風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
弗裏德曼《希望美國做一天中國》
托馬斯·弗裏德曼希望我們“做一天中國”，“授權正確的解決方案”
MATT WELCH | 2010 年 5 月 24 日下午 3:47
https://reason.com/2010/05/24/thomas-l-friedman-wants-us-to/?
如果我們對美國最差的成功專欄作家有所了解的話，那就是他不會休息，除非他一次又一次地抨擊一個糟糕的想法。最新的一次，喬納·戈德堡 (Jonah Goldberg) 的報道，是弗裏德曼周末在《與媒體見麵》節目中對獨裁的嫉妒：
好吧，大衛，它已經被摧毀了。從選區劃分不公到有線電視，再到互聯網，如果我不喜歡你的發展方向，我可以從左派或右派組織數字暴徒來對你進行私刑，再到金錢和政治失控的事實——我們的國會實際上是一個合法賄賂的論壇，這一切都使它遭到了破壞。你知道，這就是事情的真正原因。所以我不——我——我——我很擔心，這就是為什麽我幻想——不要誤會我的意思——如果我們能成為中國一天會怎麽樣？我的意思是，隻是，隻是，隻有一天。你知道，我的意思是，我們實際上可以授權正確的解決方案，我確實認為，從經濟到環境，一切都有這種感覺。我一秒鍾也不想成為中國，好吧，我希望我的民主能夠以同樣的權威、專注和堅持不懈的方式運作。但目前我們的係統隻能提供次優解決方案。
如果我們要成為中國，我想知道弗裏德曼會支持哪??個政治上動蕩的省份取消互聯網訪問權限 10 個月？也許是馬裏科帕縣？哪些博主會因為報道輪奸案或與地震損害的官方報道相矛盾而被監禁？弗裏德曼的宣傳部是否會發布指令，明確將任何關於校園暴力、上海世博會或國際記者批評的國內報道定為犯罪，並下令“在國家領導人訪問上海期間不要問他們問題”和“隻使用包含政府官員解釋的報告”？
如果不對那些被視為對政權的威脅的人（尤其是但不僅僅是活動家、博主和記者）進行暴力和剝奪自由的攻擊，你就不會理解弗裏德曼獨裁一黨幻想中的“堅持不懈”。夢想取消製衡機製以實施一項超級天才政策，這不是地緣政治思想家的所作所為，而是一個不耐煩的口號者的發脾氣。
<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
《紐約時報》專欄作家湯姆·弗裏德曼讚揚中國的一黨專製
https://www.aei.org/articles/new-york-times-columnist-tom-friedman-hails-chinas-one-party-autocracy/
作者：邁克爾·巴羅恩 華盛頓觀察家報 2009 年 9 月 13 日
《紐約時報》的讀者人數正在減少，周三，托馬斯·弗裏德曼在專欄中讚揚了中國的“一黨專製”，他告訴我們，“一黨專製是由一群相當開明的人領導的”。他報道說，中國領導人正在“提高汽油價格”，並“在電動汽車、太陽能、能源效率、電池、核能和風能方麵超越我們”。當然，所有這些都是為了減少碳排放，許多傑出人物向我們保證，碳排放必然會導致全球變暖和環境災難。
正如學術暢銷書《自由法西斯主義》的作者喬納·戈德堡所說：“這正是 20 世紀 20 年代美國墨索裏尼粉絲的論點。”當時我們被告知，墨索裏尼讓火車準時運行。他排幹了龐蒂內沼澤的水。當民主政治混亂的美國人猶豫不決時，他卻把事情辦成了。
20 世紀 20 年代的大多數墨索裏尼粉絲並不真正希望美國獨裁，任何讀過托馬斯·弗裏德曼作品的人都知道，他也不希望美國出現獨裁政府；他的專欄文章字數限製顯然讓他沒有空間去對中國一黨專製的互聯網審查、強製絕育、監禁政治異見者等行為表示遺憾。
弗裏德曼宣稱“我們的一黨民主比中國模式更糟糕”。
盡管如此，弗裏德曼宣稱“我們的一黨民主製度比中國模式更糟糕”。他對少數黨共和黨不同意民主黨提高碳排放價格和通過政府醫療保健計劃的計劃感到不滿——盡管他也許明智地避免讚揚中國的醫療體係。但他確實犯了一個關鍵的錯誤：他抱怨的是我們的兩黨製，以及當前的少數黨不會表現得像多數派的一翼。
