风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
弗里德曼《希望美国做一天中国》
托马斯·弗里德曼希望我们“做一天中国”，“授权正确的解决方案”
MATT WELCH | 2010 年 5 月 24 日下午 3:47
https://reason.com/2010/05/24/thomas-l-friedman-wants-us-to/?
如果我们对美国最差的成功专栏作家有所了解的话，那就是他不会休息，除非他一次又一次地抨击一个糟糕的想法。最新的一次，乔纳·戈德堡 (Jonah Goldberg) 的报道，是弗里德曼周末在《与媒体见面》节目中对独裁的嫉妒：
好吧，大卫，它已经被摧毁了。从选区划分不公到有线电视，再到互联网，如果我不喜欢你的发展方向，我可以从左派或右派组织数字暴徒来对你进行私刑，再到金钱和政治失控的事实——我们的国会实际上是一个合法贿赂的论坛，这一切都使它遭到了破坏。你知道，这就是事情的真正原因。所以我不——我——我——我很担心，这就是为什么我幻想——不要误会我的意思——如果我们能成为中国一天会怎么样？我的意思是，只是，只是，只有一天。你知道，我的意思是，我们实际上可以授权正确的解决方案，我确实认为，从经济到环境，一切都有这种感觉。我一秒钟也不想成为中国，好吧，我希望我的民主能够以同样的权威、专注和坚持不懈的方式运作。但目前我们的系统只能提供次优解决方案。
如果我们要成为中国，我想知道弗里德曼会支持哪??个政治上动荡的省份取消互联网访问权限 10 个月？也许是马里科帕县？哪些博主会因为报道轮奸案或与地震损害的官方报道相矛盾而被监禁？弗里德曼的宣传部是否会发布指令，明确将任何关于校园暴力、上海世博会或国际记者批评的国内报道定为犯罪，并下令“在国家领导人访问上海期间不要问他们问题”和“只使用包含政府官员解释的报告”？
如果不对那些被视为对政权的威胁的人（尤其是但不仅仅是活动家、博主和记者）进行暴力和剥夺自由的攻击，你就不会理解弗里德曼独裁一党幻想中的“坚持不懈”。梦想取消制衡机制以实施一项超级天才政策，这不是地缘政治思想家的所作所为，而是一个不耐烦的口号者的发脾气。
<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
《纽约时报》专栏作家汤姆·弗里德曼赞扬中国的一党专制
https://www.aei.org/articles/new-york-times-columnist-tom-friedman-hails-chinas-one-party-autocracy/
作者：迈克尔·巴罗恩 华盛顿观察家报 2009 年 9 月 13 日
《纽约时报》的读者人数正在减少，周三，托马斯·弗里德曼在专栏中赞扬了中国的“一党专制”，他告诉我们，“一党专制是由一群相当开明的人领导的”。他报道说，中国领导人正在“提高汽油价格”，并“在电动汽车、太阳能、能源效率、电池、核能和风能方面超越我们”。当然，所有这些都是为了减少碳排放，许多杰出人物向我们保证，碳排放必然会导致全球变暖和环境灾难。
正如学术畅销书《自由法西斯主义》的作者乔纳·戈德堡所说：“这正是 20 世纪 20 年代美国墨索里尼粉丝的论点。”当时我们被告知，墨索里尼让火车准时运行。他排干了庞蒂内沼泽的水。当民主政治混乱的美国人犹豫不决时，他却把事情办成了。
20 世纪 20 年代的大多数墨索里尼粉丝并不真正希望美国独裁，任何读过托马斯·弗里德曼作品的人都知道，他也不希望美国出现独裁政府；他的专栏文章字数限制显然让他没有空间去对中国一党专制的互联网审查、强制绝育、监禁政治异见者等行为表示遗憾。
弗里德曼宣称“我们的一党民主比中国模式更糟糕”。
尽管如此，弗里德曼宣称“我们的一党民主制度比中国模式更糟糕”。他对少数党共和党不同意民主党提高碳排放价格和通过政府医疗保健计划的计划感到不满——尽管他也许明智地避免赞扬中国的医疗体系。但他确实犯了一个关键的错误：他抱怨的是我们的两党制，以及当前的少数党不会表现得像多数派的一翼。
中国的一党专制在两个问题上采取了果断行动，这两个问题可以用人口爆炸和全球变暖这两个词来概括。不仅美国，而且世界上大多数国家的媒体、大学和企业精英在这两个问题上都意见一致，在我看来，这两个问题都被证明是错误的。精英们利用这两个问题作为借口，阻止普通民众按照他们想要的方式行事。
早在 20 世纪 70 年代，当精英们确信人口过剩会毁灭地球时，中国就采取了只有一党专制或极权国家才能采取的措施：限制女性生育一个孩子。结果，数百万女胎被堕胎，因此中国现在每 100 名女性对应 120 名男性——这是一种潜在的不稳定失衡——人口增长缓慢意味着中国在大多数人富裕起来之前就会老龄化。
