Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Thomas L. Friedman: China Is Better Governed Than America
The next time anyone tries to tell you that Thomas L. Friedman is a serious thinker, or a tribune for global democracy, or even a good columnist, or basically someone who isn't worth sending on the next slow boat to Shanghai, please refer him to this despicable column from today, then ask: Do you, too, prefer Chinese governance to American democracy? No really, Friedman says that:
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.
One almost doesn't know where to begin.
Reason on Friedman here.
Tomcat1066|9.9.09 @ 10:04AM|#
I sincerely wish that this was just the result of a severe case of writer's block. Unfortunately, I know that wish just isn't going to come true.
|9.9.09 @ 10:05AM|#
If the right people being in charge is what it takes to get
things done, who cares how they come to be in charge? Just more
ends-based thinking from the left.
The left only champions democracy insofar as it currently aligns
with their policy goals. Shocking.
|9.9.09 @ 10:08AM|#
Just to go Mike Godwin early, this reminds me of the way Nazis
and Russian Communists were viewed in their earlier stages. While
both groups were obviously totalitarians who didn't give a crap
about individual rights, they had stated goals that were big or
seemed big to some Western eyes. So the same kind of "Gosh, aren't
they dreaming" press and commentary made the rounds about
them.
Liberal governments with free markets are best. Period. Until the
robot overlords (or Jesus--you pick!) take over with their totally
enlightened and perfect rule, anyway.
|9.9.09 @ 10:10AM|#
Waitaminute. Are you allowed to pull the curtain back on
yourself? I thought a little dog had to do it.
Shorter Friedman: All these noisy peasents get in the way of the
One True Way.™
Nipplemancer|9.9.09 @ 10:11AM|#
reasonably enlightened people. i never thought i'd hear those words in reference to the ChiComs, unless it was self-referential.
Abdul|9.9.09 @ 10:14AM|#
Why is it that no one in China is opposing the "politically
difficult but critically important policies needed to move a
society forward in the 21st century?"
Oh, that's right, Mao had them all shot.
Citizen Nothing|9.9.09 @ 10:15AM|#
Next, Friedman introduces a "cute nephew" character to his column.
Jonas|9.9.09 @ 10:17AM|#
I love how he totally skips over the fact that the reason China
is "overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency,
batteries, nuclear power and wind power" is because they curtail
even the most basic human rights, like reproductive
freedom (which means more than simply access to abortion), or the
right to sing about Grass Mud Horses in YouTube videos.
I just can't believe that people honestly think that "achieving our
goals as a country" is more important than the individuals the
country purportedly exists for.
|9.9.09 @ 10:17AM|#
"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."
What is a few million political prisoners, a complete lack of free
speech, or meaningful due process when compared to being ahead on
wind power and electric cars?
Friedman is not just a fool but a dangerous one. If someone told me
that we could have the government exactly as I want it, but in
order to do that we would have to end Democratic government in this
country, I would say thanks but no thanks. Friedman apparently
would be right on board with the idea.
What is scary about this collumn is that he is being nothing if not
logically consistent. If you buy into his brand of bullshit that
global warming is the greatest threat to mankind ever and our
democratic government can't deal with the problem, then why isn't
some kind of coupe or authoritarian government justified?
Sadly, I think a lot of docrtinal liberals would agree with
him.
@|9.9.09 @ 10:18AM|#
only the Democrats are really playing
Friedman, like many high-level national pundits, talk about
politics as if it exists in a vacuum. We the people are merely
expendable playthings, children even, not worthy of being taken
seriously. If a few of us must be sacrificed to the collective, so
be it, because these high lords of opinion know what's best for us
rubes and hayseeds.
|9.9.09 @ 10:21AM|#
(or Jesus--you pick!)
If Jesus was actually borned two thousand years ago in the middle
east, how is it that He has a Metsican name?
|9.9.09 @ 10:22AM|#
One almost doesn't know where to begin.
Not a masochist, I did not RTF link. But I did notice this from the
article -
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.
That would be the same China that leads the world in CO2 emissions,
that is the biggest air and water polluter on the face of the
planet, that writes off 50 - 100 coal miners monthly, that
displaced ??? people for the Three Gorges dams?
What a colostomy bag.
ds|9.9.09 @ 10:22AM|#
The point of being a human being is not to be well-governed the
point is to be free.
