We need Chinese-style autocracy

[doobs]

Nobody gets it. It has nothing to do with whether anybody is being "sinister."

The people residing in the United States of America, both left and right, are increasingly a people comfortable with intrusive, authoritarian government as long as it provides comprehensive services to their liking. These people increasingly see the role of the state as providing positive rights as opposed to protecting negative ones.

But at the same time, these people are increasingly are splintered to the point where separate factions, often regional in nature but not entirely so, hold little to nothing in common and cannot be called part of the same country in anything beyond a nominal sense. These people no longer believe that others are operating in good faith with them or that they much in the way of common interests. There is no trust even in so much as the basic decency of the other side. The other side is called dangerous and evil and must be eliminated [sic].

Democracies are always poor at coming up with sweeping government programs, because while a majority of people may agree something needs to be reformed, there is never more than a sliver that agrees with a particular detailed solution. Much of the majority that wanted reform might actually prefer no reform to whatever specific plan is under consideration.

So what happened in the past was that people would get frustrated with the inability to get anything done in a democracy. If only changes could be passed by fiat it would work better! Forget having dilettante politicians evaluate legislation; let panels of experts develop and implement reform! Germany and Italy didn't go from some Jeffersonian liberal paradises in 1925 to totalitarianism all of a sudden; the seeds were sown years, decades in advance in the culture of each nation to where the people accepted, nay, demanded dictatorial, er, umm, "unitary executive" leadership to solve their problems and purge their enemies.

The world has been down this road before. We know what happens, but I guess because the U.S.A. for all its hegemony is still isolated by the two oceans from really "getting it," we're doomed to go down the road ourselves and bleed and die. So be it. I may get to transfer out of the country in a few years, and if offered I will jump at the chance to get out.

And of course everyone will laugh and say that I am just being ridiculous because of course it can never happen here. Not only can it happen, it will happen, because that is who the people of the United States of America are, not because they're going to be duped by some sinister charismatic leader. New York will have its Lenin, and Georgia its Hitler.

My point is that Friedman mainly writes silly, weightless, airy nonsense that feels good to those with liberal sensibilities. This is nothing new.

I think the "I'm leaving this country" argument is pretty ty, by the way. Despite the statist inclinations of both parties, we still enjoy a fairly solid foundation of liberalism in this country. (I use the term in its classic sense.)

I think some big changes would have to occur before I would even consider this country falling apart or suc bing to a new Hitler or Lenin. I guess I have more faith in our cons utional system.

[DarrinS]

Your solicitude for the US Cons ution is touching, Darrin.

[101A]

My point is that Friedman mainly writes silly, weightless, airy nonsense that feels good to those with liberal sensibilities. This is nothing new.

I think the "I'm leaving this country" argument is pretty ty, by the way. Despite the statist inclinations of both parties, we still enjoy a fairly solid foundation of liberalism in this country. (I use the term in its classic sense.)

I think some big changes would have to occur before I would even consider this country falling apart or suc bing to a new Hitler or Lenin. I guess I have more faith in our cons utional system.

Not sure if ES is serious with his posts here; although it does fit his tone of late.

He is right about proponents on each side no trusting even the motives/desires of anyone that doesn't agree with them. "Yay team!" is such a cliche these days it's ridiculous.

Also, as whack as Friedman's article is today; 10 years ago there's no way it gets published. Things have changed - relatively quickly.

If the economic crisis continues to worsen, and doesn't rebound, it is plausible that more and more Americans will turn to the govt. to do whatever is necessary to "fix" everything. It has been shown, also, that post-9/11 Americans on both sides of the political spectrum are willing to forego there own rights for an end they agree with.

[LnGrrrR]

I will join you........



Comrades.

I see you're on ES's side then... that's two cokes for me!

[clambake]

ES...the only thing missing from your scenario is an outside oppressive military action.

[DarrinS]

Jonah Goldberg has a great response to Friedman's op-ed

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...NiZTIzYTcwOTA=

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.

I have no idea why I still have the capacity to be shocked by such things. A few years ago, during the worst part of the Iraq war, I wrote a column saying that Iraq needed a Pinochet type to bring order to Iraq and help develop democratic and liberal ins utions. To this day, I get vicious hate mail from liberal and leftist readers for my "pro-dictator" stance. Meanwhile, Thomas Friedman, golden boy of the NYT op-ed page, is writing love-letters to dictatorships because they have the foresight to invest in electric batteries and waterless toilets or something. It looks like there's reason to hope I was wrong about Iraq (I certainly hope I was). But at least I favored a dictatorship of sorts — for another country! — because I thought it would lead to a liberal democracy. Here, Friedman lives in a liberal democracy but has his nose pressed up against the candy store window of a cruel, undemocratic, regime and all he can do is drool over the prospect of having the same power here. It's disgusting.

