In Defense of Freedom: My Response to Thomas L. Friedman
Author and New York Times writer Thomas L. Friedman wrote an article recently titled "Our One-Party Democracy." This article advocates for the end of the American Republic and the substitution of an autocracy of the enlightened. I was so disturbed by this suggestion appearing in the New York Times and made by such a prominent author that I had to express it in written form. I have written something which will probably never be read by another soul, whose words will be ignored if they are, and whose message will be lost.
Nonetheless, it cuts to the very core of my beliefs and why I will oppose for all my life every attempt to devalue our life and rob us of our freedom.
In Defense of Freedom
“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.”
So wrote Thomas L. Friedman on September 8, 2009 in an article titled “Our One-Party Democracy” in the New York Times. Throughout the article Friedman laments the fact that the DNC can not simply impose its will like the CPC can in China. Friedman points out how the enlightened Democratic Party is being road-blocked by backward Republicans who are refusing to play-ball on healthcare and flatly opposing cap-and-trade.
Friedman continues, “That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.” What this means is they can impose their will in order to obtain their objectives no matter how many lives are destroyed. One party doesn't have to worry about being accountable to the people or having to moderate their positions based on the concerns of their constituency. Instead they, in their infinite wisdom, can move the country in whatever direction they deem necessary no matter the cost.
Never mind that China continues to this day to repress speech and prosecute minorities. This is necessary to keep the enlightened from being undermined by those less wise. Never mind that they employ child labor and forcibly relocate poor farmers because their farms are in an inconvenient locale, it must be done for economic development. Never mind that the Dalai Lama can not return to the country of his birth, that the nation he leads remains under the thumb of a foreign occupier. Never mind that the Ugyhurs are oppressed because of their race and religion and that Christians must still meet in secret to worship in their own way.
All of this is irrelevant because China is imposing carbon costs to drive development of green energy. None of this matters because China has had stunning GDP growth and has become the world's biggest creditor. The human cost is irrelevant because the “economy” is vibrant and growing and sustainable. The rising tide raises all ships, no matter how many have to drown in the process.
It is a sad day when Americans, born into a country founded on the principles that every life matters and that every one is free to pursue happiness, lament their freedom. It is a sad day when a renowned and respected commentator suggests life would be better if the unwashed masses yielded their rights to their betters. That the country would benefit from surrendering our lives to the just cause of the enlightened.
Unfortunately, that day has come and is mainstream. Whether directed from the left or the right the message is always the same: individuals are nothing more than means to an end. Whether that end is carbon control or spreading democracy or GDP growth, their lives are important only insofar as they service the greater good. Only insofar as they contribute to the vision of the enlightened.
Never mind that families will be forced to spend more of their own money so long as we have "universal healthcare." Never mind that people who can hardly make ends meet may have to forgo food to afford gas so long as we are developing “clean energy.” Never mind that thousands of Americans and millions across history have sacrificed their lives so that we may be free so long as the enlightened are in power.
It is a terrible thing that we have fallen so far. We have shifted from a fundamental skepticism of those seeking power to a skepticism of those who do not wield it. It is a terrible thing that we have come to accept that the concerns of the people should be ignored because they are not as enlightened as their leaders. How far we have fallen from the ideals of our nation's birth.
In a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval discussing the Virginia State Constitution he wrote, “I am not among those who distrust the people.” This stands in stark contrast to Friedman's favored autocracy. “They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom,” he continued, “And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.” We have record deficits and a multitude of unfunded liabilities which Friedman advocates adding to for the greater good. Jefferson goes on, “If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds... [we would] be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers.”
Vigorously opposing Friedman's suggestion are the words of the author of our Declaration of Independence; a document enshrining personal freedom and advocating the inherent value of every individual. Friedman abandons the principles of the Declaration in his call for rule by autocracy.
Friedman would argue that it is only an infringement for the greater good and only an abandonment of certain, archaic principles. Jefferson cautions, “A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.”
