Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

🎶 Those boots were made for mockin’ 🎵

Consistently wrong since 2002

Tick tock motherfuckers!

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Infrastructure week. at last.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

They’re not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

I did not have telepathic declassification on my 2022 bingo card.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

A dilettante blog from the great progressive state of West Virginia.

“But what about the lurkers?”

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

All your base are belong to Tunch.

You are here: Home / Open Threads / More Friedman than Friedman

Reader Interactions

79Comments

  1. 1.

    Hungry Joe

    Gosh, I could have sworn that big money had already stepped up.

    Interesting use of the word “tyranny” as well. As for what we’d get under (total) big-money rule, well …

  2. 2.

    danimal

    I will gladly answer my country’s call. After I obtain the first billion I will serve the nation without reservation.

    And may God bless America.

  3. 3.

    Downpuppy

    I’m thinking more Berlusconi than Putin. As long as we’re going to be ruled by the billionaires anyhow, flushing them into the open might make them better targets.

  5. 5.

    Zifnab

    The joke, of course, is the implicit assumption that a billionaire would be able to break the Congressional stalemate that has paralyzed Washington.

    If Bloomberg can bring together 60 Senators and 218 House Reps to write a jobs bill or sign off on a debt increase, perhaps he’d do well to get his hand in the game now. As it stands, I’m really not clear why President Moneybags would be performing any better in the current political climate than Obama currently has.

  7. 7.

    singfoom

    Well, he’s right. We need deep enough pockets to fight on the same level as the corporations/hedge fund managers/Koch Brothers who spout deregulation and crony capitalism.

    No way one person would have enough money to support the campaigns of all the challengers to the corporate water carriers.

  8. 8.

    El Cid

    Big money doesn’t want to have to directly run the country.

    It’s a pain in the ass and would take a lot of time.

    It’s much cheaper to take the mathematically guaranteed result of the U.S. electoral system to have two mostly convergent parties and hire the elected officials and the infrastructure behind them to do what you want.

  9. 9.

    jibeaux

    America needs a billionaire? America has billionaires. A fair few of them. If your idea had any merit, the invisible hand would have already parted them from their billions, no?
    Apparently the parties we have are meeting their needs quite nicely.

  10. 10.

    cathyx

    Billionaires don’t have our best interest at heart.

    The reason we have a two party tyranny is because of billionaires.

  15. 15.

    J

    Please let us know which publication is running this ridiculous piece so it can be avoided in the future. Thanks.

  17. 17.

    Barry

    The joke is that even if some wise billionaire attempted this, the other billionaires would beat him/her like a mule.

  18. 18.

    Han's Big Snark Solo

    “America Needs a Billionaire…”

    That must be only half of what he meant to say. The other half would be something along the lines of:

    “…like I need another venereal disease.”

    or

    “…like sharks need freakin’ laser guns on their heads.”

    or

    “…like Rush Limbaugh needs more medication.”

  19. 19.

    cleek

    from the, ahem, column in question:

    So if the choice for a high-net-worth patriot is to (a) devote him or herself to a foundation, or (b) run for president or invest in related efforts, there’s no question that the presidential campaign is the path to greater impact.
    …
    That’s because there is simply no better vehicle for advocacy than a presidential campaign. It’s the moment every four years when the press and public are attuned to a broad discussion of the nation’s future. And with our two parties poised to run grossly misleading campaigns next year in their drive to win 50 percent plus one, the opportunity to break through with real answers and straight talk is enormous.

    “real answers!”
    “straight talk!”

    Big Daddy’s gonna tell us all what’s what and make us take our strong, cleansing medicine, cause we’ve been bad bad bad!

    again with the delusion that a President can, through sheer force of will, do whatever he wants. Congress? they’ll just fall in line, patriotically. is there some US Civics textbook out there that say a President has that power? if not, i’m at a loss as to why so many otherwise-intelligent-seeming people would think such pernicious nonsense.

  21. 21.

    Morbo

    @cleek: Bar graphs shown on prime time infomercials paid to be run on network TV by billionaires will break the gridlock.

    Where am I?!

  22. 22.

    trollhattan

    @cleek:

    Rich people are better than the rest of us because they are rich. Rich people are rich because they are better than the rest of us.

    At which point the two Star Trek robots freeze and emit smoke.

    Ross Perot sure straightened us out when he ran, spendin’ a few of his millions and liftin’ the hood, and Meg Whitman certainly schooled California in how to become a smartypants richie like her, spending more than a few of her millions buying every nanosecond of ad time around.

    A grateful nation thanks these Patriots for their selflessness and wisdom, also, too.