Solving a problem and finding solutions should always be gated by
the rights of the individual.
|9.9.09 @ 10:23AM|#
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.
That would really suck, if they "overtook" us in making some stuff,
because they obviously would never even consider selling us that
stuff. I go into stores and can never find any Chinese-made
products.
Abdul|9.9.09 @ 10:24AM|#
a complete lack of free speech, or meaningful due
process
I was touring a law school that I had applied to where the tour
guide mentioned that the school had an exchange program with a
Chinese university and trained many chinese judges and lawyers
because "they have a developing legal system."
The guy next to me whispered "have they developed the concept of a
'warning shot' yet?"
|9.9.09 @ 10:25AM|#
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.
I bet his editor had to remove the sentence about the trains
running on time.
|9.9.09 @ 10:26AM|#
"The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health
care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing."
You can kind of see how leftist utopian ideals always end up with
people being shot and imprisoned. This is sort of phase two. The
first phase is when leftists come up with grand schemes and go out
to sell it to the world. The second phase comes when those schemes
fail and people don't cooperate with the plans. Hayak talks in the
Road to Serfdom about people demanding someone who can make a plan
work. Friedman is in this stage. He has had it with the
uncooperative majority and is willing to trade away representative
government to get what he thinks needs to be done done. This is
inevitably followed by the third stage where the government coerces
people into doing what needs done and the fourth stage where they
imprison or shoot those who resist.
Mike M.|9.9.09 @ 10:27AM|#
Careful, Thomas. If you keep going down this road, you're going to end up in Krugman land, a place I don't think you really want to be.
Thomass Friedman|9.9.09 @ 10:28AM|#
Upon arriving in China, in the airport terminal walking past a Dunkin Donuts, I was stopped by some of these reasonable people, and then it hit me. The Sony surveillance cameras that they tracked me on the whole time were powered by 30% renewable power, the Honda that would be following my every move was a hybrid, the tracking chip that they planted in my luggage was made of recyclable material, etc. They motioned me to an obscure door just past the McDonalds, they took my Samsonite briefcase and began to look through it. During my questioning I was put in a 3 by 5 cell. But here's the ubersteroids behind China's renewable resources policy, the real step forward that we are unable to do with our inefficient leadership, they cut out one of my kidneys right there, and it made me think, I had two kidneys all along, what a waste, they sewed me up and even though I wasn't compensated for my kidney nor did I give them consent, this experience of enlightened governance gave me a new outlook on conservation. I walked out of the obscure door in the terminal by the McDonalds, had a new McCafe Mocha and pondered what I just experienced.
|9.9.09 @ 10:31AM|#
John, sadly, lotsa folks are good with that second stage, as long as the gubmint keeps Gmail running smoothly.
Anomalous|9.9.09 @ 10:33AM|#
I'm fairly sure Mike Godwin would agree that comparison to Nazis/Fascists/Stalinists is apt here.
|9.9.09 @ 10:35AM|#
"John, sadly, lotsa folks are good with that second stage, as
long as the gubmint keeps Gmail running smoothly."
Not as many as you think. We have managed to keep representative
democracy in this country for two hundred years because there are
certain lines most people won't cross. Call me an optimist, but I
think fools like Friedman are in the minority.
Citizen Nothing|9.9.09 @ 10:44AM|#
Godwin's Law refers only to the inevitability, not reasonableness, of the reference, no?
|9.9.09 @ 10:48AM|#
I don't see why Mr Friedman's claim is so outlandish from a
libertarian point of view.
The Chinese government is only nominally Communist at this point.
By many measures of economic freedom they are more free than we are
(after all the bailouts, we're basically a Communist country
without the balls to admit it).
I don't see why libertarians are so hostile to non-democratic forms
of government. The Kings of old were no where near as powerful as
our current democratic government. And, the Kings of old rarely
confiscated nearly as much wealth from their "subjects" (~5% of GDP
on average) as the democrats of today confiscate from their
"citizens" (~40% of GDP).
I'd take good government over bad government any day. I don't see
why the fact that I have a 0.00000000001% say in who is elected
means that I am any more free. No one I've voted for has ever won
an election anyway.
Fluffy|9.9.09 @ 10:48AM|#
Everyone here has ably smacked around Friedman for the unabashed
authoritarianism of his statement, so I'll address his crushing
naivete:
He is taking the word of the Chinese government with regard to
statistics about performance in these projects.