[Winehole23]

ES's suggestion seems to be that the USA will disintegrate from within. Foreign aggression might not be needed to accomplish this, clambake.

[101A]

Hey, WH,

Where's that burger from in your Avatar?

Making me hungry (and realizing this food-cesspool I live in in Western PA means if I want something like that tonight; I'm doing in myself.)

[Winehole23]

Wunsche's in Ft. Worth, Texas.

[Winehole23]

[clambake]

ES's suggestion seems to be that the USA will disintegrate from within. Foreign aggression might not be needed to accomplish this, clambake.

just reminiscent of my time at home. one could hardly call that foreign.

[101A]

you.


Seriously.


'goin to the store, y'all take it easy.

[DarrinS]

nom nom nom

[Extra Stout]

I think the "I'm leaving this country" argument is pretty ty, by the way. Despite the statist inclinations of both parties, we still enjoy a fairly solid foundation of liberalism in this country. (I use the term in its classic sense.)

I think some big changes would have to occur before I would even consider this country falling apart or suc bing to a new Hitler or Lenin. I guess I have more faith in our cons utional system.

Would the fallout from our pending national insolvency qualify as "big changes" to you?

[Marcus Bryant]

My God. I thought this was a parody.

Though we aren't that far off from taking orders from the great Chinese whose nuts Friedman has on his chin.

[doobs]

Would the fallout from our pending national insolvency qualify as "big changes" to you?

Yes, that's a big deal. But I think I need you to connect the dots for me.

The amount of debt we were carrying before Obama was disgusting and needed to be remedied, but it hardly unsustainable by historical standards. Things are much, much worse now. But I still don't understand how that translates into fascism or the dissolution of the United States.

So how does it all play out? Keep in mind: We have congressional elections every two years. We have presidential elections every four years. We have an independent and respected judiciary. We have never had a military coup in our history.

[Extra Stout]

But I still don't understand how that translates into fascism or the dissolution of the United States.

So how does it all play out? Keep in mind: We have congressional elections every two years. We have presidential elections every four years. We have an independent and respected judiciary. We have never had a military coup in our history.

The insolvency plays out when the dollar abruptly undergoes hyperinflation. This destroys the economy; high unemployment, crime, chaos, etc. Because the government is insolvent, it cannot provide its normal array of social services. Many, many people are hungry and out in the streets. Shantytowns emerge around major cities.

The government cannot fund the military. Maintaining whatever civil order is possible falls to the werewithal of whatever provisional authorities local areas can set up. There is functional anarchy for a time.

Once these provisional authorities have reestablished some semblance of order, the questions start. Why did this happen? Who did this to us? The answers and the repercussions are predictable.

[Marcus Bryant]

Wal-Mart will save us all. Better yet, we'll make here for the green Chinese. That should make Friedman's hard.

[Extra Stout]

I don't think there's much doubt what the answers would be in a place like Texas. There would be a Kristallnacht going after blacks, Hispanics, sexuals, and anybody who looks or acts like an urban intellectual type. People will go through the rolls to see who donated money to a Democrat recently, and pay visits to those people's houses to deliver bullets.

Some of those targeted groups will fight back and it will get bloody.

The converse will happen in liberal areas.

[Marcus Bryant]

Damn, this small batch bourbon is tasty.

[Wild Cobra]

We should just ban all trade with China. That would solve things pretty quick...for most of us that is. It's completely ridiculous.

No, we should stop taxing production. Then we can compete. Then if cases are found where products are dumped below cost, we tariff the out of them.

[101A]

I don't think there's much doubt what the answers would be in a place like Texas. There would be a Kristallnacht going after blacks, Hispanics, sexuals, and anybody who looks or acts like an urban intellectual type. People will go through the rolls to see who donated money to a Democrat recently, and pay visits to those people's houses to deliver bullets.

Some of those targeted groups will fight back and it will get bloody.

The converse will happen in liberal areas.

I've already formed a tribe. When the Sh!t hits the fan; everyone cowboys up at my house; we couquer from there. No ideological similarities amongst the tribal members; they are mostly useful, armed, or both. Two honest-to-god Navy Seals, A doctor, dentist, several scientists, a historian, and three lawyers (in case we run low on food).

[Marcus Bryant]

How about we don't have a race to the bottom to feed our consumer appe es? I guess that is what happens when Wal-Mart is considered to have 1st Amendment rights just like every Jim Bob and Sally May.

[Wild Cobra]

How about we don't have a race to the bottom to feed our consumer appe es? I guess that is what happens when Wal-Mart is considered to have 1st Amendment rights just like every Jim Bob and Sally May.

Walmart not the problem. Granted, I would like to see corporation never get that big, but they are just doing good business practices playing by the rules and regulations our government makes.

Government is the problem.

[Marcus Bryant]

Good business practices mean doing bidness with totalitarian communist regimes in pursuit of profit growth just because it's legal.