Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Justin Logan at the Cato blog quotes Jonathan Chait's critique of Naomi Klein's absurdly simplistic use of the term "neo-conservative":
[Klein] pays shockingly (but, given her premises, unsurprisingly) little attention to right-wing ideas. She recognizes that neoconservatism sits at the heart of the Iraq war project, but she does not seem to know what neoconservatism is; and she makes no effort to find out. Her ignorance of the American right is on bright display in one breathtaking sentence:"Only since the mid-nineties has the intellectual movement, led by the right-wing think-tanks with which [Milton] Friedman had long associations-Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute-called itself 'neoconservative,' a worldview that has harnessed the full force of the U.S. military machine in the service of a corporate agenda."
He's right, that's an incredible sentence. It shows utter ignorance of the difference between libertarianism and neo-conservatism. Libertarians are nearly always isolationist, pretty much the last people who can be accused of harnessing the U.S. military machine in the service of any agenda. Libertarians tend to see the military as something that should be used solely for defense. And Milton Friedman was opposed to the Iraq war from the start, for crying out loud. Chait notes all of this and more:
Where to begin? First, neoconservative ideology dates not from the 1990s but from the 1960s, and the label came into widespread use in the 1970s. Second, while neoconservatism is highly congenial to corporate interests, it is distinctly less so than other forms of conservatism. The original neocons, unlike traditional conservatives, did not reject the New Deal. They favor what they now call "national greatness" over small government. And their foreign policy often collides head-on with corporate interests: neoconservatives favor saber-rattling in places such as China or the Middle East, where American corporations frown on political risk, and favor open relations and increased trade. Moreover, the Heritage Foundation has always had an uneasy relationship with neoconservatism. (Russell Kirk delivered a famous speech at the Heritage Foundation in which he declared that "not seldom has it seemed as if some eminent neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.") And the Cato Institute is not neoconservative at all. It was virulently opposed to the Iraq war in particular, and it opposes interventionism in foreign policy in general.Finally, there is the central role that Klein imputes to her villain Friedman, both in this one glorious passage and throughout her book. In her telling, he is the intellectual guru of the shock doctrine, whose minions have carried out his corporatist agenda from Santiago to Baghdad. Klein calls the neocon movement "Friedmanite to the core," and identifies the Iraq war as a "careful and faithful application of unrestrained Chicago School ideology" over which Friedman presided. What she does not mention-not once, not anywhere, in her book-is that Friedman argued against the Iraq war from the beginning, calling it an act of "aggression."
It ought to be morbidly embarrassing for a writer to discover that the central character of her narrative turns out to oppose what she identifies as the apotheosis of his own movement. And Klein's mistake exposes the deeper flaw of her thesis. Friedman opposed the war because he was a libertarian, and libertarian conservatism is not the same thing as neoconservatism. Nor are the interests of corporations always, or even usually, served by war.
I would also note that libertarianism has an entirely different position about the interests of big business than Klein thinks, and quite different from that of the neo-conservatives too. Libertarians are very much opposed to the kind of corporate welfare favored by both traditional conservatives and liberals precisely because it distorts free markets and destroys the competition that prevents monopoly and oligopoly.
Big business doesn't want a free market, they want government subsidies, billions of dollars transferred from middle class taxpayers to their corporate coffers. They also want regulation that prevents new competitors from entering the market. This is a huge reason for the lack of refinery capacity in this country, because the oil companies actually support government regulations that make it almost impossible for someone to build a new refinery and make a profit on it while leaving existing refineries untouched. All of this distorts the market, reduces competition and gives existing big businesses unchallenged dominance.
Both parties feed into this while libertarians oppose it. Klein is using this label (neo-conservative) not only too broadly, but completely inaccurately. She is simply lumping in everyone who disagrees with her under a single term and ignoring the serious distinctions. This is something far too common across the political spectrum and it is something we all need to be cognizant of and try to avoid as much as possible.
This is why I have cautioned in the past to avoid using terms like "reconstructionist" to describe all conservative Christians; the fact is that reconstructionism flatly rejects many of the theological (and political) views of what we might broadly call the religious right. When someone refers to Mike Huckabee as a reconstructionist, they are engaging in this kind of inaccurate labeling; Huckabee is a premillenialist, something reconstructionists completely reject.
Politics
Comments
One example of media bias is who they invite on their news analysis shows. A left bias outlet who wants the appearance of balance will sometimes show a smart, rational person from the left while also featuring a right-wing idiot; vice-versa from right wing media outlets who I've experinced doing this much more frequently.
Though she's a liberal, Naomi Wolf does a much more effective job promoting right wing causes given her inability to frame issues accurately while also making some hare-brained arguments. I'd argue that Wolf is to Fox News what Jerry Falwell was to CNN. I cringe every time I see her on a TV News show knowing the side of individual liberty will be ill-served.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 25, 2008 9:34 AM
What is most interesting about the neo-conservatives is that many of them (e.g. Irving Kristol, David Horowitz) started out as Trotskyites. Others (e.g. Richard Pearle, Norman Podhoretz) started out as Henry Jackson Democrats (e.g. domestically liberal, internationally hawkish and aggressive).
