Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times really wants President Obama to make him czar of something. Anything. He is well qualified. For one thing, he likes “pragmatism,” and he thinks national socialism is a good idea.

In an op-ed unthinkable even ten years ago, Friedman cries out in despair that America has become a single-party democracy now that Obama has gone so obviously centrist and the Republicans have watered down their evil ways.

Not that a one-party system is bad: Friedman explains that if you are a “reasonably enlightened group of people” like Communist China, things tend to work out well. What the hell is so great about China? Well, if you overlook the blatant human rights violations, the subjugation and forced assimilation of non-Chinese cultures, the intent to provoke war with Taiwan, horrific pollution of their waterways and air resulting in mass birth defects and the ruination of rare ecosystems, the empowerment of mad North Korea on its quest to obtain and use nuclear weapons, the deaths of thousands caused by dangerous and illegal exports, the Chinese have their good points: like their commitment to overtaking our economy with electric cars and solar power. Not that the Chinese have these things: they just want them, and that is good enough for Friedman.

But there’s more. In words right out of the 1930s, “Beijing wants to make sure that it owns [the Chinese energy] industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.” Please do not ask Friedman to cite a single example from history in which the state, having forced a critical resource price increase in order to influence growth of an unproven industry, improved the quality of life for its wards. Instead, the books of military, economic, sociological, industrial and commercial history are filled with examples of that ending quite badly.

But as twisted as that is, “Our one-party democracy is worse,” he posits. As proof, he lists some major progressive programs and seems astonished that only the Democrats are supporting them. Actually, Tom, many Democrats are not supporting them either, hence the scrambling you may have noticed lately. Your astonishment reminds the Czar of Pauline Kael’s famous nonplus about Nixon being re-elected despite the fact she knew of no one who would vote for him. Friedman accepts that Obama is a centrist (actuall, the Czar believes him to be a radical progressivist who keeps getting reality handed to him), and concedes that the Democrats are fractious. Wait—he just said that the Democrats are the only serious party, but then flips back to say they are as weasely as Republicans! This paradox is resolved because Friedman forgot his point while he was writing it that America is really a one-party country. So back to bashing the Dems.

His laundry list of undeveloped national issues seems woefully short. He fails to list military improvements and upgrades, foreign policy controls on rogue powers, deregulation, tax cuts, the Second Amendment, education vouchers, de-unionization, tort reform, and nuclear energy development; after all, these are critical Republican issues that the Democrats refuse to address. Of course, these are conservative, non-progressive issues that are inherently unimportant to Friedman, so they do not count.

Instead, in an effort to ensure we understand that we are a failed one-party democracy, he continues to list more Progressive ideas that Republicans keep shooting down. He fails to mention gay marriage: a core liberal goal that Obama—a progressive—cannot accept. Friedman might have tried to strengthen his argument with that one, since both sides do not want it. But he knows the real reason gay marriage has stalled: conservatives do not want to change the original definition of marriage, and progressives want to move beyond archaic concepts like matrimony. He looks like a jerk if he tells that side of the story.

To a logical, clear-thinking reader, Friedman’s argument seems awkward and confused. We are a failed single-party system, as evidenced by…the hugely fundamental differences he lists between Democrats and Republicans? But this is a perfect example of the cherry-picked cognitive dissonance so inherent among far flung radicals. He cannot comprehend that his issues are not America’s issues; that his goals—carbon credits, full government healthcare, and immigration amnesty—are fools’ errands.

Progressives sometimes remind the Czar of the annoyingly perky high school glee club organizer who announces she is having the biggest party of the year ever on Saturday afternoon, and is shocked when no one shows. At all. “How could they do this to me? Am I not the most popular person in the school? I bet it’s that Sarah’s fault. She turned them against me! I’ll show her on Monday!”

The Czar has said before that if you really want to understand liberals, progressives, the news media, and Hollywood, it helps to learn about how spoiled high school freshmen girls think. The parallels will disturb you late into the night.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.