中國的一黨專製在兩個問題上采取了果斷行動，這兩個問題可以用人口爆炸和全球變暖這兩個詞來概括。不僅美國，而且世界上大多數國家的媒體、大學和企業精英在這兩個問題上都意見一致，在我看來，這兩個問題都被證明是錯誤的。精英們利用這兩個問題作為借口，阻止普通民眾按照他們想要的方式行事。
早在 20 世紀 70 年代，當精英們確信人口過剩會毀滅地球時，中國就采取了隻有一黨專製或極權國家才能采取的措施：限製女性生育一個孩子。結果，數百萬女胎被墮胎，因此中國現在每 100 名女性對應 120 名男性——這是一種潛在的不穩定失衡——人口增長緩慢意味著中國在大多數人富裕起來之前就會老齡化。
與此同時，隨著出生率下降，人口爆炸在全球範圍內被證明是無用的，正如本·瓦滕伯格和菲利普·朗曼所指出的那樣，真正的人口問題是人口下降。沃倫·巴菲特原本計劃將自己的財產留給人口控製者，但他明智地決定將其留給比爾和梅琳達·蓋茨，讓他們按照自己認為最好的方式支配。
全球變暖的結論尚未出爐，但一些危言聳聽的預測已被證明是錯誤的。過去十年，全球氣溫略有下降，氣候模型也未能預測近期的氣溫變化。此外，正如全球變暖的支持者比約恩·隆伯格指出的那樣，從經濟角度而言，把錢花在解決懸而未決的問題（如缺乏安全飲用水）和減輕氣候變化未來可能產生的影響上，要比減少碳排放更明智，因為碳排放會阻礙滿足環境需求所需的短期經濟增長。
中國的一黨專製可以忽略這些爭論。我們的兩黨民主則不能。托馬斯·弗裏德曼可能會對巴拉克·奧巴馬周三晚上所說的“爭吵”感到遺憾。但在民主國家，公民並不總是聽從上級的建議，即使是弗裏德曼和他引用的三位專家——一位 Climateprogress.org 博主、一位前克林頓預算官員和一位“在巴魯克學院任教的全球貿易顧問”的建議。
我從人口過剩恐慌中得到的教訓是，當媒體、大學和企業精英警告我們必須改變生活方式，否則 50 年後將麵臨災難時，當他們堅持認為爭論的時代已經結束時，就像阿爾·戈爾和弗裏德曼似乎堅持的那樣，要小心謹慎。在我們的兩黨民主製中，爭論從來就沒有結束過。也不應該結束。
邁克爾·巴羅內是 AEI 的常駐研究員。
“中國一日”在美國？
發布於 2008 年 12 月 4 日
https://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/China-for-a-Day-in-America.html
托馬斯·弗裏德曼公開無恥地提倡專製實施環保主義議程
紐約時報專欄作家托馬斯·弗裏德曼，自由主義大軍中所謂的“溫和”聲音，已經站出來公開提倡環保主義者以前不敢大聲說出的話。
即，美國應該暫停我們的民主憲法原則，成為“中國一日”。
弗裏德曼在他的最新著作《炎熱、平坦和擁擠：我們為什麽需要綠色革命——以及它如何振興美國》中提出了這一令人震驚的建議。亞馬遜網站總結稱，弗裏德曼理所當然地得出結論，美國正遭受“焦點和國家目標的喪失”，而這正是他所喜歡的：
弗裏德曼明確表示，我們需要的綠色革命與世界曆史上任何革命都不同。這將是美國曆史上最大的創新項目；這將是艱難的，而不是容易的；它將改變一切，從你放在車裏的東西到你在電費單上看到的東西。但對美國來說，回報不僅僅是更清潔的空氣。它將激勵美國人去做我們很久沒有看到的事情——美國的國家建設——通過召喚智慧、創造力、勇氣和對公共利益的關注，這些都是我們國家最大的自然資源。
美國的“國家建設”？開國元勳們不是已經相當出色地完成了嗎？還有“美國曆史上最大的創新項目”？比建立世界有史以來最富有的經濟體、登月或贏得第二次世界大戰的民主武器庫更大？
更不祥的是，弗裏德曼在書中有一章題為《一日中國》，他讚揚了中國的威權體製，並斷言美國如果效仿它會更好。當然，前提是它符合他的議程。如果這聽起來難以置信，請考慮他自己的話：
