<<  <  >  >>

Klein never

conservative think tank, twice.67 She writes

this connection for one reason only--that

Klein never clearly defines what Friedman's

about "the neocon movement--Friedmanite

clearly defines

to its core."68 So every time Bush expands the

ideas are and what they aren't, and she gives

what Friedman's

no indication that she understands them. So

government to promote conservative goals,

ideas are and

she confuses Friedman's limited-government

and every time something is being done by

liberalism with both neoconservatism and

the United States in Iraq as a result of the

what they aren't,

outright corporatism--the granting of spe-

occupation, Klein holds Milton Friedman

and she gives

cial privileges to corporations beyond what

and other libertarians such as the Cato

no indication

they could earn without government help.

Institute responsible for it, even though each

As Klein sees it, in Bush's America "you

opposed both the government expansion

that she

have corporatism: big business and big gov-

and the Iraq War.

understands

ernment combining their formidable power

It is obvious that Klein does not know

to regulate and control the citizenry."62 This

what neoconservatism is and has not both-

them.

sounds, improbably enough, like a healthy

ered to find out. She writes in passing that

libertarian critique of the administration.

Friedman was neoconservative and suggests

The only problem is that Klein thinks that

that neoconservatives long for "the elimina-

this is the "pinnacle of the counterrevolution

tion of the public sphere, total liberation for

launched by Friedman"63 and that the Bush

corporations and skeletal social spending."69

team that implemented it is "Friedmanite to

The founder of American neoconservatism,

the core."64

Irving Kristol, defines the movement's ideas

Even when the federal government breaks

quite differently. Back in 1979, he explained:

all the rules in Milton Friedman's book,

"Neoconservatives are not libertarian in any

Klein blames Friedman for it. At one point

sense. A conservative welfare state is perfectly

Klein writes about the lack of openness in the

consistent with the neoconservative perspec-

Iraqi economy:

tive." He reiterated that viewpoint in a recent

manifesto: "Neo-cons do not feel that kind of

All the . . . U.S. corporations that

alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state

were in Iraq to take advantage of the

in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed

inevitable."70 And if neoconservatives and lib-

reconstruction were part of a vast

ertarians have important differences on

protectionist racket whereby the U.S.

domestic policy, their differences on foreign

government had created their mar-

policy are even starker. That Friedmanite core

kets with war, barred their competi-

must be massive indeed to contain such wide-

tors from even entering the race,

ly divergent views!

then paid them to do the work, while

guaranteeing them a profit to boot--

all at taxpayer expense.65

A Suicidal Impulse

Again, this would be an excellent Fried-

manite critique of how governments enrich

Klein also confuses libertarianism with cor-

their friends at the cost of open competition

poratism, arguing that tax-funded corporate

and taxpayers, if it weren't for the fact that

welfare is the zenith of Chicago's free-market

Klein finishes the paragraph in this way:

revolution. Klein accepts that corporate wel-

"The Chicago School crusade . . . had finally

fare is not what the Chicago liberals originally

reached its zenith in this corporate New

promoted: "But it's not an aberration; it is

Deal."66

where the entire Chicago School crusade--

Klein repeatedly identifies libertarianism

with its triple obsession--privatization, dereg-

(or "neoliberalism") with neoconservatism.

ulation and union-busting--has been lead-

ing."71 But she doesn't explain why this

She seems to think that they are the same,

and she even calls the Cato Institute a neo-

separation of government and the economy

11