Love In the Age of Technocracy
A few thing’s I’d like to add to Brian’s evisceration of the logic of the Washington Post’s logic in endorsement of Martin O’Malley.
Is the Post so oblivious to the hypocrisy of praising O’Malley for naming “top flight” technocrats to his cabinet in one breath, than in the next showing concern for one-party rule.
For what is a technocracy but the symptom one-party rule.
Do the Post editors wish Maryland could be China for Day?
In many respects O’Malley’s technocrats have already done this.
As Brian already alluded O’Malley farmed out state climate policy to a group of technocrats managed by a radical environmental advocacy group. The final report paid for and written by environmental special interests calls for a host of taxes, fees, and burdensome regulations.
Don’t bother asking the technocrats at the Maryland Department of the Environment which of those environmental special interests are writing the regulations for Maryland’s greenhouse gas reduction law. They don’t want you to know.
Do the Post editors think Donald Devore, head of Department of Juvenile Services is a “top flight” technocrat? Under Devore’s watch DJS has seen deaths at it’s facilities and a legislative audit found the department lost hundreds of millions of dollars, lacked sound internal accounting and personnel polices, and overpaid contractors.
Lest we not forget top flight technocrat DLLR secretary, Alexander Sanchez who oversaw the cover up of that July jobs report, including ordering his press officer to communicate with him in a way not traceable by public records requests.
The fact of the matter is that the Post’s labeling of O’Malley as “a good government Democrat” is a euphemism for big government Democrat–the very type of politician they adore.
To understand this one need only read O’Malley’s own words on the concept of citizenship. O’Malley’s “One Maryland” is 21st century recycling of Mussolini’s holistic totalitarian vision, “everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” For O’Malley citizens are merely cogs in the machinery of government moving it’s way toward the sunny uplands of history.
This is what O’Malley means when he tells us “progress” i.e., his political goals, requires embracing the “power of citizenship” and a “unity of spirit and matter” to “advance the common good.”
This destroys the Post’s assertion that this is no real difference between O’Malley and Bob Ehrlich.
On this fundamental issue the two candidates could not be more at odds. One candidate–Martin O’Malley–recognizes few lines of demarcation between government and private life. The other candidate–Bob Ehrlich–does, especially as it relates to small business, economic growth and job creation.
Bob Ehrlich offers a clear choice not an echo.