The other day the Joplin Globe published a column by Jay Ambrose (apparently the paper can afford him!) that included this perplexing sentence:
The Communist Party is still running things and is still autocratic and cruel even as it has allowed relatively free markets enough wiggle room to make China a major economic power.
Now, I find that statement perplexing because it actually says:
1. The Communist Party is autocratic and cruel.
2. The autocratic and cruel Communist Party is nevertheless making “China a major economic power.”
Get it? I don’t either because the following commentary is what I usually hear from conservatives, a critique objecting to the expansion of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause in our own Constitution:
The movement from rule of law to ridiculous rigmarole gave us a regulatory state stifling our economy and our freedoms…It will thus endanger our economic future while already keeping businesses from hiring because of expensive obligations to come.
The American “regulatory state” will “endanger our economic future“? Who could have written that? Oh, yeah, the same guy who said the “autocratic and cruel” Communists were nevertheless making China “a major economic power.”
Ambrose also wrote this last year:
The Heritage Foundation says we’re now only the ninth-freest world economy and points out that excessive spending and increased federal intrusiveness have sapped business confidence while hurting competitiveness, slowing expansion and diminishing entrepreneurial energy. You don’t get jobs that way.
“Increased federal intrusiveness” is a big problem for America, you see, but apparently not much of a problem for “a major economic power” like China, where this year’s Heritage Foundation ranking put China as the 138th freest economy—right above Syria!
You gotta love comparative conservative economics.