In this regard, it is quite erroneous to refer to lifelong Rethuglicans like Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as neo-cons, which many on the left often do.
Posted by: SLC | July 25, 2008 9:41 AM
Where was Cato, etc. in the run-up to Iraq? Where's the outrage at those "Institutes" mentioned above?
(You know, the complaints about the several Naomis sounds a bit like the theologian's gripe that only a sufficiently educated person can criticize religion.)
When the strongest Institutional argument against the Administration is a "you're doing it wrong" then likely enough there's not a lot of water between those boats. It may be a tough pill to swallow for the small-l libertarian, but during this disastrous Administration, none of the above-mentioned organizations has come out loud and proud against Bush and/or the Neocons, so, from the outside, the perceived differences between Beltway libertarians and Neocons is vanishingly small.
Quack, quack.
Posted by: Matt Hussein Platte | July 25, 2008 10:36 AM
by all accounts, friedman did have long associations with the heritage foundation, the american enterprise institute, and the cato institute - all of which can be considered right-wing think tanks.
the neocons did see a surge during the 1990s, which is when most became aware of them.
the neocon movement has used friedmanite economic theories to promote one failure after another.
Posted by: notsoharebrained | July 25, 2008 10:51 AM
I've never understood why Milton Friedman continues to get "credit" for the work of his fellow University of Chicago colleague, Leo Strauss, but I guess you could argue that Friedman's deregulation and "privatization" schemes have been more destructive to the rest of the world.
Posted by: BrianK | July 25, 2008 10:51 AM
I'm waiting for someone to mention Leo Strauss's name without implying sinister undertones. I'm waiting for someone who actually understands his political philosophy, and can talk about it responsibly, to point out that what "neo-cons" stand for and what Strauss stood for are different. I'm waiting for someone to point out that just because somebody thought they read an author a certain way it does not necessarily follow that said reading was correct (ex: Nazi interpretations of Nietzsche).
Posted by: pacers' fan | July 25, 2008 11:01 AM
Wait, how are "free markets" with no interference from the government supposed to prevent monopolies from forming?
Posted by: Coriolis | July 25, 2008 11:10 AM
Political labels have been muddled since Nixon when he had successfully united the Sun Belt, the Bible Belt, and the oil tycoons of heartland America during his reign. Bush and his croonies haven't helped by playing the the three fields of Iraq: the imperialistic needs of Big Oil, the Religious Right's interest in destroying "New Babylon", and the suburbanites fear of weapons of mass destruction.
This doesn't save nor excuse Klein. Just an observation about the confusion that has developed in the GOP's efforts to unite similar interests under one banner.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | July 25, 2008 11:15 AM
@pacers' fan: I've read a little bit of Strauss, and while I'm admittedly no expert, my understanding of his philosophy is that it differs from its implementation in degree only. While Kristol (among other big-name neocons) have supported several policies that Strauss may or may not have agreed with, but those differences don't mean that a broad tag like "neocon" can't apply to them both.
On the other hand, I have studied quite a bit of Nietzsche, and even took a seminar in the "adaptation" of his ideas by the Nazis and others. There, it's a case of taking a single idea out of its context, without considering its relation to the core pieces of his philosophy. That's more than a difference of degree, and I don't think it's analogous to the Strauss/neocon situation.
--Lifelong Hoosier, no longer able to call myself a Pacers' fan--
Posted by: BrianK | July 25, 2008 11:20 AM
I think it's very common for people to look at those on the other side of political aisle as variants of the same thing, usually the most extreme and ugly variant. So to some progressives everyone on the right is a kind of a fascist; it's all a big slurry of scary militia, corporatist (using the term incorrectly, by the way), theocratic sentiment over there, sometimes watered down with a smiling public face. Likewise, many on the right see the left of center as a bunch of freedom-hating Marxists; Hillary Clinton and Obama are totalitarian socialists, I mean, liberal fascists.
For a professional pundit or intellectual - who by vocation ought to know better - to engage in this kind of sloppy thinking is inexcusable. Naomi Klein has never displayed much intellectual rigor. George Lakoff's simplistic model of conservatism is another case study.
According to this mentality, everyone on the other side must be stupid, crazy, or evil, and the distinctions between subgroups (libertarian vs neoconservative vs religious right) are just different tactics they use to deceive the naive. Some define the right or left in the most simplistic and reductive terms: the right is naked greed or hatred; the left is envy or will to power.
The above attitudes are very common but they're based on willful ignorance and downright childish thinking. Why not take the views of others seriously and address them on their merits, rather than blurring together, clinically labeling, and demonizing people one disagrees with?
Posted by: Colugo | July 25, 2008 11:35 AM
It seems to me, BrianK, that a centerpiece of neo-con political opinion is the idea that the projection of American power in order to save the world from itself is in stark contrast with one of Strauss' main thrusts: the idea that politics harbors no redemption to offer humankind, that politics cannot save anyone.