与此同时，随着出生率下降，人口爆炸在全球范围内被证明是无用的，正如本·瓦滕伯格和菲利普·朗曼所指出的那样，真正的人口问题是人口下降。沃伦·巴菲特原本计划将自己的财产留给人口控制者，但他明智地决定将其留给比尔和梅琳达·盖茨，让他们按照自己认为最好的方式支配。
全球变暖的结论尚未出炉，但一些危言耸听的预测已被证明是错误的。过去十年，全球气温略有下降，气候模型也未能预测近期的气温变化。此外，正如全球变暖的支持者比约恩·隆伯格指出的那样，从经济角度而言，把钱花在解决悬而未决的问题（如缺乏安全饮用水）和减轻气候变化未来可能产生的影响上，要比减少碳排放更明智，因为碳排放会阻碍满足环境需求所需的短期经济增长。
中国的一党专制可以忽略这些争论。我们的两党民主则不能。托马斯·弗里德曼可能会对巴拉克·奥巴马周三晚上所说的“争吵”感到遗憾。但在民主国家，公民并不总是听从上级的建议，即使是弗里德曼和他引用的三位专家——一位 Climateprogress.org 博主、一位前克林顿预算官员和一位“在巴鲁克学院任教的全球贸易顾问”的建议。
我从人口过剩恐慌中得到的教训是，当媒体、大学和企业精英警告我们必须改变生活方式，否则 50 年后将面临灾难时，当他们坚持认为争论的时代已经结束时，就像阿尔·戈尔和弗里德曼似乎坚持的那样，要小心谨慎。在我们的两党民主制中，争论从来就没有结束过。也不应该结束。
迈克尔·巴罗内是 AEI 的常驻研究员。
“中国一日”在美国？
发布于 2008 年 12 月 4 日
https://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/China-for-a-Day-in-America.html
托马斯·弗里德曼公开无耻地提倡专制实施环保主义议程
纽约时报专栏作家托马斯·弗里德曼，自由主义大军中所谓的“温和”声音，已经站出来公开提倡环保主义者以前不敢大声说出的话。
即，美国应该暂停我们的民主宪法原则，成为“中国一日”。
弗里德曼在他的最新著作《炎热、平坦和拥挤：我们为什么需要绿色革命——以及它如何振兴美国》中提出了这一令人震惊的建议。亚马逊网站总结称，弗里德曼理所当然地得出结论，美国正遭受“焦点和国家目标的丧失”，而这正是他所喜欢的：
弗里德曼明确表示，我们需要的绿色革命与世界历史上任何革命都不同。这将是美国历史上最大的创新项目；这将是艰难的，而不是容易的；它将改变一切，从你放在车里的东西到你在电费单上看到的东西。但对美国来说，回报不仅仅是更清洁的空气。它将激励美国人去做我们很久没有看到的事情——美国的国家建设——通过召唤智慧、创造力、勇气和对公共利益的关注，这些都是我们国家最大的自然资源。
美国的“国家建设”？开国元勋们不是已经相当出色地完成了吗？还有“美国历史上最大的创新项目”？比建立世界有史以来最富有的经济体、登月或赢得第二次世界大战的民主武器库更大？
更不祥的是，弗里德曼在书中有一章题为《一日中国》，他赞扬了中国的威权体制，并断言美国如果效仿它会更好。当然，前提是它符合他的议程。如果这听起来难以置信，请考虑他自己的话：
因为一旦上级给出指示，我们就会克服民主最糟糕的部分（无法在和平时期做出重大决定），第二天我们就能享受民主最好的部分（我们公民社会的力量使政府规则得以坚持，我们的市场力量利用这些规则）。
再见，詹姆斯·麦迪逊。你好，毛主席。
以免有人认为
弗里德曼认为，这种说法是断章取义或歪曲了他的信息，他在接受《科尔伯特报告》采访时为自己的言论辩护：
科尔伯特：现在你有一个概念，你谈论的是“中国一日”。什么是中国一日？
弗里德曼：嗯，中国一日基本上是一个幻想。如果我们有一个可以真正做出决定的政府会怎么样？好吗？民主党和共和党会真正走到一起，制定一个长期计划并加以实施？
科尔伯特：你是说中国人会这样做吗？
弗里德曼：是的，他们有时会这样做。
科尔伯特：但那是一个极权主义政权。
弗里德曼：嗯，这是绿色运动中很多人的挫败感的体现，当然包括我。
换句话说，如果我们暂时模仿一个在天安门广场用枪管和坦克履带屠杀讨厌的学生的制度，我们会过得更好。
当然，如果有人提倡“中国一日游”来推行他们不太喜欢的政策，弗里德曼和自由派同路人会采取不同的立场。例如，我们知道降低税收和减少监管会带来更大的经济繁荣。那么，如果我们不顾反对，通过实施大幅减税或消除令人窒息的官僚机构来扮演中国一日游，他们会有什么感觉？
这不就是给布什总统贴上暴君标签的那群人吗？
美国是一个法治国家，而不是人治国家，我们不会因为托马斯·弗里德曼或其他人认为我们的宪法不利于他们的议程而破例。我们建立为一个民主共和国，通过公平、中立的程序和制衡制度来平衡竞争派系和对立观点。
否则，我们就和我们通过独立战争推翻的独裁政权没什么两样。
因此，如果托马斯·弗里德曼想将他的绿色乌托邦主义强加于美国，那么他可以采用麦迪逊、杰斐逊、华盛顿和其他开国元勋（而不是毛主席）认为最好的方式来做。
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.
