TheAgitator.com
Shorter Naomi Klein
Tuesday, October 14th, 2008Naomi Klein nearly concedes that perhaps Milton Friedman isn’t the neocon villain she’s made him out to be. Then, in her effort to cling to her thesis that he is responsible for all the evil in the world, her head lifts off her shoulders and starts spinning Linda Blair-style.
But here’s the thing. Ideas have consequences. And when you leave the safety of academia and start actually issuing policy prescriptions, which was Milton Friedman’s other life–he wasn’t just an academic. He was a popular writer. He met with world leaders around the world–China, Chile, everywhere, the United States. His memoirs are a “who’s who.” So, when you leave that safety and you start issuing policy prescriptions, when you start advising heads of state, you no longer have the luxury of only being judged on how you think your ideas will affect the world. You begin having to contend with how they actually affect the world, even when that reality contradicts all of your utopian theories.
In other words, because Milton Friedman advised governments about free markets and individual freedom, and because some of those governments later instituted policies that violated human rights and individual freedom, Milton Friedman is to blame for the latter, even though he spoke out eloquently for human rights his entire career, and had nothing to do with those policies.
Moreover, as my colleague Jesse Walker notes in the post linked above, not only should we blame Milton Friedman for all the bad stuff governments do (of which Milton Friedman would never have approved), we should most certainly not credit Friedman when governments did implement his policies, and bettered the condition of the people in their respective countries.
Klein’s thesis now seems to be: Milton Friedman is responsible for everything bad in this world. Everything good that has happened has happened in spite of him. And pay no attention to what Friedman actually wrote or said. All that is important is Naomi Klein’s bizarre interpretation of what Friedman’s ideas.
Klein can’t seem to get beyond this phantom tie between Friedman and the right. Because parts of the right allege to respect free markets and because Friedman did promote free markets, everything else any right-oriented government has done is somehow “Friedmanite.” It’s an absurd premise. You could just as easily say that in opposing conscription, the military-industrial complex, corporatism, and the drug war, Friedman shared a great deal of common ground with the radical left. The radical left support authoritarian socialists like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Therefore, Milton “Friedmanite” ideas are to blame for the human rights violations committed by Chavez and Castro.
In a just world, Klein’s book would have been recalled, and she’d have slunk off the national stage in shame. She is not a serious person.
Radley, a correction: it should be “international stage” not “nation stage” as she is Canadian.
Milton Friedman was the greatest advocate of liberty ever. His ideas transformed the latter half of the 20th century for the better. Billions of people are better off because of him.
His fingerprints are on almost everything in economimcs. He might be the best scholar in any field from the last half of the 20th century.
Also, everyone who knew him agrees that he was a fantastic human being.
For this upstart idiot to drag him through the mud is awful.
In a just world, Naomi Klein and Naomi Wolf would have had mildly successful careers in the adult entertainment industry.
Following her own logic, Naomi Klein was for the blacklisting in Hollywood. After all, ideas have consequences, and ideologies should be held accountable for the crimes committed in their names.
Reading Klein’s writings is like driving by a bad automobile accident…morbid curiousity always gets the best of me and I end up staring long and hard at the bloodied mass that at some point prior was an actual, functioning brain. Probably.
Dude, how many libertarians have criticized Marx for the effects of his theories, even though most of those policy implementations were extremely distant from what he actually prescribed? Don’t we call a broad range of socialist policies “marxist” on a regular basis?
Look, I don’t begrudge anybody their blog whipping boys, but come on. You’re driving a wedge not just between libertarians and the left, but between the left and right wings of the libertarian movement. I hate to see it, simply to preserve the reputation of a guy who should have stayed the hell out of policy (anybody ever hear of monetarism?).
See, that’s PRECISELY why I’d rather not identify my libertarianism with him! Anybody notice that we don’t live in a free market lately? Anybody ever notice that Friedman’s ideas dealt largely with central motherfucking banking?
