"AUTHORITARANISM "Who Are WE?"

QUESTION ASKED AND ANSWERED:

Donald Trump is running against pluralism. Bernie Sanders shows zero interest in entrepreneurship and says the Wall Street banks that provide capital to risk-takers are involved in “fraud,” and Ted Cruz speaks of our government in the same way as the anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist, who says we should shrink government “to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” (Am I a bad person if I hope that when Norquist slips in that bathtub and has to call 911, no one answers?)

The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman today, in an article titled, “Who Are We?”
Well Tom, I’d say you’re a vile limousine leftist misanthrope, since your admission today is a par with your writing in 2000: “Yup, I gotta confess, that now-famous picture of a U.S. marshal in Miami pointing an automatic weapon toward Donato Dalrymple and ordering him in the name of the U.S. government to turn over Elian Gonzalez warmed my heart.”
Not at all surprising, particularly since in 2009, you added:

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.

Since, as Friedman is asking today “Who Are We?”, Jonah Goldberg’s response to Friedman’s 2009 column also helps to answer his existential query: “Thomas Friedman is a Liberal Fascist:”

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.

But what happens when that one-party autocracy decides to just impose a law that no one should live in a house this big? That such an estate simply isn’t a part of “who we are?”

93

Posted at 1:57 pm by Ed Driscoll