by Naomi Klein
"The war in Iraq was never about Hussein, or terrorism, or even hegemony in any traditional sense. It was about Rumsfeld and Cheney, about Halliburton, KBR, and fleecing the treasury for as much as possible. It was about diverting the nation's wealth into as few hands as possible, for the benefit of those self-same entities (those making the policies being intimately connected--if not being one and the same--with those receiving the largesse). This raises the question, the philosophical quandary at the heart of the entire movement: is this really what is good for the country? It's a valid question, but here's the grim answer: for those who are the architects of this regime, the answer (despite the abundant evidence around us) is "Yes," because there is no difference between "the country" and them. In their minds, they are this country."
You probably think that's a quote from Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. You're wrong. That quote is from some of my own notes, written long ago as part of my brainstorming for an essay that never was written. Here's a quote from The Shock Doctrine:
"[John Foster] Dulles's various biographers have concluded...that the secretary of state was simply incapable of distinguishing between the interests of corporations and the interests of his country....As it pursues its twin obsessions of fighting terrorism and protecting the interests of multinational corporations, the Bush administration, packed with CEOs fresh from the boardroom, is subject to the same confusions and conflations....As proto-disaster capitalists, the architects of the War on Terror are part of a different breed of corporate-politicians from their predecessors, one for whom wars and other disasters are indeed ends in themselves. When Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld conflate what is good for Lockheed, Halliburton, Carlyle and Gilead with what is good for the United States and indeed the world, it is a form of projection with uniquely dangerous consequences....Asked to choose between private profit and public life, again and again they chose profit..."
Anything familiar in Klein's words? It's not a word for word agreement, but the idea behind each quote is the same. Which raises another disturbing question: If I knew, if I could figure this out, how is it that the rest of the world could not--until it was too late? If I could come up with that equation--given that I am not exactly the most motivated person, nor have I made exhaustive study of the matter--why did it take until 2007 for someone to write a book like The Shock Doctrine?
This is not to lay blame at the feet of Naomi Klein. On the contrary, Klein has done the world a great service by writing her book. She has spelled out in clear and accessible, yet sophisticated and well-researched, terms what the neo-Fascist movement of the past 40 years has been all about. Her book tells the reader not just what is, but where it came from, linking the barbaric actions of "conservative" politics today with Milton Friedman and his "Chicago School" disciples from way back in the day.
For instance, while growing up I used to hear much about the basket case states of South America, of how dysfunctional virtually every nation in Latin America was. The countries from Mexico on southward were jokes, the subject of snide punch lines about revolving dictatorships, worthless inflationary currencies, and "disappeared" peoples. Sure, I'd heard about how the CIA had helped kill Allende in Chile, but mostly it was a story of banana republics and people who couldn't govern themselves for shit. But did you know that not just the CIA, but Friedman and his disciples--along with the IMF, the World Bank, and corporations like Ford Motor Co.--were right there with them throughout Latin America during its tumultuous times? That the economic disasters in those countries were created by "Chicago Boys" working behind the scenes in support of the newly installed local dictators? That people were murdered not just because they opposed the generals, but because they fought against the looting of their countries by multinational corporations? And, most pertinent of all, did you know that the same creatures who came up with economic "shock therapy" for Bolivia and Argentina, and subsequently Poland, Russia, Iraq and others, have wanted all along to enact a similar program right here in the USA? And that, with the twin "crusades" of privatization and deregulation, they've largely enacted that plan here--with the consequences that we see today: widespread job loss, increased gap between rich and poor, corporate power ascendant, and an ever burgeoning police state?
Yeah, real funny. Ha fucking ha.
The joke, as it turns out, is on us, though perhaps we have not lost the battle forever. Klein ends her jeremiad with a hopeful chapter, relating stories from around the world about how the "shock wears off" eventually and the peoples of these victimized nations begin to reassert their rights and run their own countries and lives. Perhaps that is happening now in this country, where more than a few people have gotten angry over what has happened to this nation during the last eight years.
I for one am still worried. This November's election may go a long way towards deciding if the "shock" has worn off in this country, or if we're still under the corporatist sway. There are no guarantees it will get better if Obama wins (I recently read, to my horror, that Obama has someone from the University of Chicago as his economic advisor--a scary thought after reading The Shock Doctrine). But it's a lead pipe cinch that things will continue to worsen if McCain is the next president.
Hopefully, by November, enough people will have read The Shock Doctrine, will know what the corporatists have in store for them if they remain in power, and will choose the far, far lesser of two evils. If not, who knows who will be the next to be "disappeared" for the sake of someone else's bank account? Don't kid yourself: it has happened elsewhere, and it certainly can happen here.
Posted 9/6/08
Return to Politics Title List