desire to be dictator. I realize you aren't bright enough to make the
connections on your own but maybe this will do it for you so you realize
the sheer depth of idiocy you are suppporting:
The Privileged Call for Limited Dictatorships
May 24, 2010 by Elizabeth Scalia
1tweetretweet
Share
When I read last week that Woody Allen likes the idea of letting
President Obama be a dictator for a "few years" I was repelled; but then
I've found Allen to be a repellent individual for decades–since
Manhattan, at least–so I just shrugged it off as the foghorn bleat of an
over-privileged mediocrity looking for some attention.
But then the equally mediocre Tom
born-wealthy-high-carbon-footprint-lover-of-Chinese-Communist-Capitalism-I've-got-mine-you-should-not-have-yours
Friedman let fly with this on Meet the Press:
I have fantasized–don't get me wrong–but that what if we could just be
China for a day? I mean, just, just, just one day. You know, I mean,
where we could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions, and I
do think there is a sense of that, on, on everything from the economy to
environment. I don't want to be China for a second, OK, I want my
democracy to work with the same authority, focus and stick-to-itiveness.
But right now we have a system that can only produce suboptimal solutions.
To which Andrea even-more-privileged-than-you-Tom Mitchell chimed in:
"And, in fact, Tom, you're absolutely right . . ."
The leftist party that these people support is currently in control of
both houses of congress and the White House (and they are
well-represented within the federal judiciary) and yet, it is not
enough. The power is not pure enough, it is not invincible enough; their
power is diluted because, dammit, those little people crowing about the
constitution all over the internets are mucking things up!
Although, to be fair to Friedman, his China Fantasy is not new; he
talked about "being China for a day" with Tom Brokaw in 2008. He's been
hoping for a dictatorship ala China, for a while, now as Jonah Goldberg
notes.
Friedman and Mitchell, and even that self-absorbed twerp Woody Allen are
all wringing their hands over something they cannot (yet) control;
alternative media and how it has contributed to the difficulties of
getting things done in Washington.
When the press had a monopoly on information, it was much easier for
them to influence opinion; that in turn made the legislator's jobs
easier, too. Now, yes, things are more difficult for the politicians,
but that's mostly because they insist upon working as they always have
(the incestuous commingling of pols and media freaks on the left, and
pols and business freaks on the right, with back-room-deals-aplenty,
back-scratching galore and pork, pork, pork for everyone) while the
electorate has decided it wants something different.
So, Allen and Friedman–and others who have kept their faces before us
for 40 years by coasting on the work of their youth, because they've
done nothing memorable, lately–are feeling the shifting sand beneath
their feet, and they're wondering why America can't simply submit to a
fantasy of Limited Dictatorship. It's so inconvenient for these elites
to have to deal with the noise of the bourgeoisie – commoners who
presume to opine on anything and who dare to object to the incessant
lecturing from their betters.
So, let's be China "for a little while…" (just long enough to get
everything we want accomplished).
Because what they want must, of course, darling, be the very thing that
needs doing.
Let's allow Obama to be dictator "for a couple of years," because that
preening narcissist will certainly give up his dictatorship once the
nowhere-utopia of which the left dreams is achieved. Right? Of course.
Ann Althouse writes:
A love of autocracy often lurks beneath the liberal veneer. There's this
idea that the right answers are known and the people are just too
deluded and distorted to see what they are and to vote for them.
They propose dictatorship because they are no longer able to get away
with their former arguments, which boiled down to: "shut up. You're
stupid. We're cool."
They propose dictatorship because they know their lives would be
completely unaffected by such a thing. They will still have access to
their Park Avenue doctors; they will be exempt from the rationing of
medical treatment that the Obama administration now admits will take
place. They will continue to be the privileged useful-idiot voices of
the politburo. They will still have their limos and their lunches, where
they will sit together and bloviate about what must be done for the
commoners who cannot be trusted with their own lives.
"And in fact, you are absolutely right…" they will say to each other,
and in their insulated little Pauline-Kaelesque worlds, they will not be
able to imagine that anyone with any sense would possibly disagree.
Every murderous totalitarian government of the 20th century began with
some insulated group of faux-intellectuals congratulating each other on
how smart they are, and fantasizing about how, if they could just
install a dictatorship-for-a-day, they could right all the wrongs in the
world.
It is the ultimate fantasy of the narcissist. And we've got whole
generations of them, in control of our media and our government, all
intent on "remaking America."
Speaking of the wonderfulness that is China…
Is it wrong of me to laugh at them? Why are they still in our faces,
week after week? Why must we even entertain their lunacies?
WELCOME: Instapundit Readers! And thanks, Glenn, for the link.
Related:
The Old-Media Template
Enforcing only those laws we like
The Newspeak Dictionary goes Gallic
Can America last when its leaders side with its foes?
Friedman's Fantasy
How to Write Like Tom Friedman
"The point of Democracy, Tom…"
A Thug too Far
Friedman's Power Lust
Joe Biden and the Free World
The Art of the Painless Coup
Posted in 'Remaking' America, Alternative Media, American Genius,
Bloodless Coup, Constitutional Stuff, Crisis & Opportunity, Critical
Thinking, Crooks and Liars, Culture of Treason?, Tea Parties, The Fourth
Estate, The Perpetual Adolescents | 87 Comments
Obama Complains a Lot
July 24, 2011 by Elizabeth Scalia
9tweetsretweet
Share
I've always said his instincts were more inclined toward ruling than
leading. This is not the first time he's suggested that a dictatorship
might be preferable to a presidency.
But for a guy who campaigned for the job, he sure does complain a lot:
"I'm sympathetic to your view that this would be easier if I could do
this entirely on my own. It would mean all these conversations I've had
over the last three weeks, I could have been spending time with Malia
and Sasha instead," President Obama said at a town hall.
If he's so damned unhappy, and so resentful of time taken away from his
family (golfing, apparently doesn't count) then I think we should free
up his time in 2012 and let him get on with the Post-Presidential Life
o' Perks and Privilege he's obviously craving.
Related: The Privileged Call for a Limited Dictatorship
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Election '12, Obama | 8 Comments »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment