That Mr Matthews, like the Salon racist before him, would cite nations that have essential kept their citizens as government subjects as a model to strive for, is why it is clear to those of us who’ve been paying attention that the whole feel-good, Colin Powellesque bromide of “compromise” as an end rather than a means, is ludicrous: the reason the left wants checks and balances removed — and gridlock halted — is because it throws up roadblocks in their race toward progressive authoritarianism.
It’s no accident that, though this author avoided it (intentionally so), so many left-leaning “intellectuals” (and some, no doubt, on the right) admire the Chinese system, and have openly stated as much.
The rest is smoke and mirrors: they want full control over the masses, and a society that is built around government rather than its inverse. They assert that a government shutdown is necessarily a bad thing rather than a potential corrective.
To which I say, fuck them.
And that is the only honest responsed required.
Most of this sort of drivel is not intended to actually change minds on a large scale or, frankly, even a small one.
It is, instead, supposed to provide historical, ethical, philosophical, and ideological underpinnings with which to support the endless lust of racist, fascist progtards hell bent on controlling every aspect of American life – for the good of Americans, if only those stupid serfs would figure it out.
What that means is that over the next ten or twenty years, you can expects this piece of shit to be cited by other writers and thinkers as being something “noted authorities” have said. And lord knows, we can’t question “noted authorities,” can we?
So don’t question them. Just tell them to fuck off.