Considering the fact that Chinese authorities routinely brutalize
anyone who either complains or attempts to bring failures of local
governments to the attention of either the media or the central
authorities, no one can make any definitive statements about the
performance of medium-profile projects in China.
I would expect Friedman to know this, given the fact that just
about every time any journalist has trumpeted the "accomplishments"
of authoritarian and opaque systems, they've ended up with egg on
their face later. But since Friedman is dumber than a hamster, I
guess he can't learn from the mistakes of others.
|9.9.09 @ 10:52AM|#
Everyone here has ably smacked around Friedman for the
unabashed authoritarianism of his statement, so I'll address his
crushing naivete:
Naivete about the claims of authoritarians is de rigeur
for lefties. See, e.g., decades of lefty Castro
fellation.
|9.9.09 @ 10:56AM|#
cvd,
It's quite simple: Libertarians are about maximizing the liberty
and the potential happiness/prosperity of the individual. The
Chinese may be less-than-pure Communists, but they are plenty
totalitarian. That means individual rights are meaningless. About
as far from the libertarian ideal as possible.
In general, while many libertarians distrust democratic power as
potentially tyrannical, that doesn't mean we'd like to go to a
benevolent despot. Without checks and balances and generally
limited government, we fear that the government will inevitably
threaten our liberties. In fact, many of us think that it's
inevitable that any strong government will do so, regardless of how
it's configured.
|9.9.09 @ 10:57AM|#
What RC. You mean the Soviet Union really didn't achieve full employment and Cuban healthcare isn't really all that good?
|9.9.09 @ 11:01AM|#
CVD makes some good points. While I would never defend the
anti-freedom and often brutal tactics of the PRC's leadership, the
economic policies they are pursuing are improving the standard of
living of their people.
Is there anyone here who believes the economic policies of the US
Government in recent years are improving our standard of
living?
|9.9.09 @ 11:02AM|#
Pro Libertate,
Our government is also "plenty totalitarian" by my reading. The
recent administrations have tried to effectively own two of our
largest industries - finance and healthcare.
The "checks and balances" you speak of seem to be broken. If you
look closer, you'll see that the only people doing the checking and
balancing are part of government. You speak of limited government,
but our government is, in practice, only limited by itself (much
like the Chinese government).
You say you fear that without these paper checks and balances
(enforced by those who break them) our liberty will be threatened.
I think our liberty is already plenty threatened. If nothing else,
it's threatened by the fact that we own the good government (China)
trillions of dollars because of our bad government policies. When
anyone owes that much, their liberty is threatened.
I'm far from the first libertarian to point out that monarchical
governments have more pro-liberty interests than democratic
governments. If nothing else the monarchists can take a long term
view (toward say fixing social security) that democratically
elected politicians cannot (so we have the same crappy,
less-libertarian system we have now).
Read Hoppe for the whole argument:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0765808684/reasonmagazineA/
|9.9.09 @ 11:04AM|#
cvd, you're plenty uneducated about how China
works for the everyday Citizen Chen. It's easy to be fooled,
because a lot of American media reports about China are very
flattering -- growth! progress! more capitalism!.
I recommend the book Oracle Bones if you want to see the good and
the bad of life in China and what it's like to express an opinion
that goes against the gov't plan there.
|9.9.09 @ 11:07AM|#
Move towards more limited government and freer markets and we'll
be peachy. China's no threat to us. Just like Japan wasn't. Plenty
of global economy to go around. If we'd get back to our free market
roots and turn down the government meddling, we'd quickly
re-establish our scientific and technological preeminence.
Naturally, we'll do no such thing and continually gnash our
teeth.
cvd,
I'm not saying the U.S. system is working well. However, I do think
the mixed government concept can work, provided that the people
continue to buy into limited government. Once we started making
"democracy" a greater good than "liberty", we started walking down
the wrong path. We're also harmed by the idea that we can force all
men to be equal--not under the law, which they should be, but in
fact.
In any event, a monarchy is not the answer.
|9.9.09 @ 11:11AM|#
CVD,
Monarchy is great, as long as you are the monarch. You are living
in a fantasy land if you think you can unaccoutable power to people
and expect those people not to abuse that power.