Furthermore, Strauss stresses skepticism in politics (and other realms) as the best way to take. What part of neo-con thinking celebrates doubt?
I just don't think it's very tenable or responsible to saddle Strauss with the fatherhood of neo-conservatism.
Posted by: pacers' fan | July 25, 2008 11:43 AM
I've heard so many awful things about Klein's book that I'm tempted to read it myself. Johan Norberg wrote a briefing paper for Cato on some of her other inaccuracies/implications and it was pretty depressing. Friedman was instrumental in ending the draft in this country and specifically opposed the Iraq war, and by claiming that neoconservatives pursue free market policies Klein is able to imply that he not only favored, but was a catalyst for, the war.
And Matt Platte:
Cato opposed the Iraq war from its conception by the administration. There is no shortage of op-eds on their website from early 2003 speaking out against the war. They have opposed virtually all of the security initiatives proposed by the administration post-9/11 and have been leaders in the fight against REAL ID. Unrelated to the war but still opposing the administration, Cato regularly speaks against No Child Left Behind and the drug war. But my guess is you will define "loud and proud" as something all but impossible for any libertarians to accomplish, considering how much attention they get from the media and Congress.
Posted by: nicole | July 25, 2008 11:57 AM
hmmm ... the use might be absurd, but I won't be quick to conclude it is a result of ignorance. Perhaps it is intended to give credibility to Iraq War, and the neoconservative world view.
A quick examination of the historical motive behind the conflict ...
Terrorists -> WMDs -> Freedom-Fighting -> Support-the-Troops -> ????
Demonstrates that complete failure of the war. I expect invisible hand will eventually extract vengeance upon those responsible and Friedman will have the last laugh from beyond the grave ;-)
Posted by: Ben Abbott | July 25, 2008 12:11 PM
Matt Platte wrote:
Thank you for demonstrating my point perfectly. You obviously haven't bothered to do any research and see how the Cato Institute responded to the Iraq war in comparison to Heritage or the AEI. The difference is rather stark. Go to the Cato webpage and do a search; you will find dozens and dozens of articles, studies and blog posts (like this one) blasting the Bush administration for invading Iraq. At Heritage and the AEI, you will find mostly support for the war. And that's the point, lumping these three together on this issue is absurd - and lumping them together as "Friedmanite" on this issue when Friedman himself was against the war in Iraq is just plain fucking stupid.
When the strongest Institutional argument against the Administration is a "you're doing it wrong" then likely enough there's not a lot of water between those boats.
You would be right IF that was the strongest argument Cato offered; it wasn't. Again, do some actual research here. You will find paper after paper not just criticizing the way the war was run but debunking all of the administration's arguments for the war, criticizing the moral basis for the war (libertarians generally believe, unlike neo-conservatives, that the only justifiable reason to go to war is in self-defense), and much more. Again, you are lumping entirely different organizations together without bothering to do any research to justify that conclusion. You're reacting to a label rather than to an actual position and, frankly, demonstrating perfectly the kind of shallow thinking this post intended to address.
Really? The Cato Institute hasn't blasted the Iraq war from the start? They haven't blasted, in no uncertain terms, the vast range of unconstitutional abuses that Bush has foisted on us, from warrantless wiretapping to Gitmo to extraordinary rendition to habeas corpus? Of course they have, loudly and often. The only thing you are revealing here is your utter ignorance.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 25, 2008 12:29 PM
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The criticism leveled at Klein based on the sentence provided doesn't wash. Klein's sentence says that only since the 1990's has "the intellectual movement" epitomized by the conservative think tanks "called" itself neo-conservative.
Thus (1) the criticism that neo-conservativism has been around longer than the 1990s has nothing to do with Klein's statement referring to the 1990s.
(2) There is absolutely no evidence that "while neoconservatism is highly congenial to corporate interests, it is distinctly less so than other forms of conservatism." The greatest amount of corporate corruption in the history of the United States has taken place under the Bush neoconservative administration.
(3) Nothing in the quote from Klein mentions "libertarianism" so every comment distinguishing libertarianism from neoconservatism is beside the point, immaterial, illogical, and irelevant, just to name a few. If you are going to criticize Klein's views on libertarianism then you must provide her quotes on the issue.
Posted by: Gregory Wonderwheel | July 25, 2008 12:54 PM
"Why not take the views of others seriously and address them on their merits, rather than blurring together, clinically labeling, and demonizing people one disagrees with?"
because the views of "the other side" (conservatism) are all too often based at their core on perception over reality, on unhealthy psychological issues, on greed, on a complete denial of reality faced by people not only in this country, but in the world, and to top it off nowadays, a turn towards religion that just highlights much of the above. listen to them? other than to point and laugh, i can't imagine why.
Posted by: ohplease | July 25, 2008 1:02 PM
Coriolis asks, "Wait, how are 'free markets' with no interference from the government supposed to prevent monopolies from forming?"
Excellent question. This is one of many questions that the core beliefs of libertarians simply paper over with their dogmas.