  23. 23.

    burnspbesq

    Just for shits and giggles, the following question: if the only two people who could be our next President were Rick Perry and Lloyd Blankfein, who would you vote for? And “I’d vote with my feet, and emigrate to any country that would take me” is not a valid answer.

  24. 24.

    Jay in Oregon

    Yes, because an billionaire President wouldn’t be beholden to outside corporate interests.

    Just his own.

  25. 25.

    NonyNony

    @cleek:

    again with the delusion that a President can, through sheer force of will, do whatever he wants. Congress? they’ll just fall in line, patriotically.

    Folks who believe this line generally want to have a King rather than a democracy – the right kind of King, of course, one who is “benevolent” (meaning one who believes the same things they do).

    It seems to be an infection that knows no boundaries between the left and the right. I’ve seen it crop up along the political spectrum – from self described libertarians to self described communists.

  26. 26.

    NonyNony

    @burnspbesq:

    That’s a nonsense question. Because if it’s reached that point there will be a violent revolution in short order and voting would be immaterial.

    ETA: FWIW – we’re not even close to the point where society has broken down that badly. Which makes it even more nonsensical.

  27. 27.

    Origuy

    But not so¢ialist billionaires like Buffett or Soros; it has to be patriotic billionaires like Scaife or the Kochs.

  28. 28.

    Enhanced Voting Techniques

    More people who mistake the Presidency for an elected dictator. Or have are they taking the current village thinking that the Super Rich are above the law to its logical conclusion?

  29. 29.

    jibeaux

    @cleek:

    That thing’s so chock full of delusions I don’t even know where to start. Presidential campaigns are the most visible vehicle for advocacy that exist? Can anyone say what Bloomburg or Giuliani or Thompson advocated in 2007? Hell, can anyone say what Romney or Perry is advocating NOW? Is Social Security a Ponzi scheme or isn’t it? Did you invent the auto bailout or didn’t you? Is Irene punishment for too much spending or the gays?

  30. 30.

    matt

    what they really want is an autocrat who will rule like a billionaire runs a company. for some reason these people are moronic enough to think that this is magic that emanates from the person of billionaires and not a feature of organizational structure.

  31. 31.

    Big Baby DougJ

    @burnspbesq:

    I’d follow the debates and policy statements closely and go from there. My initial reaction would be to go for Perry.

  32. 32.

    Alex S.

    Haha… (laughing is all I can do with this). Why not declare America’s richest man eternal dictator? And why stop there? Why not the richest man of the world? Carlos Slim for overlord!

  34. 34.

    realbtl

    @Zifnab:

    It’s simple. A billionaire president would simply purchase the 60 senators and 218 reps. They come so cheap it wouldn’t put a dent in his net worth.

  35. 35.

    Mattminus

    Ugghhh can’t believe I clicked the link. There was hardly any point to it besides “elections are expensive”.

  36. 36.

    Alex S.

    Also, I checked the Forbes list and now I think that the Koch brothers are meddling with politics so much because they want to climb the list, the money is just secondary.

  37. 37.

    Chrisd

    Wait, is this the same Matt Miller, Center of “Left, Right, and Center”? The savior billionaire must be part of his larger “Radical Centrism”.

    I love crackpot moderates who see themselves as sensible.

  39. 39.

    Raven (formerly stuckinred)

    @jibeaux:

    The Red Army Faction (German: Rote Armee Fraktion), shortened to RAF and in its early stages commonly known as Baader-Meinhof Group, was one of post–World War II Germany’s most violent and prominent left wing terror groups. The RAF described itself as a communist and anti-imperialist “urban guerrilla” group engaged in armed resistance against what they deemed to be a fascist state. The RAF was founded in 1970 by Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin, Horst Mahler, and Ulrike Meinhof.

  40. 40.

    Roger Moore

    @Zifnab:

    As it stands, I’m really not clear why President Moneybags would be performing any better in the current political climate than Obama currently has.

    Skin color. Lack of (D) after his name. Assumed eagerness to do things that benefit the wealthy. I’m sure you can think of some more.

  41. 41.

    Zifnab

    @cathyx:

    The reason we have a two party tyranny is because of billionaires.

    The two-party system pre-dates billionaires by a couple hundred years. Meanwhile, countries that have embraced Parliamentary democracy rather than our rather ill-designed system have both billionaires AND multiple parties.

    The winner-take-all electoral system is what limits us to two parties. If you’ve got a state with 20 delegates, and 5% of the state is Green Party, there’s very little chance a Green candidate will get elected unless all 5% are in the same congressional district. That’s got nothing to do with billionaires.