Friedman advocates his autocracy because he believes, like all tyrants have believed, that he is among the enlightened. He and his kind are the chosen leaders of society directing the idiot masses in the direction they must go. He would not be among those reduced to mere automatons of misery, he would be the one imposing the reduction. Their misery is irrelevant because, in his view, they are mere automatons; necessary sacrifices on the altar of progress.
Nonetheless, it cuts to the very core of my beliefs and why I will oppose for all my life every attempt to devalue our life and rob us of our freedom.
In Defense of Freedom
“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.”
So wrote Thomas L. Friedman on September 8, 2009 in an article titled “Our One-Party Democracy” in the New York Times. Throughout the article Friedman laments the fact that the DNC can not simply impose its will like the CPC can in China. Friedman points out how the enlightened Democratic Party is being road-blocked by backward Republicans who are refusing to play-ball on healthcare and flatly opposing cap-and-trade.
Friedman continues, “That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.” What this means is they can impose their will in order to obtain their objectives no matter how many lives are destroyed. One party doesn't have to worry about being accountable to the people or having to moderate their positions based on the concerns of their constituency. Instead they, in their infinite wisdom, can move the country in whatever direction they deem necessary no matter the cost.
Never mind that China continues to this day to repress speech and prosecute minorities. This is necessary to keep the enlightened from being undermined by those less wise. Never mind that they employ child labor and forcibly relocate poor farmers because their farms are in an inconvenient locale, it must be done for economic development. Never mind that the Dalai Lama can not return to the country of his birth, that the nation he leads remains under the thumb of a foreign occupier. Never mind that the Ugyhurs are oppressed because of their race and religion and that Christians must still meet in secret to worship in their own way.
All of this is irrelevant because China is imposing carbon costs to drive development of green energy. None of this matters because China has had stunning GDP growth and has become the world's biggest creditor. The human cost is irrelevant because the “economy” is vibrant and growing and sustainable. The rising tide raises all ships, no matter how many have to drown in the process.
It is a sad day when Americans, born into a country founded on the principles that every life matters and that every one is free to pursue happiness, lament their freedom. It is a sad day when a renowned and respected commentator suggests life would be better if the unwashed masses yielded their rights to their betters. That the country would benefit from surrendering our lives to the just cause of the enlightened.
Unfortunately, that day has come and is mainstream. Whether directed from the left or the right the message is always the same: individuals are nothing more than means to an end. Whether that end is carbon control or spreading democracy or GDP growth, their lives are important only insofar as they service the greater good. Only insofar as they contribute to the vision of the enlightened.
Never mind that families will be forced to spend more of their own money so long as we have "universal healthcare." Never mind that people who can hardly make ends meet may have to forgo food to afford gas so long as we are developing “clean energy.” Never mind that thousands of Americans and millions across history have sacrificed their lives so that we may be free so long as the enlightened are in power.
It is a terrible thing that we have fallen so far. We have shifted from a fundamental skepticism of those seeking power to a skepticism of those who do not wield it. It is a terrible thing that we have come to accept that the concerns of the people should be ignored because they are not as enlightened as their leaders. How far we have fallen from the ideals of our nation's birth.
In a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval discussing the Virginia State Constitution he wrote, “I am not among those who distrust the people.” This stands in stark contrast to Friedman's favored autocracy. “They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom,” he continued, “And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.” We have record deficits and a multitude of unfunded liabilities which Friedman advocates adding to for the greater good. Jefferson goes on, “If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds... [we would] be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers.”
Vigorously opposing Friedman's suggestion are the words of the author of our Declaration of Independence; a document enshrining personal freedom and advocating the inherent value of every individual. Friedman abandons the principles of the Declaration in his call for rule by autocracy.
Friedman would argue that it is only an infringement for the greater good and only an abandonment of certain, archaic principles. Jefferson cautions, “A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.”
Friedman advocates his autocracy because he believes, like all tyrants have believed, that he is among the enlightened. He and his kind are the chosen leaders of society directing the idiot masses in the direction they must go. He would not be among those reduced to mere automatons of misery, he would be the one imposing the reduction. Their misery is irrelevant because, in his view, they are mere automatons; necessary sacrifices on the altar of progress.