Calling Things What They Are: More From My Conversation with Naomi Klein
But after the camera crew stopped rolling, Naomi and I kept talking. Here's a transcript of part of that conversation...
Cusack: One of my favorite quotes is from Arthur Miller, who said: "An era can be considered over when its basic illusions have been exhausted." And with The Shock Doctrine, you are basically trying to shatter and obliterate the illusion of the neo-liberal or neo-con fundamentalist free market -- this official narrative wherein we not only are supposed to worship free markets that really aren't free, we must actually kill to feed them.
What the book rightly asks is what many have felt for a very long time: shouldn't we make a moral choice that you either make defense policy or you profit from it? I think that kind of transparency would be very important to have in the public sphere. Those people who go on CNN and are treated as impartial statesmen when, in reality, the book -- which is triple footnoted and sourced -- suggests otherwise. They did hold their former jobs...I guess by defintion they are statesmen....but if we are compelled to be honest we know they are other things as well... I'm speaking of people like George Shultz or Richard Perle.
Klein: Right. If we look at who the real intellectual engines of this war are, we'd see a web of people who are not simply the statesmen they appear to me but card-carrying members of the disaster capitalism complex -- shareholders, board-members and directors of companies that profit directly and enormously from war and other disasters --
Cusack: Who would these people be..?
Klein: Well, for instance, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq was a propaganda arm of the Bush administration, publicly making the case for the invasion of Iraq. And it was founded by Bruce Jackson, a vice president of Lockheed Martin who had been out of his job for just three months. Jackson stacked the committee with old colleagues from Lockheed -- Charles Kupperman, Lockheed Martin's vice president for space and strategic missiles was on it, and so was Douglas Graham, Lockheed's director of defense systems. And even though the committee was formed at the explicit request of the White House to make the case for war in the public mind, no one had to step down from Lockheed or sell his shares. Which was certainly good for committee members, since Lockheed's share price jumped 145 percent thanks to the war they helped engineer -- from $41 in March 2003 to $102 in February 2007. The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq was chaired by George Shultz, who wrote op-eds and went on TV beating the drums, and was presented just as this respected statesman. But Shultz hasn't been in office for decades. And in the meantime, he'd been working for Bechtel -- at the time he was calling for the invasion, he was still on its board, and since Bechtel is a privately held company, we don't know anything about his holdings. We do know that Bechtel was one of the biggest winners of the reconstruction game in Iraq, landing $2.3-billion in contracts.
Cusack: How about James Baker and the $1 billion kickback that the Carlyle Group used him to try to get from the government of Kuwait, which you wrote about in The Nation?
Klein: Right. I talk about the incredible power of the "formers." One of the distinguishing features of the Bush administration has been its reliance on outside advisers and freelance envoys to perform key functions: James Baker, Paul Bremer, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Richard Perle, Bruce Jackson, and so on. So you have Congress playing a rubber-stamp role during the pivotal decision-making years, and Supreme Court rulings treated as little more than gentle suggestions, while these mostly volunteer advisers have wielded enormous influence, especially when it comes to Iraq. Their power stems from the fact that they used to perform key roles in government -- they are former secretaries of state, former ambassadors and former undersecretaries of defense. All have been out of government for years and, in the meantime, have set up lucrative careers in the disaster capitalism complex. And because they are freelance government contractors, they aren't subject to the same conflict-of-interest rules as elected or appointed politicians. The effect has been to eliminate the so-called revolving door between government and industry and allow the disaster industries to simply set up shop inside the government, using the reputations of these supposedly illustrious ex-politicians as cover.
As you say, in the press, they maintain their credibility as statesmen -- their current, far more relevant work in the corporate world is almost never mentioned. You brought up Baker. He was Bush's debt envoy to Iraq while he was still a partner in the Carlyle Group, which is a major arms trader whose fortunes have exploded since the war. He was also still a partner at Baker Botts, which represents some of the largest oil companies in the world, as well as Halliburton. Kissinger is another classic example of the power of the formers because he's primarily been a businessman, not a statesman, now for some 25 years. He met with Bush and Cheney regularly making Iraq policy -- according to Bob Woodward, more than any other advisor. But who was he representing in those meetings? Kissinger has repeatedly put his business interests ahead of the public interest, most dramatically when he resigned as chair of the 9/11 Commission rather than disclose his list of corporate clients at Kissinger Associates.
Another example is Richard Perle. Richard Perle headed the Defense Policy Board. Just two months after 9/11 he launched a venture capital firm called Trireme Partners that exists to invest in the homeland security and defense sectors. One of his first investors was Boeing -- it sunk $20 million in Trireme. Meanwhile, Perle is using the Defense Policy Board to make the case for war. And of course Boeing was another one of the huge winners from the invasion of Iraq.
So I asked the question, "Why is it that we refer to Richard Perle merely as an ideologue -- rather than, say, as an arms dealer with an impressive vocabulary?"
