Posted on 09/09/2009 12:51:06 PM PDT by Lou Budvis
One normally expects to see paeans to one-party rule and dictatorships in fringe publications sponsored by International ANSWER or World Can’t Wait. Usually, the New York Times offers those sentiments in more subtle terms than it does in today’s Thomas Friedman column. Friedman extols the Chinese form of government while deriding the fact that political opposition keeps Obama from imposing the policies Friedman likes:
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Friedman, you magnificent putz!
Only if I get to be the dictator. And my first diktat is, I prefer the title of Queen.
If I were king...
Robert Heinlein once said that given a choice between a benevolent dictatorship and an efficient democracy, he’d take the benevolent dictatorship. The problem is that both are equally rare.
Thomas Friedman advocates dictorship in an op-ed published 2 days before the anniverary of 9/11.”
I will put a couple of dollars into the fund that buys Freidman a ONE WAY ticket to Chavezville, and let him see up close how he likes that status of living.
“Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool!”... Paul Begalice................
Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy.
- John Derbyshire
"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..."
- Thomas Friedman, New York Times
Yep. Sometimes the distance between “liberal” and “hardcore Stalinist” isn’t that great after all.
Unbelievable that a major newspaper would stoop to printing them.
Surprising how many Dems and Libtards are revealing-—more like outright flaunting—their true ideological colors.
It must be cool and en vogue to be a Communist or Socialists these days, huh?
The thing is, guys like this always assume that, under the dictatorship, they’d be some kind of high priest or intellectual tecnocrat, tucked away in their high tower overlooking the bucolic meadows where the masses toil. They would devote themselves to meditating and imagineering ways to a better life for the simple people down below. The wise and benevolent leader would look to them for advice in solving the problems of his beloved kingdom. It would be a tranquil life, devoted to mind and spirit.
They never see themselves as the guy slogging through the mud behind the water buffalo, or getting his butt kicked by police goons.
The difference the likes of Friedman should be concerned with is between a corrupt two party system such as ours, and a dynamic multi-party system, where each political party stands for a set of specific ideas and principles, and not as our two parties (or more precisely one and a half) for goodness and mom’s apple pie.
That picture sends chills down my spine. I’d rather die in a firefight than with my hands bound behind my back.
Fsck you, Friedman!
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator. "
- - President Bush
It’s impossible to read any of Friedman’s stuff and not come away with the clear impression that he spends a lot of time imagining himself as dictator and much admiring the notion.
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 am speechless! Friedman could house about 300 people in one of his mansions, so I wonder why he doesn’t practice real communism and share his wealth. I guess he would be happy in a communist country because he would be one of the oligarchs, who would be more equal than the rest of us on the animal farm.
The trouble with a benevolent dictatorship is, someday the guy dies, and where do you get the next one? Hereditary? Election? What’s the process for removal if he stops being benevolent?
While it lasted, the Benevolent Dictatorship (mine would be, I promise, unless you don’t know how to merge onto a freeway) probably is as good as government gets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.