What does libertarianism even mean anymore if we’re O.K. with central banking by elite interests? This is what we want to identify libertarianism with? Whatever it does mean, I’m not going to blame Klein for getting it wrong when it seems like we ourselves can’t even articulate what a free market is, so married we are to establishment institutions and managerialist biases.
Jeremy-
I come down firmly on the Austrian side in the libertarian economic debate, but that doesn’t mean for a second I don’t consider Milton Friedman one of the true greats of libertarianism. He had a massive impact on the world for the better.
As for the Marx analogy, the difference there is that such criticisms are (or at least can be) actually based on a connection between Marx’s ideas and the pseudo-socialist policy in question. To describe the public education system, for example, as “Marxist” is simply factually correct. A system of universal government-run schools was part of his ideology. If you want a Marxist analogy for what Klein does, it’d be more along the lines of calling land use deregulation “Marxist”. If you were to use Klein’s method, I have little doubt you could pick one or two lines out of context from something Marx wrote and use it support such an assertion. But it would still be a blatantly dishonest distortion of reality.
In one way, I agree with Klein. Theorizing is one thing, actively working with governments is quite another. As an anarchist, I am appalled at anyone who voluntarily works with government. On that account, Friedman is culpable, if only for his own behavior.
If one lies down with dogs, one gets fleas.
Expecting governments to act in anyone’s interests but their patrons is moronically naive at best and criminally complicit at worst.
That being said, regarding her hard-on for Friedman, Klein is probably anti-Semitic.
[It's OK, I'm Jewish and I'm anti-Semitic too.]
Craig, I’m unconvinced. Public schooling far predated Marx, going back to 18th century Prussia at least (with respect to eurocentric public education). I don’t think it’s “wrong” to call it marxist, but it’s technically incorrect in the same sense that Balko balks at Klein’s use of “friedmanite”.
I have great respect for the Austrian tradition, but how can you support a man who’s greatest contribution to economic theory was monetarism – the expert management of central banking is somehow libertarian now?
Honestly, my only feeling here is that libertarians need to grow thicker skin if they want to compete on the ideological market. And that you throw out Klein’s perspective gets rid of a whole lot of libertarian baby to eliminate bathwater that is easily dealt with on a piecemeal basis.
Right on, Radley.
I can’t see how anyone takes her seriously. All this guilt by association, without considering what the actual person did, thought or wrote, is bullsh*t.
Friedman was among the most serious heavyweight intellectuals of the 20th century, whose ideas span astonishingly wide range of issues. It is no surprise that some of his ideas were used for bad reasons, or that some of the people he met with turned out to be evil.
Klein’s analogy would have us believe that Einstein was a war-monger because his work on physics lead to the atomic bomb, or that Ghandi, by catalyzing Indian independence, was responsible for 9-11.
“Craig, I’m unconvinced. Public schooling far predated Marx, going back to 18th century Prussia at least (with respect to eurocentric public education). I don’t think it’s “wrong” to call it marxist, but it’s technically incorrect in the same sense that Balko balks at Klein’s use of “friedmanite”.”
Pretty much any element of any ideology is going to predate the ideology in some form or another. I can think of a couple possible standards for whether or not a specific policy can be labeled with a specific ideology, and I can see how perhaps you wouldn’t call public schools “Marxist” because their establishment wasn’t primarily brought about by the influence of Marxist ideas (it was mainly the Prussian Model mixed with a healthy dose of xenophobia).
What Radley’s talking about here, however, falls outside of any possible reasonable standard. Klein is calling policies and governments “Friedmanite” *even though Friedman was openly opposed to them*, on the mere basis that they’re vaguely on the right-wing of that ill-defined duality political spectrum, and in her opinion so was Friedman. At best she has the fact that Friedman advised those governments on something completely unrelated.
“I have great respect for the Austrian tradition, but how can you support a man who’s greatest contribution to economic theory was monetarism – the expert management of central banking is somehow libertarian now?”
