Read other letters about this article
What difference does it make, really? Or are you making that silly old "Conservatism didn't fail, conservatives failed conservatism" bullshit argument that is the exact same one made by silly unreconstructed old communists who simply couldn't face up to the utter failure of that other pony-chasing ideology? Free market capitalism didn't fail because it was hijacked by corrupt people. It failed because it's an idiotic and simple-minded faith and greed-based economic ideology that you really have to be an idiot or a nutcase to believe in (or a sociopath to not care so long as you're raking in the big bucks). It has NEVER succeeded, unless your definition of success is massive short-term gains by corrupt assholes who rob everybody else blind.
A successful system has to be self-sustaining, no matter who's in charge, to be successful. We've had democracy in this country, however creaky at times, for 230 years. It's a successful system. It's self-sustaining. Not perfect, but successful (until fairly recently, but that appears to slowly be correcting itself, thus the self-sustained property). Free market economics is in no way self-sustaining, and thus successful. It depends on massive income and profit redistribution, accelerated deficit spending, and lots of fiscal tricks. And it always ends in a bust. So the fact that the latest bunch of Friedmanesque posers has done an even worse job of it than the previous bunch in no way changes the fact that the system itself is a failure.
But please, I'd love to know where it's succeeded.
Give up on the fantasy. Those ponies are illusions. You can't have a healthy system without tough rules that are enforced. Doesn't work in sports, doesn't work in business, doesn't work in science, doesn't work in engineering, and it doesn't work in economics. Why oh why is that so tough to grasp? It's really quite simple. Even a caveman can figure it out.