And yes, Monarchs of the middle ages and early modern Europe dind't
tax as much as our government does now. But that was for lack of
ability, not desire.
|9.9.09 @ 11:15AM|#
That would be the same China that leads the world in CO2
emissions, that is the biggest air and water polluter on the face
of the planet, that writes off 50 - 100 coal miners monthly, that
displaced ??? people for the Three Gorges dams?
What a colostomy bag.
Hey! We kicked him out years ago. The necrotic pustules took him
in.
Joe M|9.9.09 @ 11:17AM|#
Wow, he is so done. It's hard to believe he just lapped Paul Krugman in the race to be the most loathesome NYT columnist, but it's true. I think he jumped the shark while stuffed inside a lead-lined fridge.
|9.9.09 @ 11:23AM|#
While I would never defend the anti-freedom and often brutal
tactics of the PRC's leadership, the economic policies they are
pursuing are improving the standard of living of their
people.
Sure, as long as you weren't one of the peasants swept up or had
your home destroyed for one of the glorious works of
progress.
Is there anyone here who believes the economic policies of the
US Government in recent years are improving our standard of
living?
That's a mighty low threshold you've got there. Let's call that
Limbonomics.
creech|9.9.09 @ 11:38AM|#
Friedman: putting the lie to the claim Ayn Rand's characters do not exist in reality.
|9.9.09 @ 11:43AM|#
You know, I've tried to remain optimistic about people and
presume the best and keep the belief that people are inherently
good and nowhere near as stupid as the chattering classes keep
saying they are, well, because they voted for the other guy.
Well, let this be a lesson to me to never stop listening to my
cynical side. I was just in a long online discussion with a bunch
of lefties and patiently and clearly explained why I think that a
market-based solution is better than a socialized solution. I tried
to keep it out of the personal and on the rational side. I want
those hours of my life back now, please.
I should have just started punching myself in the head, like I
thought I should have, in order to achieve the same effect.
Doctrinaire partisanship has just turned most people into
blathering fucking morons, unable to to see either the forest or
the fucking trees. Friedman's piece is just the icing on the cake,
and you know who always wants cake.
Fuck, I hate people today.
|9.9.09 @ 11:44AM|#
"One almost doesn't know where to begin." - Amen, I'm at a loss for words. Maybe two: Positively Evil.
Tony|9.9.09 @ 11:51AM|#
Friedman's thesis isn't really how great autocracy is, but how useless the GOP is. Not that I'm defending his rhetorical technique. The man never met a mixed metaphor or a strained comparison he didn't like.
|9.9.09 @ 11:53AM|#
If it were a veal-based community, we could eat them in tasty
dishes to assuage our agony.
I call that win-win.
mark|9.9.09 @ 12:08PM|#
You know what would be great, Tony? If the GOP and Democrat
party merged into one big party. Then they could get things
done.
I prefer hearing from Jackie Chan on this
issue:
"I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said Saturday. "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."
He knew what he was saying. Thomas Friedman apparently does
not.
|9.9.09 @ 12:08PM|#
"Fuck, I hate people today."
I've been that way for about 40 years. I guess that makes me a
humanist.
|9.9.09 @ 12:13PM|#
Tony,
Yeah, the GOP is really useless, not like the Democrats, who have
accomplished all their goals; fixed the economy, got the troops out
of Iraq and Afghanistan, passed a health insurance reform bill, and
all of Obama's other universally popular plans.
The reason the commies in China can do whatever they like, and the
Democrats, who control the U.S. executive and legislature, cannot,
is largely because the Democrats are incompetent and have no
balls.
|9.9.09 @ 12:15PM|#
I think we now have positive proof that Leftists are greatly
enamoured of the coercive power of the state (as long as the right
kind of people are in charge).
Also:
What a colostomy bag.
I love this phrase. Mind if I use it?
|9.9.09 @ 12:17PM|#
And yes, Monarchs of the middle ages and early modern Europe
dind't tax as much as our government does now. But that was for
lack of ability, not desire.
It was structural. Most of the wealth was held by nobles, who had
their own private armies. Good luck taxing them.
Throw in the confiscation of wealth by nobles, and you'd probably
have a pretty stout effective tax rate.
But the whole thing is so structurally different its really apples
and oranges.
Joe M|9.9.09 @ 12:23PM|#
Most of the wealth was held by nobles, who had their own private armies. Good luck taxing them.
I want a private army!