The man’s dead, so I don’t “support” him. I agree, Milton Friedman was wrong about central banking. That doesn’t mean I can’t admire and appreciate all the work he did on other issues, on the vast majority of which he took a libertarian stance. His work on the draft alone is enough to put him in the “net positive for liberty” column. Heck, even his monetarist theories, while certainly fundamentally flawed in their defense of central banking, were a big improvement over the dominant Keynesian policies they challenged.
Ron Paul takes what I think is a completely anti-libertarian position on immigration. Murray Rothbard was wrong about pandering to paleocons and conspiracy theorists. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.
No one is perfect. You’re never going to agree with any one on everything. Such judgments should be made by viewing the whole of the person and their ideas. When you’re talking about an advocate of ideas, support and opposition is not strictly an either/or proposition.
“Honestly, my only feeling here is that libertarians need to grow thicker skin if they want to compete on the ideological market”
I’m not quite sure what that means. It’s not like Balko was just whining and crying ’cause mean ol’ Naomi hurt his feelings. He wrote about his disagreement with Klein and explained how he felt about it and why. That *is* the marketplace of ideas.
“And that you throw out Klein’s perspective gets rid of a whole lot of libertarian baby to eliminate bathwater that is easily dealt with on a piecemeal basis”
I can’t even fathom how you can rail against Friedman for not being ideologically pure enough and then turn around and say something like that about an avowed anti-libertarian like Naomi Klein.
Jeremy –
You wrote:
Anybody ever notice that Friedman’s ideas dealt largely with central motherfucking banking?
..and
I have great respect for the Austrian tradition, but how can you support a man who’s greatest contribution to economic theory was monetarism – the expert management of central banking is somehow libertarian now?
You do understand the difference between scholarly study of monetary theory and endorsing the concept of central banking, don’t you?
Friedman was highly critical of the federal reserve, and of central banks in general. He advocated for their abolition.
Are you going to adopt the Klein position that because Friedman studied central banking, he is somehow responsible for all the harm done by central banking?
Does that mean that because I write about the drug war, I’m also responsible for all the harm it causes?
Do you realize the absurdity of what you’re saying?
The only thing worse than Miss Klein’s vendetta against Friedman is the slathering hero worship of the guy.
while not perfect, I think Mr. Friedman certainly deserves consideration as being one of the truly great Americans. He carried himself with class and was a great champion for freedom.
I can think of many worse candidates for ’slathering hero worship’.
“In a just world, Naomi Klein and Naomi Wolf would have had mildly successful careers in the adult entertainment industry.”
It just so happens that Naomi spelled backwards is I moan. So they’d have that going for them in that just world.
Question: What does Naomi Klein have in common with George W???
Answer: She “doesn’t do nuance,” is unable to admit her many mistakes, takes it easy on authoritarians who share some of her views, and lives in a completely black and white world (everything can be blamed on “terroism/Islamofascism vs. everything can be blamed on free market economics)
In psychology I think the phenomenon at work is referred to as “projection,” but I could be wrong.
In a just world, Milton Friedman would have had a mildly successful career in the adult entertainment industry.
[...] Read the full post here. [...]
in a just world, we’d all have successful careers in the adult entertainment industry (and there would be no uggos).
Yes. And you do understand that that interview you link to is at least a decade after the Volcker Fed tried Friedman’s monetarist central banking theories and had to abandon them. I also note he doesn’t mention his own failed theories and the policy consequences for real people that followed from them in that interview. I guess it’s a lot easier to throw out the managerial state once you’ve tried to engineer the economy and failed.
But this really gets to the heart of the conflict you and I keep experiencing – this is always the problem with libertarians who try to bring a radical philosophy to the establishment. They want it both ways: they want to work within a system, formulate policy for it, gain notoriety within the context of it, become “experts” on it, but wash their hands when it doesn’t work out exactly as they plan and say “told ya so!”. There’s a certain duplicity to their position that radical libertarians often point out, and radicals on the more state socialist side will exploit.
