Years ago, I used to enjoy Thomas Friedman‘s columns in the New York Times. Back then, he struck me as a thoughtful observer of foreign affairs. Then he became a self-important windbag spouting banal thoughts, and I stopped reading him. But now he’s outed himself as a loathsome admirer of fascism.
Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: 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.
You will find no clearer statement of the liberal fascist ideal than that quote from Friedman. “Enlightened?” The same Chinese leaders who massacred pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square? Who have draconian childbirth and forced abortion policies? Who are conducting a slow-motion genocide of the Tibetan people? Who starved to death at least 30,000,000 people in an induced famine for… “critically important policies?” Wind power is more important that individual political liberty? This garbage from a man who grew wealthy thanks to the same liberal, free-market capitalist, democratic society he now sneers at?
Wow. Just… wow.
RELATED: I’m now convinced that Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism isn’t just good political history, it’s positively prescient.