因為一旦上級給出指示，我們就會克服民主最糟糕的部分（無法在和平時期做出重大決定），第二天我們就能享受民主最好的部分（我們公民社會的力量使政府規則得以堅持，我們的市場力量利用這些規則）。
再見，詹姆斯·麥迪遜。你好，毛主席。
以免有人認為
弗裏德曼認為，這種說法是斷章取義或歪曲了他的信息，他在接受《科爾伯特報告》采訪時為自己的言論辯護：
科爾伯特：現在你有一個概念，你談論的是“中國一日”。什麽是中國一日？
弗裏德曼：嗯，中國一日基本上是一個幻想。如果我們有一個可以真正做出決定的政府會怎麽樣？好嗎？民主黨和共和黨會真正走到一起，製定一個長期計劃並加以實施？
科爾伯特：你是說中國人會這樣做嗎？
弗裏德曼：是的，他們有時會這樣做。
科爾伯特：但那是一個極權主義政權。
弗裏德曼：嗯，這是綠色運動中很多人的挫敗感的體現，當然包括我。
換句話說，如果我們暫時模仿一個在天安門廣場用槍管和坦克履帶屠殺討厭的學生的製度，我們會過得更好。
當然，如果有人提倡“中國一日遊”來推行他們不太喜歡的政策，弗裏德曼和自由派同路人會采取不同的立場。例如，我們知道降低稅收和減少監管會帶來更大的經濟繁榮。那麽，如果我們不顧反對，通過實施大幅減稅或消除令人窒息的官僚機構來扮演中國一日遊，他們會有什麽感覺？
這不就是給布什總統貼上暴君標簽的那群人嗎？
美國是一個法治國家，而不是人治國家，我們不會因為托馬斯·弗裏德曼或其他人認為我們的憲法不利於他們的議程而破例。我們建立為一個民主共和國，通過公平、中立的程序和製衡製度來平衡競爭派係和對立觀點。
否則，我們就和我們通過獨立戰爭推翻的獨裁政權沒什麽兩樣。
因此，如果托馬斯·弗裏德曼想將他的綠色烏托邦主義強加於美國，那麽他可以采用麥迪遜、傑斐遜、華盛頓和其他開國元勳（而不是毛主席）認為最好的方式來做。
Thomas L. Friedman Wants Us "to be China for a day," to "authorize the right solutions"
https://reason.com/2010/05/24/thomas-l-friedman-wants-us-to/?
If we know anything about America's worst successful columnist, it's that he won't rest until he's flogged a terrible idea again and again and again. The latest, care of Jonah Goldberg, was Friedman's authoritarian envy on Meet the Press over the weekend:
Well, David, it's been decimated. It's been decimated by everything from the gerrymandering of political districts to cable television to an Internet where I can create a digital lynch mob against you from the left or right if I don't like where you're going, to the fact that money and politics is so out of control—really our Congress is a forum for legalized bribery. You know, that's really what, what it's come down to. So I don't—I, I—I'm worried about this, it's why 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.