Friedman, like a lot of people, said a lot of stuff over his life, a lot of it pretty technical. Some of it didn’t contradict other things he said or did. Some of it did. It’s disappointing Klein doesn’t adopt a more nuanced approach on all the effects of the work he did over the course of his life – let’s agree on that. But you’re not really being fair to her, either – Friedman was not the outsider maverick you paint him as.
BTW, I really recommend William Greider’s “Secrets of the Temple” for a surprisingly nuanced and interesting look at the full effects of Friedman’s monetarist policies and the role of the Reagan administration in implementing them.
“Gandhi, by catalyzing Indian independence, was responsible for 9-11.”
A better analogy would have been Gandhi being responsible for the chaos of the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947/48, wherein millions of Hindus and Muslims killed each other in their massive migrations in the ethnic cleansing. That’s a tough one to lay at Gandhi’s feet, but actions do have consequences, and Gandhi’s entire life centered around that accomplishment.
Libertarians who try to bring a radical philosophy to the establishment are, as I wrote, tragically naive at best and criminally complicit at worst.
Government is the problem not the solution.
For any variety of libertarianism to take hold in the world, it must begin at the grass-roots level. Going straight to the top will always result in co-option and perversion by the establishment. Milton Friedman (and any other economist) should have known that.
The deck is stacked tremendously against libertarianism (of all stripes) due to insurmountable opportunity costs and counterforces such as government school indoctrination, control of the economy and control of the political process.
Only rational individuals choosing to abandon the State will change human society. I am not hopeful.
There is nothing wrong with a government that is not owned by powerful players in the private sector. Honest government allows free enterprise without playing favorites. Deregulation does not mean the chosen few are free to ransack the country.
Melvin, I am often accused of possessing an insane idealism in being a proponent of anarchism, and I can accept that.
However, I must make the same accusation toward anyone who proposes the idea of a government “not owned by powerful players in the private sector.”
Once the State comes into existence, which I am convinced is inevitable whenever human beings associate in groups larger than one, then the government the State institutes will ALWAYS be controlled by powerful players in the private sector.
In practice, not theory, it can be no other way.
This is a perfectly rational explanation for why there has never been a successful anarchist society numbering more than a few individuals, as so many detractors of anarchism are fond of pointing out.
Right on, Cynical. I wish Radley would address this “radical vs. establishment” divide within the libertarian movement some time.
Thanks Jeremy, perhaps your voice and my voice will be heard.
But I will not hold my breath, as taking on the establishment is biting the hand that feeds, and starvation is a nasty end.
Well here’s one for you free market fundamentalists, Paul Krugman (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19857) has described some of Friedman’s claims as “misleading, and perhaps deliberately so.” and, “intellectually dishonest.” Further, Krugman’s opinion is that Friedmanism went too far. I don’t recall Friedman ever admitting some of his theories and assumptions were out to lunch. Krugman is also a Noble laureate of economics and he isn’t the only respected economist that has criticized Friedman.
The problem with many academics like Friedman is that they are technocratic ideologues that function well in their little utopistic vacuums, but when they interact in the real world they rarely are able to correct their belief systems. It’s always reality that gets in the way never their egos.
Here’s something to think about for all you who have difficulty correcting yourselves.
Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once
they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If
a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it
should be kept. If it doesn’t, the belief should not only be discarded, but
the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous.
[...] Despite excellent treatises on her fact-checking and logical ineptitude (here, here, here, here, and here, plus a bevy of YouTube shorts), the media treats her as a serious journalist. In fact, [...]
[...] People. (See exposes of her shameless arguments and revel in the gullibility of her readers in The Agitator, Friedman Facts, Reason and even The New Republic.) In sum, it is simply untrue that the [...]