Fluffy|9.9.09 @ 12:29PM|#
Friedman's thesis isn't really how great autocracy is, but
how useless the GOP is. Not that I'm defending his rhetorical
technique. The man never met a mixed metaphor or a strained
comparison he didn't like.
Actually, that part of the column is even more stupid.
Friedman is claiming that we have a one-party democracy
because...the two major parties don't agree on what to do.
Friedman is claiming we would not be a one-party democracy if...the
two major parties were in complete agreement and had no policy
differences, and there were no obstacles to imposing that unified
view.
What an asshole.
ed|9.9.09 @ 12:43PM|#
What a colostomy bag
That's an overly generous appraisal.
Colostomy bags are useful.
|9.9.09 @ 12:56PM|#
You guys are ripping on Friedman for his naivete and then you
are saying things like: "If we'd get back to our free market roots
and turn down the government meddling, we'd quickly re-establish
our scientific and technological preeminence."
We live in a democracy where, at max, 10% would support such a
policy. If you believe that the above is possible in our current
system, you are the ones being naive.
Why would you wish for those things if you are wishing for things
that won't happen? Why not just wish for an instant transformation
to an anarchical utopia, it's just as likely to happen under our
current system?
|9.9.09 @ 12:57PM|#
cvd,
For the same reason that "lie back and enjoy it" is not a solution
for rape.
|9.9.09 @ 1:05PM|#
cvd,
I dunno, I guess we could just give up. I've got kids, so I'd like
them to experience at least the freedom and prosperity that I have,
if not more.
I have no intention of conceding the fight for liberty, even if
Schiller was right: "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen die Götter
selbst vergebens."
Hobo Chang Ba|9.9.09 @ 1:12PM|#
Not a huge Friedman fan; however, I don't see him saying he
prefers an authoritarian system to a democratic one. Merely, that
authoritarian systems can be more effective and productive than
ones where every political move is designed around winning
re-election. Mussolini made the trains run on time. When a
government is not accountable to its citizens, it can push through
whatever policies it chooses.
I think he's just saying what many, many people have said (I'm not
agreeing with it, but...): that there is an argument that a
benevolent dictatorship is the ideal form of government, as it has
the efficiency benefits of authoritarianism/not needing to
compromise and the general support of the people via the
benevolence. As long as the Chinese are getting rich, they won't
attempt to break the authoritarian stranglehold and will generally
go along with their government. (If they go along with it, they can
get rich and advance. If they don't, they will be punished. So why
blow a good thing?)
A theoretical question, however: if there was somehow a dictator
who pushed through libertarian economic and social reforms, removed
the government from all but the most minimal functions, and
basically had the policy of "live and let live" as long as the
dictator remains unchallenged, would you oppose the fact that
democracy went out the window to get there? Not that it's ever
likely (Pinochet wasn't even remotely close, so don't say it), but
wouldn't it be preferable to a democratic system where everyone
wants a handout and wants to control their neighbors' actions via
elections?
I think Friedman is saying "the Chinese government is doing a lot
of things I like, so even if I don't like the means, the ends are
desirable." Would we not say the same thing if there was an example
that closely achieved our desired political ends?
Jordan|9.9.09 @ 1:19PM|#
I wholeheartedly encourage Friedman to move to China, preferably the city whose police have a manual on how to beat suspects.
|9.9.09 @ 1:21PM|#
This is inevitably followed by the third stage where the
government coerces people into doing what needs done and the fourth
stage where they imprison or shoot those who resist.
I don't know about the "inevitable" part. Sometimes the sullen
masses (proles?) thwart their overlords' grand plans (see "second,
failing, attempt to finish nationalizing healthcare turning into
wretched overreach").
LarryA|9.9.09 @ 1:26PM|#
This is inevitably followed by the third stage where the
government coerces people into doing what needs done and the fourth
stage where they imprison or shoot those who resist.
Then there's the fifth stage where the government policies and five
and ten-year plans fail, and the wheels fall off the economy.
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.
Get back to me when you see results, not "commitments." The USSR
made plenty of plans, and fooled many a liberal. The results were
impressive in a whole 'nother way.
And, the Kings of old rarely confiscated nearly as much wealth
from their "subjects" (~5% of GDP on average) as the democrats of
today confiscate from their "citizens" (~40% of GDP).
The king may only have taken 5%, but by the time you figured in
what the earls, lords, barons, knights, etc. skimmed the serfs were
little more than slaves.