  42. 42.

    Villago Delenda Est

    In other countries, they look for a man on a horse to lead them to the promised land.

    In this country, we look for a man with a fat wallet to lead us to the promised land.

  43. 43.

    DFH no.6

    I’ll never understand the “anti-partisanship in politics” bullshit.

    Politics is inherently partisan – people disagree on how to do things as a society.

    And no matter how many sub-factions there may be, when it comes down to it things always break down into two sides opposing each other (over any issue, large or small).

    How is that not blindingly obvious?

    Authoritarian-bootlickers (like Matt Miller) who long for Mussolini are not only deeply anti-American (hell, deeply anti-human – they are, truly, enemies of society), they totally miss the goddamn point – the Big Baddy motherfucker still has to pick a side on each and every issue.

    Partisanship doesn’t go away, the decision point has simply been moved from the democratic masses (I know, I know) to an actual for-real tyrant. And in Miller’s world the tyrant doesn’t get to be tyrant because of any great ideas on how to run things in society or because he’s a great natural leader or any such thing, but simply because he’s filthy stinking richer than anyone ought to be.

    Fascist assholes. I hate fucking fascists (speaking of whom, I wonder if Makewi or Uncle Clarence Thomas or Bender will show up to give us Mordor’s take on this topic?).

  44. 44.

    Mark S.

    “Radically centrist.” “Far center.”

    I think we can do better. How about

    Fanatically Moderate
    Revolutionary Middle of the Road
    Hitler, but Centrist

  45. 45.

    Warren Terra

    More Friedman than Friedman

    August J Pollak had a good post regarding a second Friedman column demanding a magical Centrist politician despite the obvious fact that the Democrats are trying to get Centrist policies enacted:

    Shorter Thomas Friedman: much like I complained about a month ago in a column I was also mysteriously paid for, I continue to lament that both Democrats and Republicans fail to promote a constructive, beneficial agenda like the ones Democrats have been promoting.
    __
    I’m honestly not sure who I’m supposed to be amazed at for just not giving a shit anymore: Friedman for writing a column where he simply pretends that Barack Obama doesn’t exist, or the Times for letting him do it. Twice.

    (post in its entirety, because it’s short).

  46. 46.

    hells littlest angel

    Zifnab and cleek: A billionaire president could just pay legislators to vote for his policies. We’d be relieved of all that phony rhetoric and negotiating and consensus baloney.

  48. 48.

    Spaghetti Lee

    @burnspbesq:

    I’d pick Perry, because there’s a higher likelihood that he’d choke on his own toothbrush one morning, thus shortening his reign.

  49. 49.

    Frankensteinbeck

    Cleek:
    It’s a basic human trait, but I think it’s been amplified because Bush’s constant abuses of the system made him SEEM all-powerful, and Bush screwed so many pooches so hard for so long that he fills our memory of what presidents are like.

  52. 52.

    scav

    So we’re looking for an uneducated, non-elitist billionaire with a gun-fetish that a plumber would want to have a beer with before the rapture. mmmm. Could probably work something up along this lines as a reality show on Faux. Iron Candidate crossed with America’s Got Billionaires and a dash of the Home Shopping Network.

  53. 53.

    DFH no.6

    “Tyranny”. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    A two-party system in a representative democracy such as ours (imperfect as it certainly is) is in no way “tyrannical”. Unless you want to play the modern conservative game of words meaning just what you want them to mean (say, for instance, “fascism” or “soshulism”).

    It’s nonsense to speak of “two-party tyranny”.

    Under the American political system you always end up with two main opposing parties (and mostly just two parties period). It’s been the Republicans and the Democrats since just before the Civil War (though the ideological makeup of those two parties has obviously shifted dramatically over time).

    Any fringe “third” (or fourth or however many) parties outside the formal structure of the Republican or Democratic Party still have to work with one of those two main parties to do anything. The most important national effect any such third-party can ever have is as a “spoiler” – in which case it is still functioning only to throw its weight (whether intended or not) to either the Democratic or Republican Party.

    The way our system is designed it can’t work any other way. It’s not fucking “tyranny” – it’s our (imperfect, as I said) way of having representative democracy.

    “Third-party” dreamers are every bit as clueless as libertarians.

  54. 54.

    Ruckus

    @burnspbesq:
    If the only 2 choices are Perry and Blankfein? That’s not a choice, that’s a death sentence. I’ll bet Perry would get more votes but I can not see why anyone wouldn’t write in NONE OF THE ABOVE. Pat Paulsen would make a better candidate and the poor guy passed away almost 15 years ago.