If we're going to be China, I wonder which politically restive province Friedman would support removing Internet access privileges for 10 months? Maybe Maricopa County? Which bloggers will be imprisoned for reporting on a gang-rape, or contradicting official accounts of earthquake damage? Will Friedman's Propaganda Department be issuing directives expressly criminalizing any domestic reporting on school violence, the Shanghai Expo, or criticism by international journalists, with marching orders to "not ask national leaders questions during their visits to Shanghai" and to "only use reports containing explanations by government officials"?
You do not get the "stick-to-itiveness" of Friedman's authoritarian one-party fantasia without the violent, freedom-depriving assault on those (especially though not only activists and bloggers and journalists) who are seen as threats to the regime. Dreaming about removing checks and balances to impose a super-genuius policy is not the work of a geopolitical thinker, but the tantrum of an impatient sloganeer.
<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
Posted December 4, 2008
“China for a Day" in America?
https://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/China-for-a-Day-in-America.html
Thomas Friedman Openly and Shamelessly Advocates Authoritarian Implementation of Environmentalist Agenda
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, the supposedly “moderate” voice among liberalism’s brigades, has come out and openly advocated what environmentalists were previously afraid to say aloud.
Namely, that America should suspend our democratic, Constitutional principles and become “China for a day.”
Friedman makes this astounding recommendation in his latest book, ominously entitled Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution – and How It Can Renew America. As summarized by Amazon.com, Friedman righteously concludes that America is suffering from a “loss of focus and national purpose” to his liking:
Friedman makes it clear that the Green Revolution we need is like no revolution the world has seen. It will be the biggest innovation project in American history; it will be hard, not easy; and it will change everything from what you put in your car to what you see on your electric bill. But the payoff for America will be more than just cleaner air. It will inspire Americans to something we haven’t seen in a long time – nation-building in America – by summoning the intelligence, creativity, boldness, and concern for the common good that are our nation’s greatest natural resources.
“Nation-building” in America? Didn’t the Founding Fathers already accomplish that reasonably well? And the “biggest innovation project in American history?” Bigger than building the wealthiest economy the world has ever seen, the moon landing or the arsenal of democracy that won World War II?
Even more ominously, Friedman includes a chapter entitled China for a Day, in which he praises China’s authoritarian system and asserts that America would be better by imitating it. But only when it suits his agenda, of course. If that sounds unbelievable, consider his own words:
Because once the directions are given from above, we would be overcoming the worst part of our democracy (the inability to make big decisions in peacetime), and the very next day we would be able to enjoy the best part of our democracy (the power of our civic society to make government rules stick and the power of our markets to take advantage of them).
Goodbye, James Madison. Hello, Chairman Mao.
Lest one assume that this takes Friedman out of context or distorts his message, he defended his pronouncement during an appearance on The Colbert Report:
Colbert: Now you have a concept called, you talk about “China for a Day.” What is China for a day?
Friedman: Well, China for a day is a fantasy, basically. What if we had a government here that could actually make decisions? OK? That would actually come together, Democrats and Republicans, and make a long-term plan and pursue it?
Colbert: Are you saying the Chinese do that?
Friedman: Yeah, they sometimes do.
Colbert: But that is a totalitarian regime.
Friedman: Mmm-hmm, and it is a measure of the frustration of a lot of people in the Green movement have, certainly me.
In other words, we’d be better off if we temporarily emulated a system that butchered pesky students in Tiananmen Square with gun barrels and tank treads.
Of course, Friedman and liberal fellow-travelers would take a different position if someone advocated “China for a Day” for policies that they find less palatable. For instance, we know that lower taxes and less regulation lead to greater economic prosperity. So how would they feel if we played China for a day by imposing substantial tax cuts or by eliminating stifling bureaucracies despite any opposition?
And isn’t this the same crowd that labels President Bush a tyrant?
America is a nation of laws, not men, and we don’t make exceptions just because Thomas Friedman or anyone else finds our Constitution inconvenient for their agenda. We were established as a democratic republic that balances competing factions and opposing viewpoints by way of fair, neutral procedures and a system of checks and balances.
Otherwise, we are no better than the autocracy that we fought the Revolutionary War to overthrow.
