Naomi Wolf doesn't understand economics. Her take on Milton Friedman is proof.
But all is not lost ... Naomi Wolf is starting to see the light.
A (comparatively) cheerful post, for once: Naomi Wolf and the Tea Parties
My feelings towards the Tea Party movement, and the public protests against the current administration's policies in general, have generally been favorable but pessimistic: It's nice to see a popular movement opposing the galloping statism of the bailouts, the stimulus, and health care "reforms," but my expectation has been that the movement would be taken over and neutered by establishment conservatives or simply fade away once Obama was out of office. I remember the Right during the Clinton years, and there was a lot of simmering antistatist anger that I still think might have remained a significant force were it not for the fact that the growth of government and outrages like Waco and Ruby Ridge became too identified with the Democratic Party and especially with a specific person, Bill Clinton, rather than with statism as such.
The hostility to the Tea Party movement shown by the media and liberal political establishment has been more ferocious than anything I can remember in American politics in my lifetime. It should never be forgotten that, beneath the cheery blather about "dialogue" and "conversation," the romantic rhetoric about average Americans making themselves heard, and the sticky spots on the backs of their cars where their "Dissent is Patriotic" bumper stickers used to be, mainstream American liberals/progressives are every bit as intolerant, hysterical, and fascistic as any neocon.
She's commented on the movement in this article and in an interview at Truthout, and I was favorably impressed. She points out some essential issues that are usually ignored in commentary on the Tea Parties, such as the tension between the movement's libertarian-leaning members and establishment conservatives. She also points out the fact that the Tea Parties began not because of the health care debate, but from opposition to the hundreds of billions spent by both parties on bailouts and government "stimulus"- an orgy of cronyism and corporate welfare that makes the Democratic Party's condemnations of greedy "special interests" seem like a bad joke. She even has good things to say about the Tea Partiers' support for property rights and the right to bear arms.
Naomi Wolf is consistent in principle too. She's going after Obama for the same things she went after Bush. It's refreshing. We need more of that in this country.
Naomi Cries Wolf: NBC Entertains Theory of Bush Fascism on 'Today'
With 18 days to go in the presidential race, Friday’s Today show lurched to the far left and actually devoted five minutes (and space on MSNBC.com) to leftist author Naomi Wolf and her theory that under President Bush, America is undergoing a "fascist shift."
Co-host Meredith Vieira treated Wolf with skepticism, questioning her assertions that we’re in danger of a "police state," or a standing army overlooking American citizens, suggesting she might be "fear-mongering" to get Barack Obama elected with theories of a McCain-Palin police state, just as the McCain campaign has been accused of exploiting fear. But if years ago, an author suggested President Clinton was leading us into dictatorship, would NBC offered them five minutes, or simply ignored it as undignified? Vieira offered Wolf a free pass to offer long passages of her argument, and the word "fascist" wasn’t used by either party, as Wolf presented herself as a nonpartisan and non-ideological defender of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.
Naomi likes Tea Parties too.
Naomi Wolf Thinks the Tea Parties Help Fight Fascism -- Is She Onto Something or in Fantasy Land?
In her bestselling End of America, Naomi Wolf outlines the 10 warning signs that America is headed toward a fascist takeover. Using historical precedents, she explains how our government is mimicking those of Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin through practices like surveillance of ordinary citizens, restricting the press, developing paramilitary forces and arbitrarily detaining people.
JS: Why do you think the sides don’t understand each other?
NW: Frankly, liberals are out of the habit of communicating with anyone outside their own in cohort. We have a cultural problem with self-righteousness and elitism. Liberals roll their eyes about going on "Oprah" to reach a mass audience by using language that anyone can understand even if you majored in semiotics at Yale. We look down on people we don’t agree with. It doesn’t serve us well.
There is also a deliberate building up of two camps that benefits from whipping up home team spirit and demonizing the opposition. With the Internet there is even more fractioning since we are in echo chambers. With so much propaganda it is hard to calm down enough to listen.
And she gets it. More so than most "right pundits" do, anyways ...
Indeed, those who deride and dismiss this movement do so at their peril ... If you actually listen to them, instead of just reading accounts transmitted through the distorting mirror of the mainstream media, you hear grievances that are profound, as well as some proposals that are actually ahead of their time.For example, Tea Party activists, using a group called End the Fed, were among the first to focus critical attention on the unelected and unaccountable US Federal Reserve Board. Now legislation is being put forward to establish greater transparency at the Fed – surely a laudable outcome.
While those attracted to the Tea Party movement are a diverse group, some common themes emerge. They see a struggle for the soul of the Tea Party between true libertarians, who are worried about individual liberties, and traditional conservatives.
Many who spoke to me directly in my Facebook community believe that Congress is utterly broken and regard faith in either of America’s major parties as naïve. They view the Democrats and the Republicans alike as obstacles to change, drowning out the voices of the people as they kowtow to special interests. They are concerned about concentrated Federal control, spiraling debt, and the loss of individual rights.
Are they really wrong? After all, the movement took shape following the US government’s massive – and bipartisan – bailout of Wall Street banks. And, at a time when the Chinese government, America’s main creditor, has begun sending clear signals about its preferences for US domestic policy – even as it ignores American criticism of its human rights record – are the Tea Partiers merely being paranoid?
[F]or nearly a decade, concentration of executive power has threatened America’s system of checks and balances and given the Federal government the authority to spy on citizens, withhold information, and aggressively arrest and even Taser protesters – or to hire private contractors to do so. In these circumstances, the Tea Party activists’ focus on supporting states’ autonomy – and even on property rights and the right to bear arms – can seem like a prescient effort to constrain overweening corporate and military power in national government.
That is why the elites in general are so quick to ridicule this movement ... who are taking seriously the Internet-age promise that you don’t have to yield leadership to an established class of politicians and pundits.
Naomi "The End of America" Wolf is yet another great example of how "we the People" can come together, regardless of partisanship, on some of the most important issues of our day!
