re: "Can it be a democracy if only one party participates?"

In his article describing the US as a "one-party democracy", Thomas Friedman makes several mistakes, but central among them is his over-arching theme:  that government direction, command, and control is somehow superior to individual liberty, choice, and free markets.  In praising the Chinese autocracy, he seemingly ignores its abysmal human rights record and the oppression it carries out on the Chinese people.  Regardless of political ideology, does he really believe that our protected freedoms — of speech, religion, association, and self-determination, to name a few — are "worse" than the Chinese government's active persecution of religious expression and political dissent, its censorship, and its overall intrusion on the freedoms of its people.

 

Mr. Friedman also mistakes opposition to his favored policies as inaction (or, as he puts it, "standing [with] arms folded and saying 'no'").  Opposition earlier in the year to the "cap-and-trade" legislation wasn't opposition to investment in green technology; rather, it was a protection of taxpayers' interests and the idea that individual investors acting voluntarily are more knowledgeable than politicians and special interests about how to invest their money for the best return.  If Mr. Friedman believes he knows best what those investments are, he is free to use his own capital and to persuade others to join him; instead, he seeks to use the power of government to force taxpayers to make those investments.

 

Finally, in opposing government-centered health care "reform", free market Republicans have done anything but simply say "no" to the Democratic approach.  Free market reforms that increase individual choice, increase access to health insurance, and increase competition in the marketplace have been proposed; to those ideas, it is the Democrats who have responded with folded arms and refusal — even to allowing the ideas to be debated in the halls of Congress.  But again, because individual choice and free market competition are in opposition to Mr. Friedman's worldview, he refuses even to acknowledge their proposal, apparently believing that only "reforms" that increase the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the government comprise "participation" in the political process.

 

Sincerely,

Dave Smith
Houston, TX