of it; and the evidence is strong that when government began to involve itself in the daily workings of the individual, the markets and business, the brakes began to be applied to the detriment of individuals and to the business.

In paragraph 10, Friedman does the usual looney left disingenuous shift in mentioning immigration reform and complaining that the world’s best brains can’t come here to study and work, when in fact they already do come; but the disingenuous part is in ignoring that immigration reform does not just effect the ability of the world’s best brains to come here; but, it effects the ability for those poor, uneducated, often criminal, Latinos to flood the nation and for those already here to legally remain.

It isn’t the Dr. Cooley(s) of the world that Friedman is concerned about, it is the Jose(s) and Maria(s) who will come, get privileged, and vote democrat long enough to ensure that all opposition to the socialist has been thoroughly stamped out. Friedman isn’t to ever state the most obvious solution, simply do away with immigration laws and stop giving privileges to everyone, citizen or non-citizen. You can’t stop the one until you stop the other, and if neither is stopped the immigrant will remain a problem. I am for open immigration but not until the freebies at the working man’s expense is stopped.

Friedman then complains about the lack of clean tech industry, meaning of course clean energy. His looney left disingenuous shows in that he glosses over the fact that we have clean energy right now and if the government just got out of the way in a matter of a few years most of America could be running its industry on electricity produced in nuclear power plants, but no no, it isn’t the GOP that is standing in the way of that, oh yes yes it is the one-party autocracy lovers and the nut case envirowhackos they embrace in their party.

Then in his summation, paragraph 11, Friedman again does the looney left disingenuous thing in laying the difficulties faced by business off on the policies of the GOP, when in fact any regular observations tell one that it has been the one-party autocracy that has pushed for protectionist policies, and bemoaned business going overseas for cheaper labor. Friedman is the typical looney left intellectual slug in that he wants it not just both ways, he wants in omni-directional, in other words the looney left gets to go for all the credit no matter from what direction, and they get to slough off the responsibility that comes from any direction.

But, I have to admit, there are a lot of public school educated people out there who will see his words and let them influence their actions.

My summation is: God Help us, the inmates are in charge of the asylum.

You did well on most grafs, so I will tag in and attack Paragraph Three for you:

Our one-party democracy is worse.

How are we supposed to get a third-party launched when Pulitzer Prize-winners can't even find the second?

I seem to recall the barrier to entry for the "second party" is that the first had iron-clad majorities and a delusion of a mandate. Hard to negotiate on legislation when you're not invited to the conference room.

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.”

They're saying more than 'no,' but it helps the narrative if you reduce them to infantile nay-sayers. Just like all those crappy kids who didn't give me a birthday present. Now I feel vindicated for not inviting them to my party to begin with!

Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste.

We all want the President to succeed in making this nation prosperous and free.

If the President chooses to back policies that will succeed in making us LESS prosperous and free, then we may choose to campaign against those policies.

It's about the policy, not the man -- no matter how much you want to elevate him to the Divine Priest-King. (Jonah Goldberg takes that on nicely).

Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist.

He's also not much of an athlete, based on what he told the kids the other day. His coaches had to move him several dozen feet just to get him out of foul territory and out of Left Field.

But if he’s forced to depend entirely on his own party to pass legislation, he will be whipsawed by its different factions.

Save us, GOP! Save us all! You're our only hope!

Only YOU can prevent us from being whip-sawed by the dysfunctional factions in the Democratic Party! Only YOU can save us from the destruction and expense they will wreak on our economy!

Only the GOP can save us from the Democrats, by willfully going along with their dastardly agenda!

Yeah! That'll show 'em!

Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist.


Yeah, and Stalin wasn’t a Communist, he was “authoritatively collectively-minded,” and Alger Hiss was “just talking to his friends.”

Absolute bullshit. It’s astonishing anyone reads (and believes!) this tool.

Ike, I appreciate your help, you did more "gooderest"!

There is one thing I would add though. Personally, from the moment I read up enough on Obama, his history, and his track record, I never had one moment's delusion that he would be good for the country as president. That belief fixed as his campaign proceeded. Yes, I want Obama to fail, because I do not believe in any way that anything he wants and succeeds in getting, is going to improve our life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, freedom of association, and right of self promotion.

It is emphatically clear that Obama's only qualification is skin color and racial identification.

Just think of the audacity of sending an Acorn rabble-rouser as our leader to face down, and negotiate on equal footing, Vladimir Putin, a man who survived the KGB, used it to catapult to the top of the Russian nation and who has forgotten more about tough than Obama will ever know. Imagine sending him to deal with Achmademijad of Iran, a man who would see Obama as his next snack. Obama is lost in that world, just as Hillary is.

Of course though I have to hedge and admit that in facing the left loonies I am assuming that Obama might feel compelled to actually honestly represent our interests and not just fall to his knees and kiss senior socialist ass.

