My Two Cents: Ten years ago I actually liked Tom Friedman. Perhaps it was because of my sheeple state or perhaps it was because I thought From Beirut to Jerusalem was a great book. In any event, in recent years I have come to really dislike the man. What initially made me annoyed with him was his complete lack of understanding of how the global financial and monetary system functions, yet his consistent platitudes on how economies and governments should work without understanding the real macro backdrop of it all. I have also noticed he tends to salivate about more government power and his latest from the NY Times does that in spades. While I totally agree that special interest groups and lobbyists have way to much influence on policy, at the end of the day it is the politicians that choose to take the payoffs. Furthermore, he states that there are so many checks and balances nothing can get done! Really? It seems they have no problems passing things like the NDAA that allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens without a trial. Or what about the provision in the recently passed Senate Bill 1813 that will permit the U.S. government to take away your passport if the IRS claims you might be doing something wrong. Oh and this same bill also mandates black boxes in all new cars. It seems to me that Constitution shredding legislation flies right through, but yeah Friedman we need more government power. I think you’ve spent too much time in the Middle East pal.
Friedman disturbingly asks: has American gone from a democracy to a “vetocracy” — from a system designed to prevent anyone in government from amassing too much power to a system in which no one can aggregate enough power to make any important decisions at all?
Then of course he takes a shot at the Internet and blogosphere for making it harder for shady political deals: In addition, the Internet, the blogosphere and C-Span’s coverage of the workings of the House and Senate have made every lawmaker more transparent — making back-room deals by lawmakers less possible and public posturing the 24/7 norm.
The he quotes historian Frank Fukuyama as if this guy is the be all end all of political discussion: If we are to get out of our present paralysis, we need not only strong leadership, but changes in institutional rules,” argues Fukuyama. These would include eliminating senatorial holds and the filibuster for routine legislation and having budgets drawn up by a much smaller supercommittee of legislators — like those that handle military base closings — with “heavy technocratic input from a nonpartisan agency like the Congressional Budget Office.”
Did you notice that too? Heavy technocratic input. Remember that word and don’t forget it. It means unelected. Greece and Italy have technocratic unelected bankster heads of state and believe me that is the plan for here as well.
Down With Everything
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: April 21, 2012
DOES America need an Arab Spring? That was the question on my mind when I called Frank Fukuyama, the Stanford professor and author of “The End of History and the Last Man.” Fukuyama has been working on a two-volume opus called “The Origins of Political Order,” and I could detect from his recent writings that his research was leading him to ask a very radical question about America’s political order today, namely: has American gone from a democracy to a “vetocracy” — from a system designed to prevent anyone in government from amassing too much power to a system in which no one can aggregate enough power to make any important decisions at all?