Perhaps the Most Preposterous Thought Ever Printed in the New York Times

And that is saying something.

But, without further ado, I present to you the unfathomable Thomas Friedman:

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...Our one-party democracy is worse.

For some reason, when I think of China and green automobiles, I think of this:


'Benevolent' dictatorship/autocracy beats the deliberative process of democratic republics because, dammit, those people can get things done!

Just don't look at the man behind the curtain jailing, censoring, beating, and executing untold numbers of dissenters, choking-off less desirable political content on the internet, forcing abortions on families, and only allowing markets to flourish in certain geographic locations while so many people still live in the countryside without basic amenities those contemptible and inefficient free nations have had for, oh, about 100 years.

There aren't words in our language strong enough to describe the abject imbecility of this column.

H/T: John Tabin and Matt Welch

more on this by Will Wilkinson and Kenneth Anderson.

Friedman: Tax The Poor

In his column in the NYT today, DNC lackey Thomas Friedman uses a hypothetical Democratic candidate to extol the virtues of putting a $1/gallon tax on gasoline immediately following 9/11:

I do favor a gasoline tax phased in over 12 months. But let’s get one thing straight: My opponent and I are both for a tax. I just prefer that my taxes go to the U.S. Treasury, and he’s ready to see his go to the Russian, Venezuelan, Saudi and Iranian treasuries. His tax finances people who hate us. Mine would offset some of our payroll taxes, pay down our deficit, strengthen our dollar, stimulate energy efficiency and shore up Social Security.

There are some serious problems with this rationale.

First, he assumes that this tax would offset the payroll taxes Americans pay. Since when does Congress lower one tax when raising another? While the "starve the beast" (cut revenues, expect lower spending) hypothesis seems to have fallen flat, I would bet that increasing the coffers of Congress would not inspire fiscal responsibility either.

Second, while rightfully blaming collusion in the oil markets on the OPEC cartel, he infers that they are using the post-9/11 world as an excuse. Hmm. I happened to take a tour of New Orleans last summer and saw an abandoned gas station with its gas prices from that fateful week in 2005 still posted. The price? $1.89/gallon. Friedman is apparently borrowing from Giuliani's play book by channeling 9/11 every time he decides he wants to make a point, whether it applies or not.

Finally, he neglects to mention that most of the income taxes are drawn from the highest incomes, not the lower classes. Thus, his argument is that we should punish poorer Americans so that the Treasury can benevolently redistribute their money to pay for Charlie Rangel's ego.

UPDATE: I shouldn't have said "DNC lackey." I had recently seen a pandering interview with fellow columnist Paul Krugman that attributed America's wealth to the central planning of FDR. Frankly, I confused the two in my mind. The rest of the piece still stands. mea culpa