Cusack: The question becomes one of intellectual honesty and basic morality. I wanted to talk about the players or the heirs of the Friedman legacy who are in the public sector today... The Grover Norquists and Bill Kristols of the world come to mind ...You also talk about the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute as pursuing the goal of the elimination of the public sphere and the total liberation of corporations.
Klein: I refer to the people in those think tanks as "the people who are paid to think by the makers of tanks" because a huge amount of the funding for these think tanks is coming directly from the weapons and homeland security industry. They are funded by some of the wealthiest families and the wealthiest corporations in this country so the question of intellectual honesty really has to come up. They exist in a strange intellectual gray zone where they get money in order to think. And besides, I'm not sure thinking really belongs in tanks.
Cusack: So you're saying that the Shultzes and the Perles and the Kissingers and the Jim Bakers of the world are embedded in the homeland security/privatized war economy?
Klein: More than embedded. I mean, they are it.
Cusack: I was trying to --
[laughter ]
Klein: Why are you trying to be polite?
Cusack: I don't know. I don't know. That's part of the problem, too: being polite with this immorality and not having the courage to call something what it is...The refusal of the Congress to challenge Bush in a meaningful way is proof of the Democratic complicity in the new economy. To name only right wing people is to ignore the central thesis of intellectual honesty as the first step in a long corrective march... So we'll have to talk about what Democrats are in on this game and name them, too...we'll have to get into that later.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Our needs are few, but our wants are endless. Someone's mom never said "no"...
This link might be better
http://www
Mr. Cusack,
Thursday I left a lecture on Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom and stumbled upon your interview within minutes. It made my day. It had been hard to take notes during the lecture what with all the eye-rolling I was doing.
This morning I woke up thinking that there was so much more to the Klein/Cusack interview that I wanted to know about. I'm glad you added this post.
When Lockheed Martin came up I had a quite a cynical thought:
Of course war is more profitable than welfare-to-work contracts----
http://72.
While nice of John Cusack to post this article and interview, he is preaching to the choir here. Most people who have read this article don't the need enlightenment of Naomi Klein's book. You need to get this out to the people who would rather cut their own ear off than miss an episode of American Idol or Dancing with the Stars.
Until someone finds a way to distill this crucial information into a sound bite for the unwashed masses to digest in a few seconds, it will never be heard by the people who need to hear it most.
Dear Mad, I've had an economics website for about two years now. The traffic I get is nearly totally from right wing organizations, Cyveillance, and even the office of the V.P.. Their curiosity, doubtless, stems from a need to reinforce their questionable ideas and or keep track of the doubters. In addition, the search strings records reveal a decided bias toward "free market" and anti socialism thinking, for instance "how do we get rid of Social Security?". I'm glad to say I disappoint them.
My point is that the right wing rank and file think they have the answers already. It is the left wing that shows a singular lack of curiosity about economics. Klein's book is vital in that regard. While most on the left are aware enough to call bullshit on Friedmanism, they are not equipped with the argumentative ammo to prevail in a debate on the issue.
By giving the left the tools, Klein enables the left to break the stranglehold held by the right and maybe influence a few of the less hard core along the way.
Can you please post the link to your website.
Thanks!
Great post. Many, many people don't understand econimcs on such a grand scale. While we are smart enough to know who the main profiteers are in this ghastly play, the numbers are pretty much Greek to me.
Klein's book really clears up alot and puts it into the proper perspective.
This is a frightening trend, and one of the most immoral there can be. It seems the major product produced by disaster capitalism are corpses. Human corpses.
Herrington, I don't know if there are enough moderates that can be swayed right or left anymore. From I have seen in your country recently is most people are so polarized and entrenched in their views, that views like Klein's are not going to be listened to.
Consider Chomsky, who I find to be an incredibly clear thinker, and one who backs all his statements with facts. He is considered a fringe player by the mainstream. Stop 15 people on the street and how many can tell you who he is.
I am afraid that the majority are too dumb or distracted or both to bother with reading a book like Klein's when they can watch Fox for 15 minutes a day.
My theory on disinterest in the importance of economics:
A- The general aversion to Math or anything related to numbers or logical deduction by the majority of the middle and lower class which stems by the horrendous state of education, especially when it comes to Math. The US methodology for teaching math is woefully lacking, and I have a suspicion that this may be by design. Why would the richest country and one of the most modern in the world score so low? Wouldn't it be as easy as studying the methods used by countries where they excel in this area and applying it here? But I digress.
B- Economics is taught only as tool of Capitalism and only from the perspective of Capitalism therefore becoming just an extension of Capitalism which is automatically connected to the construct of Companies or Corporations. Something that young students especially in the middle and poorer class feel so removed from that they see this entities to be just abstract constructs totally unrelated to them except as a source of a future salary. Add to this the intuitive perception of systematic conformity that these entities represent to them, and at an age where they are rebelling and seeking their self autonomy and individuality and you get the current result.
Maybe Economics should first be taught as a method of social trade, its role in enabling social cohesion and as one of the tools for charting the path of social development and then later narrowed into its different camps of practice and philosophies.