"Only the GOP can save us from the Democrats, by willfully going along with their dastardly agenda!"

It would seem the transformation will not occur with a third party, but by taking the existing parties from within. Liberty-loving individuals should gain entrance into the dominant party in their district, and then proceed to campaign and run based upon the popular aspects of a pro-liberty agenda. If we have a nation sympathetic to their work, re-election will not be such a hurdle, since parties don't often drop winning candidates.

The real struggle would be one of strength of character--being able to oppose the peer pressure of your party leaders, and pursue your own agenda.

The real struggle would be one of strength of character--being able to oppose the peer pressure of your party leaders, and pursue your own agenda.

I see two more serious struggles.

Internal: The fight within one's own soul to ignore the lures and trappings of power, and to continue dismantling the engine that oppresses.

External: The war with those who are also on the same commission, assembly or governmental body. They will want to follow the path of least resistance, and the current system of incentives requires them to grow their own bases of power. One who seeks to weaken that power structure is a threat.

Those within one's own party will be threats as well, but I see these as even greater obstacles.

Ike, you have the better of the argument here.

I will keep pounding this until it begins to percolate through every community I can talk too.

None of us can do one damn thing to fix government until we can control our employees in congress.

That will not happen until the constitution is amended (fixed) and this flaw, Art 1, Sec 5. para 2, "Each house may determine (write) the rules of its proceedings,..."

That flaw allows each congressperson to escape your control the moment they are seated in the appropriate house. One has to sit and look at all the potential for corruption, potential realized by the way, in that simple wording.

It is absolute insanity to hire a group of people, allow them to write every detail concerning their employment, and believe that you control them. Everything else we do, every idea advanced, every hope or dream, is meaningless until the people take control of the congress back and amend the constitution to write their rules of proceedings ourselves.

The evidence is there that I am stone cold correct in this.

"write their rules of proceedings ourselves"

How do we do that?

Good grief, this is the 1950's and 1960's all over again, when the Soviet Union was "committed" to surpassing the U.S. economically -- when Khrushchev promised to "bury us" -- -- when communism was "the wave of the future" -- and the the U.S.S.R. had all the statistics proving their economic superiority. The Times fell for it then, no reason why they shouldn't fall for it today.

Looking forward to his emigration to China and will contribute cash and frequent flyer miles to assist.

Quote from Goldberg:

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.

Of course the Left will deny this but it's all a matter of record.

“Why should Russians have all the fun of remaking a world?” - Stuart Chase

Well, but when Mussolini ran Italy, the trains ran on time. And Hitler built the Autobahn. So fascism isn't all bad. Right?

There is nothing surprising about a leftist advocating a one party system.

What's the big complaint? Hoppe gets respect by other Libertarians because he say Monarchies are better than Democracies. He reckons a ruling familiy has to have long-term interests at heart while politicians only have a four year outlook. It sounds pretty much the same to me.

Friedman is taken seriously -- and that is scary.

He occasionally makes sense, which is what makes him likable. He's really only dangerous when he's drawing conclusions. Other than Friedman, I've never encountered a writer who can state the facts accurately, analyze the implications of those facts somewhat accurately -- and then leap to a conclusion that totally ignores the facts he just finished reporting. This guy is a piece of work. While he does come up with some interesting information -- I primarily read him for entertainment.

The most unsettling thing about Friedman's piece is that he's taken seriously by the news reading public.

As I noted elsewhere, more than 65 years ago, Hayek wrote about the misleading nature of centrally-planned development. He noted that 'every one of the many things which, considered in isolation...would be possible to achieve in a planned society creates enthusiasts for planning'. Furthermore, it would be 'foolish to deny' that people living in such societies enjoy many good things which they 'owe entirely to planning'. Hayek used contemporary examples to illustrate his point: Both Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy had centrally-planned economies, and some of the most 'magnificent roads' and machinery in the world.

However, he noted, it would be 'foolish' to 'quote such instances of technical excellence in particular fields as evidence of the general superiority of planning. It would be more correct to say that such extreme technical excellence out of line with general conditions is evidence of a misdirection of resources'. Put differently, when a poor and oppressive country invests a large amount of its resources in one place, it means that another part of the economy is being neglected. This, in turn, leads to imbalances which hinder overall development. Of course, free societies also suffer from over-investment in different sectors, but these are less pronounced, and are periodically corrected by market forces.

It is no coincidence, Hayek notes, that 'experts' and men and women who 'devoted their lives to a single task' are charmed by the idea of central planning. 'The hopes they place in planning, however, are not the result of a comprehensive view of society, but rather of a very limited view, and often the result of a great exaggeration of the importance of the ends that they place foremost'.

The main virtue of a free economy is it's ability to reconcile the needs of numerous individuals efficiently and without coercion. As Hayek notes, 'the saintly and single-minded idealist' is only a step away from being a 'fanatic'. It is easy to be misled by isolated or temporary achievements in totalitarian countries, but their stability and resilience must be judged over time.