Fundamentally, "small government" "no regulation" libertarians are at their core unpatriotic since they don't believe in the Constitution as a whole or in its premise and purpose and instead they write out of document most of the very reasons for government as found in the Preamble.
Posted by: Gregory Wonderwheel | July 25, 2008 1:05 PM
The last two commenters have demonstrated the point of this post better than anything I could say. To paraphrase them: "Who cares about meaningful intellectual distinctions, the other side is evil and stupid and un-American." When those on the right engage in such shallow thinking, we rightly criticize them for it; it's no less shallow when those on "our side" do it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 25, 2008 1:08 PM
Gregory Wonderwheel manages to miss the point rather spectacularly. Klein grouped together Cato with the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, put all three under the label "Friedmanite" (for Milton Friedman) and claimed that all three have been in favor of "harness[ing] the full force of the U.S. military machine in the service of a corporate agenda." But the Cato Institute was staunchly opposed to the war in Iraq (and virtually every other war that is not fought explicitly for self-defense), as was Milton Friedman himself. If you cannot see that this is painting with a brush that is not only too wide but wildly inaccurate, there really is little point in trying to carry on a rational conversation with you. If you're going to criticize an organization for advocating using the US military to advance a corporate agenda, you certainly shouldn't include in that criticism an organization that advocates a dramatic shrinking of the defense budget and virtual isolationism. If you do include them, you will rightly be viewed as an ignoramus.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 25, 2008 1:13 PM
Not that Ed hasn't already addressed this, but:
That is the whole freaking point. Klein picks out a bunch of libertarians and goes around calling them neoconservative without bothering at any point to examine their views and see whether they fit the neoconservative label at all. She doesn't say anything about libertarianism at all, because she ignores the fact that it is a distinct political philosophy from neoconservatism.
Posted by: nicole | July 25, 2008 1:23 PM
"When Political Labels Become Useless"
...about a nano-second after their conception.
Posted by: Spike | July 25, 2008 1:33 PM
Take a look at any of the blogs that discuss taxonomy of organisms, like the recent one about humans descending from "monkeys" or monkeys: Professional biologists are in rational disagreement about how some animal with forward-looking eyes, opposable thumbs on hands and feet and a prehensile tail should be classified - even when the physical, genetic and other factors are static (by that I mean, not subject to change at the whim of the animal being studied).
How could anyone really come up with a rational political label when all of the components of political POVs are dynamic?
Posted by: Spike | July 25, 2008 1:43 PM
it's not "who cares about meaningful intelligent distinctions", but that those ARE meaningful intelligent distinctions... you just don't agree with them... easier to label them as shallow. :)
it doesn't change the fact that it was an accurate portrayal of basic conservatism as we see it today.
perception over reality - saddam hussein was a direct threat to the safety and security of the united states
unhealthy psychological issues - gays and the unhealthy obsession with them, women are to be subservient
greed - enron, trickle down economics
a complete denial of reality faced by people not only in this country, but in the world - from being against welfare programs to foreign aid, the denial that gun bans are effective as are trigger locks, etc
a turn towards religion that just highlights much of the above - abortion, creationism
and that's just to name a few.
Posted by: arin | July 25, 2008 1:47 PM
arin, I am not sure what your point is here.
Re: Saddam Hussein—as has been pointed out, Friedman was against the Iraq war.
Re: gays and women—this has nothing at all to do with Friedman's views.
Re: greed—Friedman was against corporate welfare and rent-seeking.
Re: religion, abortion, creationism—again, nothing to do with Friedman.
Friedman also favored a negative income tax for the poor, for what that's worth.
So yeah, what you describe might have to do with modern conservatism, but what does it have to do with Milton Friedman, the ostensible subject of Klein's book?
Posted by: nicole | July 25, 2008 2:24 PM
So Ed, mind maybe addressing my question? You've asserted that somehow "free markets" would prevent monopolies without government intervention and seem to be even implying that monopolies are formed by governments. It is certainly true that governments, either pushed by people, or by corporations can, and do help set up monopolies sometimes. But they are also the only thing preventing monopolies from being set up.
If you can't make a simple argument on this point in a short comment, point me to a book or paper, since I'd really like to know if there is even an actual argument here. Many people I see talk about "free markets", talk of them in the same way people used to talk of communism back in eastern europe, i.e. as the magical pill that will solve everything. And yet I'm aware of no capitalist country where monopolies have been limited by anything other then explicit government action which makes it of course not a completely free market anymore.
Posted by: Coriolis | July 25, 2008 2:31 PM
@nicole: it had to do with addressing the statement: "Why not take the views of others seriously and address them on their merits, rather than blurring together, clinically labeling, and demonizing people one disagrees with?" and based on modern conservatism, these aren't people whose views are worth taking seriously.
as for friedman, anyone who thinks that a ~free market~ is based on anything but greed is completely ignoring human nature.
Posted by: arin | July 25, 2008 2:46 PM
The battle of labels.... ugh....