This is a cogent point. I do run into more and more people who are getting it, and this in a small "resource economy" town hitherto dominated by hand-to-mouth consumption of fish and forests (Southeast Alaska).
The common thread to the narrative, how they are finally becoming exposed to the urgency of the issue, is always the media. They are TV consumers par excellance, and they are just seeing enough of the REAL message to overbalance the lies and distortions of the usual suspects.
Many of them are very angry at being played for chumps all this time. I tell you, it's a relief for me, because I've been in hiding here, in order to even be hirable.
I think if enough of the real story is relentlessly inserted into the mainstream media and movies, the general population will be driven to the same realization curve we've been through (including, of course, the deep depression of realizing there's really a deep problem).
After seeing enough of this in the media, they will finally get it that FAUX can only pick around the edges for criticism.
I'd go so far as to encourage Kevin Costner to forego investment in green tech and help to educate the public with his money. When the problem is accepted, the change will come.
John, thank you for bringing attention to this important book by Naomi Klein.
I am half-way through and am most definitely SHOCKED!
It is very helpful to learn the history and the players behind our new war-driven Corporatist economy.
I also appreciate that other bloggers on Huff are writing pieces this week which relate to some of these people involved.
Connecting the dots and lifting the curtain away from The Wizard is exactly what we need.
Thanks, John. Keep the interview coming!!!!
If all of this doesn't scream for a third party, nothing does. The People can do that.
If this doesn't scream for the abolishment of lobbyists. Technology can do that.
If the People have a 24 hour webcast from each Congressman's and Senator's office, it would be a good start. After all, it is the People's house.
I am disappointed that the true circle here is not being drawn.
This whole process of fear and insecurity is not just designed to make money for the Corporations like Bechtel, Lockhead and Halliburton. The full story if that while these people make huge amounts of money, they are using the miliitary of the most powerful country in the world as their private army. So THEY receive the revenue from these adventures while the U.S. TREASURY picks up the tab for the military expense. It's a HUGE subsidy.
In doing this, they also (along with their Tax Cuts) take the money back from the ingrates who benefited from FDR's new deal (the American Middle Class) by bankrupting the U.S. Treasury. It is a major redistribution back to the rich, the sons of the rich and, like W, the grandsons of the rich.
At the same time they make it almost impossible for any future Progressive administration to turn things around before the Repugs find a way to weasel their way back into power once again to continue their march.
The circle is closed.
Dick
Yessir ! if EXXON want the war in Iraq or Iran then they should pay for it by hiring Blackwater and leave the American taxpayer out of it.
The "free market" is their tool... a somewhat less overt coercion than old-fashioned military conquest. Their motivations emerge from within the reptilian brain. See www.democr
HuffPo is censoring again.
Very good piece. We all need to become dedicated to the truth even at the "expense" on being "nice." I have often taught that being "nice" is being inauthentic and it will diminish life and even kill it.
Leeann
Yes,you're right, leeann, being nice (and PC) is killing us. It is the latest weapon in the silencing of the masses. It makes us afraid to speak the truth. No one wants to be called anti-gay, -semitic, -feminist, -black and on and on ad nauseum, even if members of any of these groups do the most horrendous things. Many offenders use the race/gende
Not to disagree with Ms. Klein, but Bechtel left Iraq just before the 2006 elections. They were getting shorted by the government and their work was under investigation. They finished most of their contracts, all but two out of nearly 100, but were only paid about 75% of the promised $3 billion. One of the jobs they were unable to complete was a hospital that Laura Bush had taken on as a pet (propaganda) project.
I've compared this stuff with the kind of legitimate business done by the mob, where actual work gets done without everyone on the project doing actual work, like on construction jobs dramatized on The Sopranos. I think Bechtel was used to getting more time tacked on and projects running over budget without a stink.
Not even all the rats are getting fed in this new economy. You have to push hard to get to the front of the line.
Bechtel's projects failed miserably when finally completed. The only reason they lost a mere 25% of their three BILLION dollars despite their horrible performance is probably due to the great folks in San Francisco (their headquarters) and the Bay Area, who staged mass protests there during the anti-war demos and were arrested in droves, drawing attention to Bechtel's war profiteering for months after charges were dropped against the demonstrators.
Perle was right when He said "WE WILL BE GREETED WITH A BED OF ROSES"!What He didn't say was"ALL THE WAY UP THE STEPS OF THE BANK"!!!
"we'll have to talk about what Democrats are in on this and game and name them too."
I'll give you some names, my senator, Diane Feinstein, and my representative, Susan A, Davis.
Rep. Nick Lampson D-TX22(Tom Delays old one)
I agree, Senator Feinstein is a collaborator of the first order. She slipped in for another 6 years in '06. Her rallying cry: save the redwoods for our children. Not that they were in anymore danger than they have been for the last 25 years. Hopefully it will be her last term in office.
Eisenhower warned us.
Does Naomi Klein support Hillary Clinton? Anybody?
Who cares? Really.
Hillary is in the same boat as the Bakers, Bushes, et al. She already voted for the start of a war against Iraq... you can draw your own conclusions.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
