- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Because the market's response was to hire a bunch of people to muddy the waters and deliberately delay action on it. Global warming has been a theory at least since the 1970's, and a near-total scientific consensus since 1995.
If this was one of those instances where government should have intervened, Friedman should have spoken up.
In fact, I'll take that a step further, from the specific to the general: If you are widely considered the "father of a movement" and prominent people like Reagan and Thatcher are publicly invoking your name to support their own policies, and if you think those policies are not what you meant or intended, you have an obligation to speak up. To his credit, Francis Fukuyama has had the intellectual honesty to come forward and say that the neoconservative lunacy now being practiced is not what he had in mind.
Friedman was silent.
How does the free market deal about global warming? How does the free market deal with the destruction of fisheries, the destruction of biodiversity, the depletion of irreplacable fossil fuels and the erosion of topsoil--all cases where those who pay the price (i.e. people in the future) are not those who reap the benefits.
That his worldview was easily adapted to suit the ends of selfish, antisocial people and institutions is not necessarily his fault. (Though it seems like an obvious outcome to me.) But the fact that he stood by, apparently without objection, as they were so appropriated is certainly an abrogation of his responsibility as an intellectual.
