Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NYT Op-Ed calls for one-party rule

DesScorp (410532) writes | more than 4 years ago

Government 7

New York Times Op-Ed writer Thomas Friedman is showing his true colors. He's advocating "enlightened" one-party rule, as he tires of Republicans refusing to co-operate with Democratic initiatives. Friedman says that we currently have a "one party democracy" because of near-total GOP opposition to Democratic bills, and that perhaps an enlightened one-party autocracy with America's best interests at heart could be the answer. Friedman further thinks

New York Times Op-Ed writer Thomas Friedman is showing his true colors. He's advocating "enlightened" one-party rule, as he tires of Republicans refusing to co-operate with Democratic initiatives. Friedman says that we currently have a "one party democracy" because of near-total GOP opposition to Democratic bills, and that perhaps an enlightened one-party autocracy with America's best interests at heart could be the answer. Friedman further thinks China is a good model of government to emulate. "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." Friedman flatly states that "our one-party democracy is worse". Perhaps we too can look forward to things like a one-child policy and extensive Internet censorship. Friedman is the type of Liberal Jonah Goldberg was talking about when he wrote Liberal Fascism.

Further, Goldberg says that liberals like Friedman are nothing new, that we've seen this kind of liberal pining for benevolent dictatorship many times before:

"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."

cancel ×

7 comments

ROFLMAO (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29379549)

Friedman a liberal? That's some funny shit. Guy's a libertarian if he's anything.

Re:ROFLMAO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29379973)

He's a liberal if you're of the persuasion that anyone who says or does anything you don't like is a liberal.

we've seen this kind of liberal pining for benevolent dictatorship many times before

"In God We Trust" Oh wait, the Religious Reicht wants "Enlightened" leadership, not "enlightened". Totally different thing, sorry for the confusion.

We need to ditch this stupid left-right bullshit, but then how would we tell the "left" and the "right" apart when they're both Authoritarian, convinced that their infinitely-powered executive is the better one?

Re:ROFLMAO (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#29380963)

"He's a liberal if you're of the persuasion that anyone who says or does anything you don't like is a liberal."

It's patently silly to pretend that Friedman isn't a political liberal. He doesn't deny it. While he's more of a Libertarian in trade issues, he isn't unusual among Liberals in that regard, just the ultra-left. Otherwise, he's a typical liberal Jewish American: socially liberal, strong supporter of Israel (his daughters were both born there), and reliably progressive on domestic issues. This is, after all, the man that says "Green is the new Red, White, and Blue". And he wasn't talking about money.

""In God We Trust" "

Please explain how that motto has anything to do with the suggestion of a one-party state? Or were you just trolling against religious people?

"We need to ditch this stupid left-right bullshit"

That's a pipe dream. Political loyalties and beliefs aren't going away. Ever.

Re:ROFLMAO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29381503)

Or were you just trolling against religious people?

Just trolling the ones who think by installing God in our government they can save us all. You know, the Religious Reicht, as opposed to the religious people who don't spend their time talking about how their incompetent god flattened three states just to punish New Orleans yet completely failed to rinse the drunkards' vomit from the streets of the French Quarter. Or proclaiming that gays did 9/11.

While he's more of a Libertarian in trade issues

So fiscally conservative (because that's what we call people who think the government shouldn't regulate private business), socially liberal (because that's what we call people who think the government shouldn't regulate private life)... yep, that makes him libertarian all around, not just on "trade issues".

Re:ROFLMAO (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#29381001)

Friedman a liberal? That's some funny shit. Guy's a libertarian if he's anything.

Only on globalism and immigration (and these days, there's not much difference in the Libertarian and Democratic positions on immigration... open your borders as wide as possible). Otherwise, as I stated below, he's a reliable "progressive", which these days is just another marketing label for Liberal.

Re:ROFLMAO (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29381249)

You keep making statements without backing them up. I'll concede that culturally, he's probably quite liberal. Economically? Not one bit. have fun proving otherwise.

Its only the shoe on the other foot (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29382131)

During the administration of the previous POTUS, there were legions of conservative pundits who were calling for chasing the liberals out of town. They were then reinforced by conservative congress-sheeple who declared that anything non-conservative was "un-american".

That type of behavior was sold to us by the "main stream media" as "patriotic".

Now, we have a non-conservative president. We also have a few journalists who think he represents some good ideas. But yet you want us to believe this is somehow "fascism"? I challenge you to go find an unbiased definition of fascism (as in, not a fact-bending "definition" like the one from Goldberg) and then compare it to the current and most previous administrations.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...