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.
Explain to me why, if the Democrats have overwhelming majorities in
both houses, it's the Republicans who are at fault for stalling
"progress." The Democrats can pass any law they want, as long as
they're willing to face the consequences next election day. If they
really thought they knew what a majority of their constituents
wanted, it would already be law.
The Gobbler|9.9.09 @ 1:46PM|#
"If you buy into his brand of bullshit that global warming is
the greatest threat to mankind ever and our democratic government
can't deal with the problem, then why isn't some kind of coupe or
authoritarian government justified?"
Tom Friedman's Compound:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_0oNRupXJ4-A/SmhyIARRlaI/AAAAAAAAA2g/YvSp31O7bcQ/%5BUNSET%5D.jpg
|9.9.09 @ 1:50PM|#
It sounds like Friedman got a nice big check for writing a piece that totally kisses the ass of the Chinese government. I'm guessing someone in DC thinks it's a good idea to start kissing that ass like a long lost girlfriend.
|9.9.09 @ 1:57PM|#
Thomass Friedman | September 9, 2009, 10:28am | #
That is just about the best damned thing I've read this week.
|9.9.09 @ 1:58PM|#
Why not just wish for an instant transformation to an
anarchical utopia, it's just as likely to happen under our current
system?
I was going to, but I knew if I wished for somethign like "world
peace," we'd just get alien invaders, eventually becoming our
beneficent and peace-loving overlords.
You just can't trust magic lamps any more.
Tony|9.9.09 @ 2:36PM|#
Thought experiment. What if global warming were the greatest threat to humanity's survival, but the people were too collectively stupid to do anything about it? The constitution isn't a suicide pact, after all.
|9.9.09 @ 2:45PM|#
It sounds like Friedman got a nice big check for writing a
piece that totally kisses the ass of the Chinese
government.
There's no doubt in my mind he was paid to write this. But I'm sure
he really believes it too.
"Tom Friedman's Compound:"
To be fair, it doesn't look like he wastes a lot of water watering
large parts of his lawn!
|9.9.09 @ 2:47PM|#
"What if global warming were the greatest threat to humanity's
survival, but the people were too collectively stupid to do
anything about it?"
Why not take a run over to the Friedman compound and ask the stupid
living people there to tear down their compound?
O you could just shut the fuck up.
|9.9.09 @ 3:08PM|#
What if global warming were the greatest threat to
humanity's survival, but the people were too collectively stupid to
do anything about it?
Tony, any given person is much, much more likely to die at the
hands of a government, or because of the failure of the government
to meets its basic "night watchman" obligations, than they are to
die of global warming.
We're just a little more worried here about actual problems than
speculative ones.
Tony|9.9.09 @ 3:14PM|#
R C Dean,
But you're a kook denier. In fact global warming is the greatest
threat humanity faces right now, but you don't believe that so I'm
just asking what if. I don't know that I have the answer. I do know
that the same people willing to cede every liberty they have in the
name of protecting us from dudes with box knives are somewhat less
willing to sacrifice democracy in the name of protecting us from
much more deadly threats.
|9.9.09 @ 3:33PM|#
Why not take a run over to the Friedman compound and ask the
stupid living people there to tear down their compound?
Friedman would have that compound in China as well. Apparatchiks
always have the best dachas.
Space Fiend|9.9.09 @ 3:50PM|#
No one seriously believes global warming is a "threat to human survival." On a long time scale, its at best a minor inconvenience. The sun burning out would be a "threat to human survival."
|9.9.09 @ 3:55PM|#
I had asteroids once. A nice sitz bath and some of the wife's boutique anti-aging cream fixed me right up.
|9.9.09 @ 4:02PM|#
Asteroids? Comets? We can't make everyone ride a recycled driftwood bicycle to work because of asteroids. You guys are crazee!
|9.9.09 @ 4:03PM|#
Let's put ChiCom Tom in front of a column of tanks and holding two shopping bags stuffed with copies of his op-ed.
Walter Lippmann|9.9.09 @ 4:07PM|#
It is not an accident that in China robust milkmaids drive
around in electric cars, and rosy cheek undergrads build lines of
solar power panels on their dorm roofs. The all wise, leaders of
China understand that in a world of exploding populations and a
proletariat joining the ranks of the middle classes due to the just
policies of the Central Authority, there will be a greater demand
for clean power and that energy efficiency is going to create a
great leap forward. Beijing's leadership from the top down will
ensure China's increasing roll in the vanguard of the workers of
the world.
