Norberg on Klein

Tuesday, May 20th, 2008

Cato has published a paper by Johan Norberg that destroys Naomi Klein’s foolish book, The Shock Doctrine. Klein’s book lost all credibility the moment she conflated Milton Friedman with neoconservatism. Milton Friedman pretty much embodied the opposite of neoconservatism. He opposed the war in Iraq, opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, almost single-handedly ended conscription, and was a vocal, fierce opponent of the war on drugs. Klein’s cheap, posthumous attack on Friedman is, as Norberg puts it, “hopelessly flawed at virtually every level.”

Good for Cato for publishing this.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

8 Responses to “Norberg on Klein”

  1. #1 |  Jonathan Hohensee | 

    How much of a curb job did she give Friedman?
    It would take a certain amount of revisionism if she portrayed the guy who fought to get rid of the draft and War on Drugs as a frothing fascist monster.

  2. #2 |  Chance | 

    Ending conscription was not a good thing.

  3. #3 |  TomMil | 

    Klein’s book bothered me a great deal. She had some very valid points but rather than take a measured approach she fell into the trap that commonly ensnares ideologues, she over-reached and allowed some powerful evidence to be damaged by association with the lies/exaggeration. Michael Moore does the same thing almost every time.

  4. #4 |  Les | 

    Ending conscription was not a good thing.

    Because nothing says “FREEDOM” like involuntary servitude.

    TomMil,

    That’s exactly how I feel.

  5. #5 |  Matt Moore | 

    Les – Chance doesn’t actually like freedom.

  6. #6 |  Andrew Williams | 

    “Klein argues that capitalism goes hand in hand with dictatorship and brutality and that dictators and other unscrupulous political figures take advantage of “shocks”—catastrophes real or manufactured—to consolidate their power and implement unpopular market reforms.”
    Well, obviously I disagree with the first part–it doesn’t explain Hitler and Stalin, who ostensibly ran socialist dictatorships–but I do agree with her second statement. I would add that dictators are not the only ones to take advantage of such “shocks”–our current lame duck POTUS comes to mind for some reason.
    Yeah, Friedman was such a lackey of the bourgeoisie that he was against the Wars on Drugs and Iraq. What a tool, huh?

  7. #7 |  TGGP | 

    A leftist critique of the Shock Doctrine.

  8. #8 |  La Rana | 

    This is what I was looking for, thanks.

Leave a Reply