Friedman argued ordinary people, not intellectuals, preserved freedom in America

Evidence

Friedman studiously represented his freemarket philosophy as a manifestation of respect for the perspectives and preferences of average individuals, and worked to convince his sympathizers to adopt a similar approach. In a 1960 meeting of the Mont Pèlerin Society, he excoriated his colleagues for demonstrating a “lack of respect for the masses of the people” in frequent statements that “depreciate[d]” them and assumed that they were “ignorant.” He continued: “I think, if we look at the fact, we will come to the conclusion that the situation is almost the reverse. If by and large we ask why has freedom been preserved in our society, it is largely because the masses of the people has [sic] stubbornly stuck to basic values… . If the masses of the people would change and were as easily moved as the intellectual classes, I do not think, we would be living in a free society. — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion, 486

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Hayek’s skepticism about intellectual elites and to the broader Mont Pèlerin internal debates over ‘democratic’ strategy. — connects to: Friedman framed interventionists as paternalists and intellectuals as self-interested in power — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free…, 486
• SEED: Angle: how an elite intellectual society rhetorically positioned itself as anti-elitist champions of ‘the people’ — the populist turn of free-market advocacy.

Broader Connections

• Friedman framed interventionists as paternalists and intellectuals as self-interested in power #expands (0.85) — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion, 486