10 thoughts on “The Da Vinci Doctrine: why Naomi Klein should team up with Dan Brown”

  1. Posted 07/10/2009 at 10:36 | Permalink

    And how does Klein explain Bush? The use of the terrorist attacks and events such as Enron and Worldcom as pretexts for probably the biggest expansion of state power in the economic (as well as the personal) sphere ever to have taken place in the US – other than that which occurred under LBJ and FDR.

  2. Posted 07/10/2009 at 10:36 | Permalink

    And how does Klein explain Bush? The use of the terrorist attacks and events such as Enron and Worldcom as pretexts for probably the biggest expansion of state power in the economic (as well as the personal) sphere ever to have taken place in the US – other than that which occurred under LBJ and FDR.

  3. Posted 07/10/2009 at 11:17 | Permalink

    For Klein, Bush is a Friedmanite. He contracted private security providers in Iraq, therefore Bush = private companies = capitalism = neoliberalism = Friedman. The trouble is that she is extremely ‘creative’ in her use of terminology. She labels anyone who is not to the left of George Monbiot a ‘neoliberal’, so she can always twist things her way.
    For example, she often speaks of ‘capitalism’ in a context where the correct term would be ‘corporatism’ or ‘cronyism’. Likewise with ‘neoliberal’ and ‘neoconservative’. When attacked on that, she replies something like “I have never explicitly said…”. Johan Norberg describes her techniques at length.

  4. Posted 07/10/2009 at 11:17 | Permalink

    For Klein, Bush is a Friedmanite. He contracted private security providers in Iraq, therefore Bush = private companies = capitalism = neoliberalism = Friedman. The trouble is that she is extremely ‘creative’ in her use of terminology. She labels anyone who is not to the left of George Monbiot a ‘neoliberal’, so she can always twist things her way.
    For example, she often speaks of ‘capitalism’ in a context where the correct term would be ‘corporatism’ or ‘cronyism’. Likewise with ‘neoliberal’ and ‘neoconservative’. When attacked on that, she replies something like “I have never explicitly said…”. Johan Norberg describes her techniques at length.

  5. Posted 07/10/2009 at 11:43 | Permalink

    Klein’s work is popular because it offer simplistic and total solutions to apparently intractable problems. Its a world where there has to be good guys and bad guys and no ambiguity. Its principle purpose is to confirm the prejudices of the left. What makes Klein’s work particularly pernicious is that much of her critique of thinkers like Friedman are ad hominem rather than based on what they actually do or say.

  6. Posted 07/10/2009 at 11:43 | Permalink

    Klein’s work is popular because it offer simplistic and total solutions to apparently intractable problems. Its a world where there has to be good guys and bad guys and no ambiguity. Its principle purpose is to confirm the prejudices of the left. What makes Klein’s work particularly pernicious is that much of her critique of thinkers like Friedman are ad hominem rather than based on what they actually do or say.

  7. Posted 07/10/2009 at 13:33 | Permalink

    It would be interesting to see a serious review article of the work of Ms Klein, George Monbiot etc and other assorted anti-market popular writers in Economic Affairs – or, better because it would reach a different audience – Standpoint.

  8. Posted 07/10/2009 at 13:33 | Permalink

    It would be interesting to see a serious review article of the work of Ms Klein, George Monbiot etc and other assorted anti-market popular writers in Economic Affairs – or, better because it would reach a different audience – Standpoint.

  9. Posted 28/10/2009 at 17:50 | Permalink

    Len, the review by Johan Norberg, mentioned above, is very good. Perhaps Standpoint should ask Cato for permission to reproduce it, or as Norberg to write them a version.

  10. Posted 28/10/2009 at 17:50 | Permalink

    Len, the review by Johan Norberg, mentioned above, is very good. Perhaps Standpoint should ask Cato for permission to reproduce it, or as Norberg to write them a version.

Comments are closed.