I've been having this problem between myself and those I argue against Bush and his policies on the community blog I post at. I call these people "Bush-Nationalists" as not to confuse them with what I perceive as the larger conservative movement. I understand there is dissent and difference of opinion under the general umbrellas we pigeonhole people commonly with.
I define a Bush-Nationalist as someone who conflates their understanding of patriotism, to their uncritical support to just about everything Bush, especially when attempting to refute the criticism from liberals. And even the label I created, Bush-Nationalist is not precise enough. Ugh....
Posted by: Matthew Pickard | July 25, 2008 3:37 PM
arin: You're saying, "I don't have to differentiate between the different groups that support the war, oppose abortion, and want to oppress gays." And I'm saying, so what the hell does that have to do with someone who had none of those political views?
Everyone knows that people who are pro-free-market believe that the pursuit of self-interest creates benefits, so I don't know what makes you think that Friedman denied the existence of greed. And as I explained above, he was vehemently against rent-seeking, which is what capitalist greed causes when the government gets involved and which distorts, not supports, free markets.
I have no interest in trying to argue you into libertarianism. But the entire point of Chait's article, and Ed's post, is that Klein spends an entire book lying and making false implications about Milton Friedman, and you are saying, "it doesn't matter, because I don't care what Friedman actually thought." Yeah, that's really logical.
Posted by: nicole | July 25, 2008 3:48 PM
Coriolis wrote:
Actually, I asserted no such thing. I didn't say that the free market prevents monopolies, I said that the government often encourages monopolies rather than preventing them by subsidizing those big businesses that contribute large amounts of money to those in power, thus giving big business an enormous advantage over their competitors and locking newer, smaller and often more innovative companies out of the market. Sometimes this is done with direct subsidies and tax breaks, other times it's done through regulation that amounts to rent-seeking. That doesn't mean that government shouldn't have anti-trust regulation to prevent monopolies, it means that government shouldn't be in the business of supporting big business over their competition. We've seen antitrust regulation gutted over the past few decades and we've seen both parties encouraging monopolization and distorting the free market by showering their corporate benefactors with hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers every year. And libertarians, contrary to popular myth, are not in favor of anything that helps big business; in fact, they are quite opposed to this kind of corporate welfare because it benefits big business at the expense of the consumer and it eliminates all of the benefits of a free market while encouraging the worst aspects of a distorted market.
Well I'm certainly not one of those people who thinks a free market is some sort of panacea. Like all things, a free market has positive and negative effects. I also do not believe, as admittedly many libertarians do, that the government has no regulatory role to play in markets at all. There are some externalities that are not only not controlled by a free market, they are encouraged by it. But the kind of corporate welfare I'm talking about distorts the free market by eliminating all the beneficial aspects of them by eliminating competition. Competition spurs innovation and keeps prices from going too high; lack of competition does the opposite. By favoring well-connected corporate giants with billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies and tax breaks, the government reduces competition and does away with those beneficial effects. What libertarians recognize is that government subsidies and rent seeking are ways the government gives big business an unfair advantage over smaller, often more innovative companies that may well have better products and services but don't have the capital resources to take on a company that dominates their particular market. From an economic standpoint, that's very bad for consumers and very bad for the country. Yet it is precisely this kind of subsidy and rent seeking that is fed into by Democrats and Republicans in every single federal budget. A free market doesn't necessarily mean a market with no government regulation; it means, or should mean, a market in which there is a reasonably level playing field. At the very least, it should mean a market where the government is not privileging one company over another solely by virtue of that company being rich enough to buy off legislators.
It occurs to me that you have read more into my comments than I intended by them. Saying that the government should not distort the market and reduce competition by subsidies that encourage monopolization is not the same thing as saying that government should not protect the market from monopolization through antitrust legislation.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 25, 2008 3:50 PM
The reactions to Ed's post demonstrate that it is extremely difficult for hardened partisans to incorporate information that doesn't fit neatly into their preexisting conceptions of the world. They deny data that runs contrary to their beliefs rather than modify their inadequate conceptualizations.
Here is a report on relevant research conducted by psychologist Drew Westen. Westen has looked extensively at the influence of irrational and unconscious processes in political preference. The report refers to evidence of powerful biases, diminished rational processing and a pattern of denial when partisans, both left and right, are confronted with contradictions that reflect negatively on their own political candidates.
Posted by: Dr X | July 25, 2008 3:59 PM
Alright, I misread what you said (you managed to sneak in "competition" in between free markets and stopping monopolies), although in my defense it is hardly an uncommon assertion among people who make a big fuss over free markets. Certainly I can agree with you that competition is good and that it is often destroyed by both democrats and republicans.
However, to me it is important to realize that even without any government intervention, the accumulation of vast capital by particular corporations, whether they did so through original innovation or government subsidy, eventually always leads to lack of competition as newer companies with less capital get snuffed out. And the only way I know of to stop that is basically through some type of anti-trust government regulation. Which we seem to agree on basically, although you appear to be putting less emphasis on the inherent destruction of competition in a long term free market, as monopolies are set up, compared to me.
