China’s, Not Sweden’s Or Denmark’s, Is The Government Democrats Want
I&I Editorial
When Democrats propose “progressive” policies, they say their objective is to make the U.S. more like Europe’s welfare states, not socialist nations such as Venezuela and Cuba. Maybe at one time that was true. But not now. In recent years, China has become the nation they want to emulate.
Let’s clear up one possible misunderstanding right away. We’re not calling the Democrats communists. There are hard socialist leanings within the party, and far too much just-below-the-surface authoritarianism. But we’re not saying they’re communists, though they have no reservations about calling conservatives and Republicans fascists and Nazis, even when they know the charges are untrue.
Nor are we going to try to make the case that Democrats are in bed with China. We simply want to point out that Democrats want to reign over this country the way the communist party rules China.
The Democrats’ appetite for following the China model goes back more than a decade. One of its early manifestations is found in the fever dreams of New York Timesman Thomas Friedman. In 2008, he openly yearned for America to be “China for a day.” He called it a “fantasy, basically,” yet he wondered:
“What if we had a government here that could actually make decisions? Okay? That could actually come together, Democrats and Republicans, and make a long-term plan and pursue it?”
Those remarks were made on what is loosely called a “comedy report.” In a more sober interview with news anchor Tom Brokaw, Friedman didn’t stray from his chosen course.
There’s only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, the Chinese form of government, and that’s one-party democracy. You know, in China, if the leadership can get around to an enlightened decision it can order it from the top down, OK. Here, when you have one-party democracy, one party ruling, basically the other party just basically saying no, every solution is sub-optimal.
In other words, a party that tosses aside traditional and established limits, as well as its conscience, and does whatever it wishes to do. No, that wouldn’t be the Republican Party, at least nominally the party of the Constitution and limited government. That would be the Democratic Party, which wants to pack the Supreme Court so that its legislative agenda will have no constitutional limits, and to rule – not govern in a system of checks and balances – in perpetuity as the only political party in the country.
Does Friedman speak for the Democratic Party? Has he been saying out loud what Democrats are keeping to themselves?
Answers: 1) Not officially, but he is a de facto messenger for the party, as are most in his profession, and 2) yes, without a doubt.
One week ago, we argued that the “stated goal” of today’s Democats is to ensure they build a permanent “majority so they can finally get their far-left agenda enacted.”
“The very first thing Democrats did in the House this year, after seeing their lead shrink dramatically,” we said, “was to approve a set of rules designed to neutralize Republicans as much as possible.”
We further said – and we believe this to be irrefutable – that “Democrats are also certain to pass legislation that will make it easier for them to win future elections, whether legitimately or not.” The evidence? “The first bill the Democratic-controlled House introduced in 2019 was the ‘For the People Act,’ which was designed to make election fraud easier on a national scale.”
Screenwriter, novelist, and PJ Media co-founder Roger Simon recently expressed concern that “the United States is turning into a near clone of the People’s Republic of China,” a “one-party state” that has “a form of oligarchic fascism.” It’s a clear-minded observation about a country that’s been making “enlightened” decisions from the “top down” and another, where one party is actively driving its system of government in that direction.
The limitless power of government is only one element of the Democrats’ affection for the Chinese system. The other: The privileges held and exploited by those in power.
The Democrats crave a system wherein they are the elite, the ruling class whose members flaunt their too-expensive-for-you twin Sub-Zero refrigerators; shut down speech they don’t agree with and speech that threatens their power; and, ultimately, have their own Soviet-style Zil lanes so they can avoid the traffic that the deplorables have to endure in busy big cities.
Our case is further bolstered by recent events in which President Donald Trump and his supporters have been purged not only from social media but from jobs and society in general. We’ve seen calls for Republicans and conservatives to be re-educated, to be cleansed, and maybe only after they’ve repented and relearned will they be allowed to again be approved members of their communities, free to associate with others.
This sounds much too much like China, where, says the American Conservative’s Rod Dreher, “you cannot buy or sell unless you have the approval of the government” because China has instituted a “social credit system to compel conformity.”
In 2019, when the world of November, December, and January could not have been predicted, Simon wrote that “we are already halfway to our Chinese-ification,” living in a society where “without our even being aware of it, we are being told what to think.”
From Big Tech to Hollywood to our media to our campuses to the campaign rhetoric of virtually every Democratic candidate, we are moving toward a homogenization of thought and action that is, well, Chinese communist in style and ultimately in content.
An American welfare state might be suitable for a few true believers on the left. But most Democrats prefer a system that partitions the elites, which they believe themselves to be, from the rest, who must be herded when necessary, shunned when that pleases the status-obsessed ruling class – and kept in their place. That matches China much closer than Sweden and Denmark.
No comments:
Post a Comment