Why hasn't history shown these people that the "enlightened, benevolent dictator" doesn't exist.

Because, for reasons I point out above, they think that they would be the exception to the rule.

Great stuff. Ultimately it just shows how far Left the NY times has become.
Their reputation as a Left new mag is so bad I almost refused to read Henry Hazlitt because he used to write for the NYT.

I saw Friedman's article this morning and wanted to throw up. And that's after throwing up all weekends following Krugman's revisionist history of economics from last week.

As a foreigner living and doing business in China, I was sad to read that Friedman does not think the Chinese people deserve all the basic things that he takes for granted - rule of law, freedom of movement, the right to decide how many kids to have, and, of course, the right to have an opinion.

As Ian Buruma points out in a recent article, 'China's economic success is convincing too many leaders that citizens... want to be treated like children'.

We live in dark times. America needs to wake up.

Friedman missed one:

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.

AND summary executions for political dissent.

Mr. Friedman is presumably a supporter of this as well, as it contributes to China’s “reasonable enlightenment” and would go far in this country to increase adoption of alternative energy…

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

And if there were such advantages, wouldn't everyday people make these decisions naturally without their leaders making them on their behalf? Of course, because Friedman agrees with the asshats (and even thinks like them), Friedman feels that these clowns are both enlightened and justified in making the decisions for the rubes that wouldn't make the correct decisions for themselves.

I'll one-up the language and call it something more than hubris; Friedman supports tyranny and he's too ________ stupid to understand that that's exactly what he's supporting. There's nothing left to do but shake my head in disgust and offer a 'facepalm'.

This is typical liberal Philosopher King thinking, driven by the Illusion of Incorruptibility.*

* The belief that, while power admittedly corrupts everyone else who accumulates it, it won't corrupt the believer.**

** This belief is driven in turn by the above-average effect, where people think that they are less susceptible things than everyone else.

Are you kidding me? Has the left gone so far that they actually want to get rid of all opposition? Liberalism=fascism

Tom Friedman is the ultimate Neocon. Bill Bonner writes some hilarious stuff about Tom Friedman. Bonner's book "Empire of Debt" had some of that funny stuff on Friedman's writings.

Maybe he should save his relections for when they actually overtake us in "electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power." Right now, overtaking us in all sorts of pollution is more likely.

This is scary.

The corollary is - so what if they do? If China can produce all of those things better than we can, then great, let them do it. We'll just keep on producing more of what the market wants.

It's quite likely that the future replacement to oil is not currently receiving billions of dollars of federal subsidies. Whatever it is will only take off when it becomes cheaper than oil, and we'll never know that without a market.

Also disturbing is Friedman's opinion that Obama is a centrist. I think you would have to be as far left yourself as the Chinese communists and/or the pro-Chavez/Castro dictatorships to be so far on the left as to see Obama as a centrist. Everything he has done to date has been to expand the reach and power of government.

It was a typo. He meant to write that President Obama is a 'centralist' - as in that's where political power and all decisions should be made, the center of Washington D.C.

From Friedman's piece:

“The need to compete in a globalized world has forced the meritocracy, the multinational corporate manager, the eastern financier and the technology entrepreneur to reconsider what the Republican Party has to offer. In principle, they have left the party, leaving behind not a pragmatic coalition but a group of ideological naysayers.”

The need to compete in a globalized world has forced all of the above to abandon the United States, where the high cost of doing business makes relocation a necessity. To think those financiers and entrepreneurs would just abandon a political party under those circumstances is ridiculous!

If anything, those folks would flock to the party that is calling for trade protection... which means they are going to the Democrats, not fleeing the Republicans.

Thomas Friedman has become a walking non-sequitur.

BTW here is a fine explanation of the future socialist world of cheap labor.

http://viktorsilo.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-chin...

Well Ike, et. al.,

You've got to understand that if manufacturing, assembly, and business is going to move to cheap labor, what is more ideal for the American worker than to be impoverished to the point that it is the cheapest in the world?

Friedman and Krugman, are just way ahead of the rest of us, that's all.

I understand rice is delicious when it is flavored with more rice and some color white as well.

What's wrong with labour being cheap per se? If there a great many unskilled looking for unskilled labour then the price for unskilled labour would go downwards. That's ordinary supply and demand. There's no reason the U.S.A. couldn't have the cheapest labour except for minimum wage law and immigration laws.

Absolutely. Best protectionism in the world for the American worker, make the people in the nation so universally poor that they will work for 50 cents a day, and Maria in El Salvador will be in a position then to send them charity.

Everyone will have work because then Americans would do the jobs no one else would do.

Great way to solve the problem of business going overseas chasing cheap labor, just make cheap labor a home grown commodity.

...and the trees were all kept equal, with hatchet, axe, and saw.