Posted by: Coriolis | July 25, 2008 4:04 PM
I have never understood why the mention of (small l)libertarianism seems to drive some people crazy. The insinuation by another poster that I am evil and greedy because I place a high value on freedom and liberty makes no sense.
On another board I participate in, a group of non historians has been studying each of the Presidents one at a time starting with Washington. Many of those posters have been amazed at the libertarian principles espoused by Presidents such as Madison who would veto federal bills because they included spending for roads which he felt was unConstitutional.
Posted by: Mike | July 25, 2008 4:46 PM
Coriolis wrote:
Certainly it is inevitable that some companies are going to do better than others and build up more capital and resources than newer companies, which gives them an automatic advantage. But that is a simple reality that cannot be prevented, just like some people are going run faster or jump higher than others. But that doesn't necessarily lead to monopoly or shut out competition. In lots of industries, there are companies that have a very strong market share but still have viable competitors that exploit niches. Sometimes those smaller companies even end up flipping the scales and end up owning the greater market share if they do what they do well enough. The playing field will never be perfectly level, but as long as the advantages gained by some in the market are gained as a result of honest competition and not subsidy, the playing field can be level enough to promote the benefits of the market. At the very least, we should not tolerate the government encouraging and promoting lack of competition by unfairly privileging one company over others. That's when we get the worst possible outcome.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 25, 2008 5:48 PM
However, to me it is important to realize that even without any government intervention, the accumulation of vast capital by particular corporations, whether they did so through original innovation or government subsidy, eventually always leads to lack of competition as newer companies with less capital get snuffed out.
This is simply not true. Did IBM snuff out Microsoft when IBM was the 500 pound gorilla and Microsoft was a handful of geeks? Did Microsoft snuff out Google or Yahoo? New companies come along all the time and take away some of a big company's business. Big successful companies are pretty much by definition making a lot of money and other people want to get their hands on some of it. That's how markets work against monopolies and sort-of monopolies.
In the early 70s the American Big Three auto companies made lousy, expensive cars. But then people began importing Toyotas and Datsuns (now Nissans). They were cheaper and better built and they put a real dent in the American companies' profits. One reaction of the companies was to try to enlist the government to keep out these competitors. And the American government did indeed put significant limits on them for a long time.
It's nice to think that governments are the good guys, regulating in the public interest. Alas, government actions often make it easier for established firms, and harder for new people to challenge the incumbents.
Posted by: Roger Sweeny | July 25, 2008 5:53 PM
From what I've seen, calling any form of conservatism an "intellectual" movement automatically disqualifies her.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 25, 2008 6:26 PM
@nicole: i'll try this again... my original comment was in response to another comment in the thread on how labels are used incorrectly to define each "side". and again, it's not incorrect when it's accurate. the other side being "conservatism", not "libertarianism".
but you are right, i don't take milton friedman seriously in the slightest, as i don't support any system based sheerly on greed.
Posted by: arin | July 25, 2008 6:51 PM
Coriolis wrote:
Coriolis, this is empirically wrong. I doubt you can point to any examples of a free market monopoly (I know of one, but I won't name it, for a reason I'll give at the end). However I can name a number of monopolies and cartels that exist only because state or federal government authorize them by law and actually outlaw competitors. The vast, overwhelming, number of monoplies and cartels are government protected, rather than free market ones.
It seems, on the face of it, logical that a corporation could amass enough capital to wipe out all competitors, but there is a reason why free markets--when government does not restrict, but allows competition--tend to not create monopolies, or at least not ones with more than a very short lifespan.
Competition causes businesses to innovate, cutting costs and improving products/customer service, to get business. Only competition causes this. Economists claim the problems with monopolies are that they tend to raise prices and reduce quality/service, and they do so because they do not have to compete. Captive customers can't opt for another supplier, so the problem gets worse and worse.
And that's why monopolies in a free market do not last, they undermine themselves. The poor performance of a monopoly (while making extraordinary profits) causes potential competitors to see a good business opportunity--if they do set up in competititon, they can quickly take a large number of customers by providing better quality/service and lower prices. The only thing that can really stop them is if government prevents them from competing--in which case it's not a free market.
Again, it sounds reasonable that the monopoly with mass amounts of capital could then just cut prices and take losses for as long as it takes to ruin the competitor. But that assumes that price is the only area on which they are competing. People might be willing to pay the competitor's prices--even though they are no longer the cheapest, they are still less than they were accustomed to paying, and they are receiving better value for it. It is easy for a monopoly to cut prices, but far more difficult to change their corporate culture to improve quality and service--doing so takes much longer, too long to just run every would-be competitor out of business.
And then there's the empirical aspect. Although the amassed capital argument sounds compelling, it just doesn't happen. Oh, sure, a Wal-Mart or Starbucks might outcompete some local businesses and put them out of business, but they never--ever--manage to establish monopolies. It just doesn't happen.
Now I said I know of 1 business that has a free market monopoly (or close to it--a friend who worked there claims they have over 90% of the market, not quite a true monopoly, but close enough to call it one). Why won't I name it? Because if it was a problematic monopoly you would already know of it! in fact it's the exceptionally rare case of a company that has established and maintaind a (near) monopoly by continually innovating and never getting fat and lazy. And a monpoly like that is not actually a problem.
