Who would you support: a neo-liberal or small (r)epublican?

Note: This is a hypothetical question that has nothing to do with the 2004 election, so I think this belongs in GD.

There is a future contest between two people of opposing ideologies.

Let's say the first candidate is a neo-liberal. This individual promises further progressive legislation, and he or she makes it known that the social safety net will not be threatened.

However, being a neo-liberal, this candidate will preserve the status quo. The voters are to expect a foreign policy similar to Carter's and Clinton's--more refined and nuanced than that which was fomented under Bush or Reagan, but only different in terms of degree. If there are no wars (a la Korea/Vietnam/Iraq), then one should certainly expect interventions and covert operations(Chile/Iran/Guetamala/Haiti/Venezuela/Columbia etc).



Now we have the other candidate. This person is opposed to much of the legislative reform we have come to cherish in the past 70 years (primarily from 1933 to 1968). The survival of liberal policies are clearly under question, here.

However, unlike the neo-liberal, this candidate's predominant theme is restoration of the American Republic. Under this president, there would be no foreign adventures undertaken (unless national security demands it--and we're talkin' about a new definition of national security). He or she, if elected, would transmogrify the Pentagon, crush the more elusive elements within the CIA, convert our wartime economy to one of peace, and restore the Bill of Rights (he or she is not only an enemy of Bush's Patriot Act, but also of Clinton's '96 Anti-Terrorism Acts). His War on Terrorism would strictly be defensive: protection of borders, ports, nuclear plants, airports, rails, and cities (and its enforcement could never be construed as a threat against the Constitution).



As for myself--after reading the works of authors such as Chomsky, Vidal, Parenti, Blum, Zinn, and doing a bit of soul-searching--I would choose the small (r)epublican. I feel that the destruction of the National Security State--which has claimed the lives of millions worldwide since 1945--is an aim that must take precedence over all others.

But I might be wrong. What think ye?

Neo-Liberal is a social darwinist, who favors unfettered global capitalism and unregulated exploitation of labor, resources, and capital investments. All at the expense of environmental concerns, human rights, and community health.

by Noam Chomsky

excerpts from the book

Neoliberalism and the Global Order
Consent without Consent
Market Democracy in a Neoliberal Order
The Zapatista Uprising

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ProfitsOverPeople_Chom.html

:hi:

peace

But military intervention is often part and parcel to neo-liberalism.

Carter's emphasis on human rights is the only reason that they have any stock in discussions of IR. A Carter foreign policy, with economic (and, in extreme cases, military) sanctions for abusive regimes, would be a huge step forward.

The economic imperialism adgenda is more destructive than the wars. We plunge billions in to poverty via this unfettered mercantilism,
all the while claiming it "uplifts" poor nations through trade... whn
in fact, none of the wealthy nations got rich by opening their markets
but rather by protecting them.

I think this is what they call "the third way" - economic imperialism
and military empire "ruled" by left-centrism... the worst of both
political parties mixed in to one.

Seeing as how this is EXACTLY the choice we have before us today. I'm going for neo-liberal, because given the choice between someone running towards the cliff of our destructiong and someone walking towards it, I take the guy who is walking towards it. Gives me more time to persuade him to actually turn around and walk away.

Of course turning around and walking away from our own demise would mean embaracing the politics of progressivism and socialist democracy,a well-regulated market, clear checks and balances on corporations, and a philosophy of No American Left Behind, deserving or not rather than your problems are your probelms and every man for himself. It would require our ultimate aims to be human rights and social justice rather than global domination and the consolidation of wealth amount the top 1%.

And that doesn't look likely to happen. So, I'm voting for the guy who ISN'T sprinting full tilt towards our own destruction, though I acknoweldge that no one is actually moving away from that end.

We have a contest between a neo-liberal and a neo-conservative.