Naomi Klein: One Year After the Publication of The Shock Doctrine, A Response to the Attacks

[marmar]

Published on Tuesday, September 2, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
One Year After the Publication of The Shock Doctrine, A Response to the Attacks
by Naomi Klein

Exactly one year ago, I set off on a book tour to promote The Shock Doctrine. The plan was for it to last three months, quite long by publishing standards. Twelve months later, it is still going. But this has been no ordinary book tour. Everywhere I have traveled- from Calgary, Alberta to Cochabamba, Bolivia - I have heard more stories about how shock strategies have been used to impose unwanted pro-corporate policies. I have also been part of stimulating debates and discussions about how the current round of crises - oil, food, financial markets, heavy weather -- can be transformed into opportunities for progressive change.

And there have been other kinds of responses too. The Shock Doctrine is a direct attack on the intellectuals and institutions that have disseminated corporatist ideology around the world. When I wrote the book, I fully expected to get hit back. Yet for eight months following publication, there was an eerie silence from the "free-market" ideologues. Sure, a few dismissive reviews appeared in the business press. But not a word from the Washington think tanks that I name in the book. Nothing from the University of Chicago economics department. Even The Economist magazine, which used to attack me gleefully and with great regularity, never mentioned the book in print. An American television producer, who was trying to find an opponent to debate me on-air, confided that she had never been turned down so consistently. "They seem to think if they ignore you, you'll go away."

Well, the silence from the right has certainly been broken. In recent months, several articles and reports have come out claiming to debunk my thesis. The most prominent are a "background paper" published by The Cato Institute, extended into a full length book in Swedish (!), and a lengthy essay in The New Republic by senior editor Jonathan Chait.

Several readers have written to this site asking me to respond to these attacks, if only to help them defend the book more effectively. I resisted at first (clinging to my summer vacation...) but I appreciate the feedback and several points do need correcting. Since the reports by Cato and The New Republic - though purporting to come from radically different points on the political spectrum - share some marked similarities, I've decided to tackle them together. Here goes.

Sorry Boys, Milton Friedman Supported The War

Both Jonathan Chait and The Cato Institute claim that the late economist Milton Friedman was a staunch opponent of the invasion of Iraq. The Cato paper states of me that, "She claims that Friedman was a ‘neoconservative' and thus in favor of an aggressive American foreign policy, and she argues that Iraq was invaded so that Chicago-style policies could be implemented there.... but nowhere does she mention Friedman's actual views about the war. Friedman himself said: ‘I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression.' And this was not just one war that he happened to oppose. In 1995, he described his foreign policy position as ‘anti-interventionist.'" ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/02-7

[Fumesucker]

1. A book from the Cato institute in Swedish ??

Yeah, like Swedes are going to be interested in that one.

:rofl: :rofl:

[hootinholler]

4. SO they could say Bork, Bork, Bork!

:rofl:

Pussies!

-Hoot

[Auggie]

2. Outside of the web I rarely hear mention of this book or Ms. Klein

I think it's one of the most important books of the decade. Explains why this country continues to go down the tubes.

[Beam Me Up]

5. Outside of netizens, most people don't read -- especially books. n/t

[Auggie]

6. Yeah (sigh)

[Supersedeas]

7. there you have it

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Brutal smackdown

If anything, The Shock Doctrine is supremely qualified, as Klein demonstrates in her rebuttal. The criticisms from Chait and Cato are just lazy readings. Lazy readings will always miss the qualifications, either deliberately or through indifference. A key dishonest strategy of critique is to offer a simplistic reading, thus requiring the author to restate the nuance and qualifications.

[DCKit]

8. A tactic many on DU are familiar with.

I don't know how the mods keep up, but damned if they don't.

However, my least favorite tactic is using a minor or totally unrelated point in a wordy post, often even a reply to an OP, to derail the point of the entire thread - the whole "look over there" strategy. Too often, it seems to work.

[riverdeep]

9. Kick.

[Beam Me Up]

10. Kick