If anyone disputes this, and would like to name a free market monopoly, I'd be happy to continue the conversation (political economy is my favorite topic). You could email me at jhanley@adrian.edu, or we could continue it on my blog.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 25, 2008 9:43 PM
Matt Platte asked,
Matt, Cato was loudly criticizing the then-pending invasion of Iraq. Loudly. Very loudly. Particularly Ivan Eland. Their argument was not that "the administration is doing it the wrong way," but that, "the administration is doing wrong."Why, oh why, is it so hard for people to understand that libertarians aren't conservatives? Hayek even wrote a famous piece called, "Why I Am Not a Conservative." Conservatives blather about small government, but they actually like to use government--depending on their variety they like to use it to enforce moral values, to enrich corporations, or to subdue other countries. Libertarians oppose all those things.
Say it loud, and say it proud; Libertarians are not conservative!
Posted by: James Hanley | July 25, 2008 9:51 PM
Greg Pollowitz also has discussed a similar issue at National Review's media blog, but he makes a slightly different point as to how the label "neoconservative" has come to be used by some, particularly Joe Klein of Time. Quoting from Mr. Pollowitz:
Posted by: Kevin C. | July 25, 2008 11:06 PM
James Hanley has already given a pretty good breakdown, but I'll add my own observations as well, after all Ed isn't an economist so he can't provide the technical replys to some of the comments made above.
Monopolies tend not to form in unregulated or lightly regulated markets (I can define lightly regulated fairly precisely if you want me to) because in order to have a monopoly in the vast majority of industries you have to have barriers to entry. Without these barriers there's nothing stopping a new firm entering the market to challenge a monopolist. The only way they can keep their monopoly position is to lower their prices so much it actually mimics a competitive market.
There are some natural sources of barrier to entry (brand loyalty for one) but these are pretty weak. The real source of barrier to entry is government, only the State has the power to grant a favoured business (or group of businesses) an exclusive franchise over an industry. Often this is done under the auspices of environmental or quality regulation (I do think there is a place for such regulation, but it must be handled with a deft touch), which leads well meaning liberals to unwittingly support greater corporate wealth, this is sometimes referred to as a "Baptists and Bootleggers" coalition by policy economists.
There is such a thing as a natural monopoly, though they're more common in smaller countries. There may be some reason to regulate these industries, but it is all to easy to make things worse with ill-conceived regulations.
Naomi Klein is to economics as Michael Behe is to biology. Taking her seriously would be unwise.
Posted by: James K | July 26, 2008 3:52 AM
I don't think most people who are overusing "neo-con" even know that most of the early neo-cons were Jewish; I doubt that thought even enters their mind. The problem is that many on the left are doing to neo-con what the right has done to the word "liberal." They're making it a general epithet that really just means "them - everyone I hate." Klein lumps everyone that she disagrees with together in one big pile and inaccurately applies a label to them that simply doesn't fit. And one of the big reasons for this is because far too many people still think inside of a simple right vs left frame. But the reality is that there are entirely coherent ways of thinking that lie outside that frame and libertarianism is the most prominent among them.
When one thinks only in terms of left and right, it becomes far too easy to fall into the lazy habit of presuming that everyone on the other side of the fence from you has the same set of beliefs. And then you have this group that, from inside of that frame, becomes difficult to categorize. Yes, libertarians tend to agree with at least the rhetoric (though often not the actual behavior) of conservatives when it comes to wanting smaller government and less regulation, but they also tend to be staunchly opposed to wars of aggression or preemption, opposed to morals legislation, zealously protective of the constitution, in favor of separation of church and state and wary of the abuse of executive authority. Libertarians have loudly opposed Bush on the war in Iraq, on his unconstitutional signing statements, on the suspension of habeas corpus, on warrantless wiretaps, on the existence of Gitmo, on torture, on the expansion of executive authority and many other things that the neo-conservatives tend to support and defend. Lumping them together - especially on the specific basis that they allegedly support using the military to serve a corporate agenda - is patently absurd. And frankly, I think those who do it do so out of intellectual laziness and an inability to think outside the frames around which they've built their ideology. They feel the need to build up the opposition into a single monolithic evil, without regard to obvious and deep distinctions and disagreements.
The irony is that when those on the left do this they seem blissfully unaware of just how closely they are emulating many on the right. This is precisely the sort of behavior engaged in by many conservatives when they claim, for instance, that the left is "post-modernist" and "relativist" in its thinking. Well yes, there are some post-modernists on the far left, but they tend to be concentrated in a particular subset (academics, particularly in the humanities) and they are by no means the majority. There are other factions on the left that are staunchly opposed to that kind of thinking - hence the Alan Sokal hoax, which made that huge difference of beliefs bold and clear (hence also Paul Gross, staunch critic of anti-reason views on both left and right). In my experience, the very same people engaging in this type of thinking on the left find it laughable when those on the right think in the same manner - they just can't see that they're doing the same thing.
