Thomas Friedman's Evolving Relationship With Democracy
Thomas Friedman has a history of fantasizing about a more authoritarian political system. "One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks," he wrote in 2009. "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." In America, by contrast, the enlightened ones faced an obstruction: "the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying 'no.'"
Friedman wrote another one of those pieces this week, but this time he gives his fantasy of unchallenged rule a new name: "democracy."
If democracy means anything, it means that, if you are outvoted, you accept the results and prepare for the next election. Republicans are refusing to do that. It shows contempt for the democratic process.
If you can stomach a full course of Friedman, you can read the rest here. The least self-aware moment comes when he complains about "the rise of a separate G.O.P. (and a liberal) media universe" that has allowed politicians to "only operate inside these bubbles." This is a bit rich coming from a pundit whose head disappeared long ago into a Davos-shaped ass. Is there any prominent columnist more guilty of living in a bubble than Thomas Friedman?