[Hey Walt, Steve in Facts Checking here, how do you account for the
increases in SUV and large vehicle purchases including Hummer. They
actually bought the company? Also, what of the bust that is
predicted by many economist due to over stimulus? Shades of Japan
'89?]
[Sorry Steve, you know who got wind of the questions you were
asking about China, and the accuracy of current reports coming out
of there from our Beijing bureau. I'm afraid I'm going to have to
ask you to pack your things and wait for a security officer to
escort you off the premises. Again, sorry, from Sal.]
|9.9.09 @ 5:01PM|#
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.
Come on, everyone's ignoring this part of the idiocy. Somehow we
have a "one-party democracy" because, wait for it, the opposition
party disagrees with proposed policy and is able to block it.
That's the opposite of "one-party democracy." And of course the
Republicans (and others) have proposed alternatives; they won't get
adopted because the Democrats have the White House and a majority,
sure, but that's like saying that the Democrats' proposals didn't
count when they were in the minority because they knew they'd be
vetoed.
Tony|9.9.09 @ 5:18PM|#
What about asteroids and comets? They're a real, proven threat.
And I think it's a good thing we have people tracking them. Of
course global warming is a certainty, while an asteroid in our
lifetime is merely slightly possible. My hope is that we'd have a
government agency with the ability to predict and deal with natural
disasters. No need to subvert democracy that way. But if an
asteroid were headed straight for earth and 51% of the people think
there's no asteroid despite all available evidence and work
adamantly against trying to divert it, we'd have a problem.
|9.9.09 @ 5:56PM|#
More than 51% of this country wants to destroy our economy. Should I take power and bend them to my will?
mark|9.9.09 @ 5:57PM|#
Of course global warming is a certainty
You are going to be so disappointed in 10 years.
Unless they pass cap-and-trade, then it will be pretty much illegal
to deny global warming.
Jeffersonian|9.9.09 @ 6:07PM|#
Jesus I don't even know where to start with Friedman, someone I
always thought was one of the more enjoyable and intellectual
"liberals".
It seems like the leftwing needs to get back to their roots by
reading Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson and realizing that
although it is imperfect, a liberal democratic society will do more
to promote their view of "social justice" than any of their
proposals for a wise elite governing.
I'm reading the Age of Reagan and the author is describing how at
the end of Carter's failure as President many were claiming that
the Presidency is too weak and how it needed be beefed up. I can
feel that this argument is going to be super amplified as Obama
continues to grind against the wheel of reality in the coming
years....
justinslot|9.9.09 @ 7:43PM|#
I'd just like to know on what planet Thomas "Friedman Unit" Friedman is on the left.
Tony|9.9.09 @ 7:49PM|#
I don't accept Friedman as a lefty given his early positions on the Iraq War. That combined with his horrible writing style means I don't care to defend anything he says.
Simon C|9.9.09 @ 9:51PM|#
Initially like cvd, I was sympathetic to the idea that China's
governance could rival that of the US. After all, on the ground
today in Shanghai doesn't feel that different from on the ground in
Hong Kong and Singapore, places which are in economic terms at
least more free than the US. So to check I looked up China in the
Index of Economic Freedom. According to this source China still has
a way to go. Where HK scores 90 and the US 80, China is just at 53
in 132nd place. This puts it below Rwanda. I wonder if this can
really be right though. If I had to go and start a business and
live somewhere, I think I'd have a much better chance in Shanghai
than in Kigali.
China does beat the US on government size (89 points vs 60) since
spending is 19% of GDP, well below the US's 37%. It's also slightly
better on fiscal freedom. It really loses on investment freedom,
poor property rights and corruption.
I'm also sympathetic to the idea that less democratic places can be
more libertarian. After all the top scoring places, Hong Kong and
Singapore are both somewhat autocratic as I understand.
|9.9.09 @ 10:15PM|#
"More than 51% of this country wants to destroy our economy.
Should I take power and bend them to my will?"
Perhaps not, but if you support Democracy, then by definition you
support the destruction of our economy.
It's worth pointing out that founding fathers, particularly
Jefferson (beloved of all good libertarians) thought that Democracy
was a retarded idea. There are political systems other than
communist dictatorships and modern-American democracy.
