Recognizing that advocates of free markets had long been considered apologists for the depredations of big business, Friedman particularly emphasized his differences with corporate executives. He expressed continued frustration with a “failure to distinguish between being pro– free enterprise and probusiness,” arguing that the misunderstanding has “led persons opposed to par tic u lar existing businesses to oppose free enterprise.” Businessmen, Friedman argued, were constantly in search of special privileges. They worked relentlessly, and in demo cratic societies often with success, to obtain competitive advantage from the government. The result, he believed, was a cavalcade of specialinterest legislation that ultimately redounded to everyone’s harm. “Over and over again you have the big businessman who talks very effectively about the great virtues of free enterprise and, at the same time, he is off on a plane to Washington to push for special legislation or some special mea sures for his own benefi t,” he recounted. “I don’t blame him from the point of view of his business, but I do blame him because very often he is shortsighted and ultimately does himself more harm than good.” In an invocation of the dual villains of pop u lism, Friedman repeatedly argued that “the two groups that threaten the free market most are businessmen and intellectuals.” The one exception he carved out was for “small businessmen,” whose interests, he argued, consistently aligned with his own economic vision.

Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion, loc. 488