From his TNR article,

The last two decades certainly have seen the global spread of absolutist free-market ideology. Many of the newest adherents of this creed are dictators who have learned that they can harness the riches of capitalism without permitting the freedoms once thought to flow automatically from it.

Oh really, like who? Myanmar? Zimbabwe? Venezuala? Oh I know…North Korea…no wait that wont work either. Let me think….hmmm…uhhh…Cuba…no….aahhhh…hrrrmmm. Dang, I know there must be one. Somebody help me out here.

Chait’s next sentence,

In the United States, the power of labor unions has withered, and prosperity has increasingly come to be defined as gross domestic product or the rise of the stock market, with the actual living standards of the great mass of the population an afterthought.

Oh yeah! I forgot about that great dictatorship the United States. What a tool.

Corporations, which can relocate nearly anywhere around the world, have used their flexibility as a cudgel against workers, who do not enjoy the privileges of mobility.

While technically true I suppose, we actually don’t see lots of this. In fact, we have firms moving to the U.S. such as Japanese auto makers. But hey, what the f*ck do we need empirical evidence for?

Chait is a tool too. Not as much of one as Klein, but still a tool.

I don’t doubt that Cato has lots of people who disagree with Pilon, but he is none the less a public face of the organization. If Cato did great work behind the scenes and had Che Guevara writing op eds would it be the fault of the observers when they assume that the organization is full of communist revolutionaries?

As for whether Pilon is a neocon I don’t know. I consider neocons imperialists first and everything else second. Outside of the unitary executive everything else is details. I could be wrong.

At the ripe old age of 30, I’m already too old for the platitudes of Klein & co… I now view their efforts to conflate two clearly distinct lines of political thought–Right-wing statism and libertarianism (left or right)–as obnoxious and slanderous, especially in the case of Friedman. Friedman’s work to end the draft and his strong criticism of drug prohibition opened my eyes. I’m still a bit skeptical on the economic side, but maybe I’m still learning. The principled libertarian is no friend to big government or big corporations, contrary to the protests of Klein and her minions. I should add that Cato published a criticism of Klein by the young writer Johan Nordberg (I think Radley posted a link to it) that savaged her book and her ideology. It is a great read.

Jeremy’s point really isn’t fair. We may disagree with Pilon on the scope of executive authority, but Cato is a think tank where people are encouraged to honestly follow their reasoning where it leads. It’s not some hack joint pushing whatever conforms to their preconceived ideology. Pilon holds his views sincerely, and presumably he came to them through honest research and thinking through the complex issues involved. He’s not “carrying water” for the White House, or shilling for the administration. Frankly, I’m not sure how one “carries water” for a concept.

I think it’s a testament to Cato’s intellectual honesty that someone in Pilon’s position can hold the views he does and still find a public forum for them under Cato’s roof. Further, Jeremy forgets that while Pilon holds his views, Cato’s other legal scholars – most notably Bob Levy – (and Ed Crane, for what it’s worth) hold views completely at odds with Pilon’s, and their (often public) disagreement makes Cato a better place.

Cato may or may not be a better outift when Pilon retires (and if it is, it might be for reasons other than his politics), but people shouldn’t knock Cato for holding onto scholars who may have views outside libertarian dogma.

http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=69067f1c-d089-474b-a8a0-945d1deb420b

That’s a fair point. And I’ll be the first to say that Cato will be a better place when Pilon retires.

Still, Pilon may be a bed-wetter on national security, but he’s no neocon. He’s opposed to the drug war, sodomy laws, and all consensual crimes. He’s also adamantly opposed to Weekly Standard-esque “national greatness” conservatism, and favors a robust interpretation of the Ninth and 14th amendments.

I’m hardly a fan of Pilon, but to call him a neocon just isn’t factually correct.

This is common on the left and the right as well. I have to imagine that an experience many libertarians share is one where people assume ideology from the first political conversation we have and then have a tough time getting past it. Most of the people I first meet talking about free markets assume I am a pro-war corporatist conservative and most I first meet talking about police power assume I must be a dope-smoking hippie liberal. It’s easily as amusing as it is annoying.

The difference is that Klein isn’t someone at a cocktail party. She is supposed to research the people she’s writing about instead of assuming her subjects are two-dimensional cartoon cut-outs from her enemies list.

The leftist think tanks are swimming in corporate money (I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I’d bet most match or beat Cato in that regard), but for some reason they’re never accused of shilling.

Klein is at least consistent and probably considers all think tanks that take corporate money to be conservative by definition, just like how leftists thinks the mainstream media is inherently conservative because it’s controlled by for-profit corporations.

It’s usually some young over-eager kid who stutters out a “gotcha” question that sounded a lot better when they practiced it in the bathroom. Telling people off/asking goading questions publicly is one of those things that always look cooler in the movies.

Anyway, I’d love to see Klein confronted with the facts. But I’d REALLY love to see John Cusack confronted with them. Imagine a Boaz vs. Cusack debate on libertarianism, neoconservatism and the legacy of Milton Friedman. THAT would be fun to watch.