Shock Doctrine

            Naomi Klein’s thesis in The Shock Doctrine was a new idea to me, but it was a logical one. Although many disputed her work and criticized her lack of sources and twisting of the facts, I think she made a great argument and proved it with multiple examples from reliable sources. Her thoughts on “disaster capitalism” reminded me of how, in times of war and strife, citizens are willing to give up their freedoms for safety. In the history of the United States, the central government has increased its power primarily by taking more power and citing war as the reason they need this power. This happened with Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War in justification for the Emancipation Proclamation. While this brought about a positive end, the disaster capitalism practices that take advantage of the country during a crisis do not. It is wrong to try to use the shock that people are in as a way to radically change the system. Often times, people want things to be restored, not tear down what little is left. The shock treatment, as Klein states, is authoritarian, and should not be implemented in places where there is a crisis that makes the conditions favorable for drastic change (like Louisiana). People in a crisis should be heard and given what they need, not what the government thinks they need.