Jim Treacher|9.10.09 @ 12:50AM|#
Even The Onion knows Thomas Friedman is full of crap: http://www.theonion.com/content/china
|9.10.09 @ 3:49AM|#
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government
except all the others that have been tried."
Sir Winston Churchill
"There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that
is one-party democracy."
Thomas Friedman.
|9.10.09 @ 3:51AM|#
I don't accept Friedman as a lefty given his early positions
on the Iraq War. That combined with his horrible writing style
means I don't care to defend anything he says.
Republican Ron Paul
Christopher Hitchens
Hilary Clinton's voting record
Cindy Sheehan libertarian screeds
Pat Buchanan
cato
and far right wing writings found in Reason magazine.
But yeah good luck in thinking the Iraq war was a right and left
wing thing.
MJ|9.10.09 @ 6:50AM|#
"...I don't even know where to start with Friedman, someone I
always thought was one of the more enjoyable and intellectual
"liberals"."
Friedman is, this is where liberal intellectualism often leads: an
impatience with the structure of a constitutional republic that
slows down radical change in policy that a liberal prefers. This is
also the source of distrust of intellectuals, as they are the first
to throw limited particpitory government under the bus.
|9.10.09 @ 10:01AM|#
Please read the entirity of the article. He is referencing the fact that our one-party system still cannot get anything done since the other side is playing politics to ideas that they previously supported. Please read the whole article before you respond to this out of context quote.
Jeffersonian|9.10.09 @ 10:45AM|#
"Please read the entirity of the article. He is referencing the
fact that our one-party system still cannot get anything done since
the other side is playing politics to ideas that they previously
supported. Please read the whole article before you respond to this
out of context quote."
You realize logically how stupid what you said is. IF it's a one
party system, THEN how is it that the other party is "playing
politics".
Friedman is a liberal fascist plain and simple. No defense, none
for what he said.
|9.10.09 @ 10:58AM|#
At the end of the article Friedman sites, "...Obama is on a path
to give America the Romney health plan with McCain-style financing,
does not mean the Republicans will embrace it..."
This is the case and point, if this bill is based on systems
written by republicans, then why are they opposing it? The reason
is that they are more desparate to be in power than they are to
accomplish things that they support. That is playing power
politics.
Anonymous|9.10.09 @ 11:25AM|#
if this bill is based on systems written by republicans,
then why are they opposing it?
I don't understand the question.
Are you complaining that Republicans aren't supporting bad ideas
from other Republicans? Isn't taking a principled stand against
this a good thing, in terms of critical thinking?
|9.10.09 @ 11:25AM|#
@Jeffersonian
What the man said makes perfect, logical sense. The verbiage you're
taking for granted as 'true' or 'factual' is where your confusion
originates.
To say we have a one-party system is slightly incorrect. It's more
like a 2 party system, but the other party is like an asshole on
your elbow: pretty worthless. Ever watch Lil' Bush? The republican
party in our country right now is like a puddin' hole.
You can 'play politics' without being a substantial 'party', or
rather, without being in the majority or in power. It's a seemingly
one-party system because the Republicans are making it that way, by
playing power politics. Not the other way around.
Your tautology is flawed because you're trying to make the shoe
fit, rather than observe what's being said. In other words
...
IF the other party is 'playing politics', THEN we will be more like
a one-party system.
B|9.10.09 @ 12:34PM|#
@ Anonymous
I am complaining that Republicans are playing power politics.
Rather than supporting measures that they had proposed, they are
opposing them in order to deface their political rivals.
I understand that these measures should obviously be scrutinized,
but these bills should not be flat-out objected in order to bring
the opposition down. The point that Friedman makes is that we have
put ourselves in a stand-still due to our system's politics.
RM|9.10.09 @ 1:21PM|#
What can be said that wasn't already said:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety (in this case Capital/Industrial), deserve neither
liberty nor safety." - BF
Anonymous|9.10.09 @ 5:24PM|#
Rather than supporting measures that they had proposed, they
are opposing them in order to deface their political
rivals.
Socialized medicine by one governor, which is usually the first
thing people mention when discussing his failed bid for being the
candidate, means no other member of the party can criticize that
policy?
That's makes no sense. Most of those members didn't support it, and
some actively opposed it. There is no hypocrisy there.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245