Accordingly, if Thomas Friedman wants to impose his Green utopianism upon America, then he can do it in the manner that Madison, Jefferson, Washington and the rest of the Founding Fathers – not Chairman Mao – thought best.
New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman Hails China’s One-Party Autocracy
https://www.aei.org/articles/new-york-times-columnist-tom-friedman-hails-chinas-one-party-autocracy/
By Michael Barone Washington Examiner Sep 13, 2009
The dwindling number of readers of the New York Times were treated Wednesday to a column by Thomas Friedman extolling China’s “one-party autocracy,” which, he told us, “is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people.” China’s leaders, he reported, are “boosting gasoline prices” and “overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power.” All, of course, in the cause of reducing carbon emissions, which so many luminaries assure us are bound to produce global warming and environmental catastrophe.
As Jonah Goldberg, author of the scholarly best-seller “Liberal Fascism” notes, “This is exactly the argument that was made by American fans of Mussolini in the 1920s.” Mussolini, we were told then, made the trains run on time. He drained the Pontine marshes. He got things done while Americans, with their chaotic democratic politics, dithered.
Most of the Mussolini fans of the 1920s didn’t really want a dictatorship in America, and any fair reader of Thomas Friedman’s oeuvre knows that he doesn’t want an authoritarian government here either; the word limit of his column apparently left him no space to regret the Chinese one-party autocracy’s Internet censorship, forced sterilizations, imprisonment of political dissenters, and the like.
Friedman declares that “our one-party democracy is worse” than the Chinese model.
Even so, Friedman declares that “our one-party democracy is worse” than the Chinese model. He is upset that the minority party, the Republicans, won’t go along with Democrats’ plans to raise the price of carbon emissions and pass a government health care plan–though, perhaps wisely, he refrains from praising the Chinese health delivery system. But he does get an essential bit wrong: It’s our two-party system he’s complaining about, and the fact that the current minority party won’t act like it’s just one wing of the majority.
China’s one-party autocracy has acted decisively on two issues, which can be summed up in the phrases the population explosion and global warming. The media, university and corporate elites of not just America but most of the world have been of one mind about these two issues, and in my opinion are being proven wrong on both. Each of them is used by the elites as an excuse to prevent ordinary people from behaving as they would like to.
Back in the 1970s, when the elites were convinced that overpopulation would destroy the Earth, the Chinese acted as only a one-party autocracy or totalitarian state could: It limited women to one child. The result was that millions of female fetuses were aborted so that China now has about 120 males to every 100 females–a potentially destabilizing imbalance–and a slow-growing population that means China will get old before most of its people grow rich.
Meanwhile, the population bomb has turned out to be a dud worldwide, as birthrates declined, and the real demographic problem, as Ben Wattenberg and Phillip Longman have pointed out, is population decline. Warren Buffett, who planned to leave his fortune to population controllers, wisely decided to leave it Bill and Melinda Gates to spend as they think best.
The verdict isn’t in on global warming yet, but some alarmist predictions have proved false. The world has been getting a little colder in the last decade and climate models have been failing to predict the recent past. Moreover, as global warming believer Bjorn Lomborg points out, it’s economically much more sensible to spend money on pending problems (like lack of safe drinking water) and on mitigating possible future effects of climate change than it is to reduce carbon emissions, which choke off the near-term economic growth needed to address environmental needs.
China’s one-party autocracy can ignore such arguments. Our two-party democracy can’t. Thomas Friedman may lament what Barack Obama on Wednesday night called “bickering.” But in a democracy citizens don’t always take the advice of their betters, even that of Friedman and the three experts he quotes–a climateprogress.org blogger, a former Clinton budget official, and a “global trade consultant who teaches at Baruch College.”
The lesson I take from the overpopulation scare is to be wary when media, university and corporate elites warn that we must change our ways or face disaster 50 years hence, and when they insist, as Al Gore does and Friedman seems to, that the time for argument is over. In our two-party democracy it never is. And shouldn’t be.
Michael Barone is a resident fellow at AEI.
