Meet Thomas Friedman, Liberal Fascist

September 9, 2009

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.  Surprise

(via Jonah Goldberg and Mark Steyn)

RELATED: I’m now convinced that Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism isn’t just good political history, it’s positively prescient.

LINKS: Victor Davis Hanson shakes his head. Power Line gives Friedman a good jolt. More from Ed Morrissey and Sister Toldjah.



September 9, 2009

Four US Marines and nine Afghan soldiers died in a Taliban ambush because rules of engagement promulgated by the Obama Administration denied them artillery support:

Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.

“We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We’ve lost today,” Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter’s repeated demands for helicopters.

And this is Obama’s “smart war?”

This is going to sound heartless, but civilian casualties happen in war: war is tragic and sickening, but, unlike a video game it is not clean. We’ve done wonders with smart technology to reduce collateral damage and civilian deaths (contra the Left’s twisted fantasies), but, I repeat, when you have bombs and bullets flying around, civilians are going to get killed, and no amount of handwringing rules of engagement is going to change that.

It is just as bad, if not worse, however, to send troops into combat and not provide them with everything they need to win, and it is obscene to deny them the help they need when they are under attack. We try to avoid civilian deaths, but it is insane to hamstring our own troops in combat.

George W. Bush was willing to change his strategy in Iraq in order to win; Barack Obama changes strategy in Afghanistan to avoid looking bad. Message to the President: Either fight to win or get out.

(via Weasel Zippers)

Hope! Change! or We’re #2!

September 9, 2009

Thanks to the statist interventions of the late George W. Bush and, far more so, the present Obama administrations, the United States for the first time in decades ranks less than first in international competitiveness. In fact, we rank 53rd in government regulation of business, 32 places behind communist China.

I weep.  Crying

Full report here in PDF.