    And you say I can’t leave? That sounds like a policy that either one of these guys would try to get passed. If 73% of the country left there wouldn’t be much to be president of.

  55. 55.

    Triassic Sands

    @J:

    That would be the Washington Post — you’re probably already not reading it (with good reason — although H. Meyerson is one of the few genuine lefties writing for the MSM).

  58. 58.

    Roger Moore

    @jibeaux:

    Hell, can anyone say what Romney or Perry is advocating NOW?

    I’m pretty sure that Mitt Romney is advocating that Mitt Romney should be President. It seems to be the only position on which he has shown any consistency, though he did go through a phase where somebody held a gun to his head and made him say he thought John McCain should be instead. I’ll admit that I’m not sure about Perry’s positions except that he’s very big on being The Right Kind of Christian(TM). I’m pretty sure that both of them agree on the need to reduce the Islamofacist Negro population of the White House, too.

  60. 60.

    Turgidson

    @Origuy:

    Yeah, I was about to say – I could be cool with a billionaire ruling us with an iron first if he’s a traitor to his class like FDR was. Otherwise, meh.

  61. 61.

    DFH no.6

    And anyway, Matt Miller and his ilk are so obviously full of shit with their “third way” “radical centrist” “two-party tyranny” etc. nonsense.

    They aren’t looking for any “beyond partisanship” governance at all.

    The Simpson’s had their mindset pegged around twenty years ago or so:

    “Your guilty consciences may move you to vote Democratic, but deep down you long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king!” (Sideshow Bob, running for mayor of Springfield)

    Fascist bootlickers who yearn for a Republican Big Daddy to rule like a king (tyrant, Il Duce, Dear Leader, Decider, whatever title works best). A Democratic leader would not fit the bill.

  62. 62.

    Unsympathetic

    Earth to moron: His name was Ross Perot, and he is now (and was then) a multi-billionaire.

    Miller didn’t like him then because he actually told the truth about “free trade” and other nonsensical syllogisms.

    Perot didn’t push the needle in any way in the 92 election, so why even bother with the strawman that now somehow it “would” do something?

  64. 64.

    fuckwit

    You’re right, not Putin, Berlusconi.

    Though, the billionaires in Russia are more numerous and arguably more powerful than Berlusconi and his cronies.

  68. 68.

    Judas Escargot

    @Unsympathetic:

    Perot didn’t push the needle in any way in the 92 election, so why even bother with the strawman that now somehow it “would” do something?

    A certain gentleman named ‘George Herbert Walker Bush’ might disagree with you on that one.

  69. 69.

    Suffern ACE

    Criminies. I’d end up voting for Lloyd B just because I’m a homer. What do I care if the Texas billionaires are satisfied.

  70. 70.

    maus

    Why would a billionaire do this when both parties are so cheaply purchased? The entrenched systems already come bribe-able and willing to accommodate.

  72. 72.

    Haiwei

    The sad case of Matt Miller would appear to offer evidence that excessive masturbation does, in fact, make one blind…

  73. 73.

    lovable liberal

    It’s going to get worse before it gets better, as our descent into oligarchy naturally makes the oligarchs yearn for feudalism (but without any noblesse oblige this time – so uneconomic!).

    Because these billionaire assholes can’t ever get enough, they’ll inevitably overreach, and there will be revolution, probably more on the French model this time.

    What it leaves in its wake will be awful. Of course, it will be liberals’ fault for failing to save the plutocrats from themselves.

  74. 74.

    Robert Green

    also too, there is nothing a wanna-be millionaire needs more in life than a billionaire to love him. nothing. matt miller is just doing what is necessary to get and/or keep his kids in sidwell friends. like the rest of the careering bastards in DC.

  75. 75.

    News Nag

    @Zifnab: You misread AND misunderstood the comment to which you are replying, Zifnab. It’s the two-party TYRANNY that is being referenced, not the simple math/history lesson you remarkably bless us with. It’s a two-party TYRANNY because that’s what billionaires have bought for our modern-day country through their beneficent bribery donations and insatiable demands for rigid conformities.

    And you say there were no billionaires in George Washington’s day? My, what a brilliant observation! But did you figure out that transaction in 1776 pounds or adjusted 2011 dollars? Inquisitorial minds want to know. More wisdom, please!!

  76. 76.

    bob h

    Actually, the only way to get rid of the Tea Party is for some big money (Buffett, Soros, Jobs,..?) to step up in the form of a Super-Pac.

  77. 77.

    Jamie

    It may be that we need a trillionaire philanthropist who would be willing to balance the Federal Budget for the rest of us.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks