Friedman: it’s not a real democracy unless both parties agree with me.

Hey, did you know that writing sensibly isn’t a condition of employment at the New York Times?

Well it’s not! Exhibit A, Thomas Friedman:

There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages.

Yeah, that third-world Communist dictatorship…they’ve got something over there. We should take a look at that.

Friedman’s point is: at least they can get things done. We, with our tradition of debating and voting, can’t:

Our one-party democracy is worse. The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing. With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying “no.”

They disagree with me! That’s not democracy!

Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste. Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he’s a centrist.

If that’s “centrism,” how far left does this spectrum go?

But if he’s forced to depend entirely on his own party to pass legislation, he will be whipsawed by its different factions.

They disagree! That’s not democracy!

Friedman’s idea of democracy is: everybody does what I think is best. Somebody, sometime, came up with a phrase to describe that. Didn’t they? I’m sure I remember hearing about it.

Via Memeorandum.