It's like one of those fanatical sports fans of one team who thinks that no one on their favorite team could possibly do anything wrong - but who laughs at the fans of their rivals who think the exact same thing about their team.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 26, 2008 8:40 AM
Did Friedman go around the world advocating for big business interests (ala Chaquita Banana) to the detriment of the laborers of those businesses and their fellow countrymen and women; or did he not...
That is Klein's point. The Iraq war is an extension of those "business first" policies. She is not saying that Friedman advocated for the war directly, but that his policies of putting businesses' needs before individuals' needs paved the way for big oil to get in the driver's seat in Iraq.
Posted by: bilsemon | July 26, 2008 10:41 AM
I saw in a comment above someone saying that Cheney and Rumsfeld shouldn't actually be characterized as neoconservatives. Is this so? I suppose I've been lazy in regards to finding out how political labels apply as well, but I thought these two were quintessential neocons. I suppose my impression of neoconservativism is that it is essentially American jingoism; the point of view that America's military hegemony and [sarcasm]clear superiority of its people [/sarcasm] justify a unilateral foreign policy agenda and indifference to the status of foreigners in regards to human rights. Is this characterization at least in the ball-park?
I also think part of the problem with lumping various conservative movements together may stem from the incredibly tight-knit political front Republicans presented up until Bush's popularity tanked. If the whole party isn't neoconservative, why did they work so hard to push the neoconservative agenda as a team? Of course, if my understanding of what constitutes neoconservativism is off-base, this observation would be completely irrelevant.
Posted by: Dan L. | July 26, 2008 2:16 PM
The problem with vague bullshit like this:
"it's not "who cares about meaningful intelligent distinctions", but that those ARE meaningful intelligent distinctions... you just don't agree with them... easier to label them as shallow. :)
it doesn't change the fact that it was an accurate portrayal of basic conservatism as we see it today.
perception over reality - saddam hussein was a direct threat to the safety and security of the united states
unhealthy psychological issues - gays and the unhealthy obsession with them, women are to be subservient
greed - enron, trickle down economics
a complete denial of reality faced by people not only in this country, but in the world - from being against welfare programs to foreign aid, the denial that gun bans are effective as are trigger locks, etc
a turn towards religion that just highlights much of the above - abortion, creationism
and that's just to name a few."
Is that it can be applied in both directions.
perception over reality - the idea that a welfare program designed to exclude the working poor by kicking you out if you end up with a minimum wage job is going to universally help ALL poor instead of favoring lazy bastards who have no intention of getting a job when the best it will do for the working poor is to give them some support money while they're in between jobs.
unhealthy psychological issues - the idea that a gun ban is a good thing because seeing to it that the population has no efficient means of self-defense makes one feel less paranoid, even though no evidence is out there to display that a gun ban/gun control leads to lower rates of violent crime. Also, believing that nuclear power is by default, t3h evil, and thus, should not be researched to see if it can be made safer but should simply be avoided at all costs.
greed - Thinking that taxes aimed at a welfare program to help those who are refusing to get a job should be levyed upon the middle class so the rich, democratic politicians do not have to actually pay to support their oh-so-noble cause.
a complete denial of reality faced by people not only in this country, but in the world -
An insistence that gun bans are effective despite the fact that the places in the US with a pistol ban have higher crime rates than the rest of the country - and, for that matter, that in virtually every country where a gun ban occurs other violent crimes rise up and fill the gap where gun crimes used to occur, and tend to exceed that gap. Instead, it is necessary to ignore this and look at a country's violente crime rates prior to and after the ban and instead compare cross-country, ignoring the million other variables that account for crime rates. Ignoring that a welfare program that is not designed to help the working poor is going to be abused by leeches. For that matter, supporting a political system that denies the existence of racism against white people and sees to it that they cannot seek reparations or legal help if they are denied a job on racial grounds, because it's not pretty to think that racism is a multi, rather than a one-way street. A turn toward woo which reflects the fuzzy thinking - astrology, 'herbal healing' rather than the corrupt 'western medicine.' Need I go on?
The point being, I am no fucking neo-con and I still could go back and forth with a given person for HOURS with similar vague bullshit about all the problems with the 'left' when they listed problems with the 'right', and this when I'm not what I would consider part of the 'other side', anyway. Since I'm no doubt going to be called out on what exactly my politics are if I'm not a neo-con - I'd consider myself a political moderate with leanings that range from libertarian to social liberal depending on the issues. I tend to think that government should be non-interventionist for the most part and leave things well enough alone rather than trying to 'fix' them and breaking them more than they're already broken, but I couldn't call myself a full-blooded libertarian since I feel that there are issues where the government should intervene - and ones where the government has already stuck its ugly head in and now needs to pull it out since it now holds up archaic policies that do damage in the current time, though they were useful in their time.
Posted by: Thomas M. | July 26, 2008 2:18 PM
well, no, see, that's the point, i'd not go back and forth with you on the issues at all.
Posted by: arin | July 26, 2008 6:49 PM