The meaning of neocon vs. neoliberal.

Started by Lone Pawn & Applegrove on another link:

Neoconservatives proper:

1. Aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy. to fight in places so that scorched earth policies will let Corporations step in and replace all welfare policies (No government influence in economy). And as to moralist invasions? Well a whole bunch of democracies are cutting up the world rather than allowing evil things like Islamist fundies from creating a unified Middle East. But people like Huge in Venezuela are not doing anyting undemocratic.. just anti elitist. So they are enemies too. And there is propaganda there too. Look at Bolton creaming his employees because they refused to find that Cuba was going to attack the USA or be an iminent danger. All the while Darfur is not touched. So far smoke & mirrors often. .

2. Some social conservatism.so that the welfare & the social needs are taken care of in a tribal way and not through government policy - so that liberalism can be undone and customary law will rule - a marriage of convenience for now..neocons had to get elected somehow.. they don't believe themselves in one hint of bible..they just see religious hierarchies as controlling things like the vote and the morality and narrow lives that no government programs will force for the people - someone has to pick up some of the pieces when the poor start to starve and die (and the middle class start to join the poor. Class warfare between the two can errupt when the elites stop paying taxes completely and the middle class find themselves buckling under paying all the taxes (for the roads where corporations drive their trucks - WHERE IS THE GAS TAX! Vat Tax replacing income tax will ensure that all illegal maids pay their taxes but that the rich 'dissappear'. And then between the class warfare, the desperation of poverty, the religious attacking their neighbours lives, people will be so busy snipping at each other and jockying for petty power or people's morals.. that nobody can get together long enough to vote a plurality or majority in the democratic fashion we are used to. Also, the undoing of empathy and its replacement with empathy only for people exactly like you (the end of the enlightenment) where good information is not imparted.. only ads by corporations. Ads for corporations are also the only place outside of a church where 'good' emotion is allowed to come into play..to use such emotion in a court case, or in a human interest story on the news, against a bad corporations is evil - BUT WATCH THEIR ADS WHERE THE DADDY COMES HOME AND PLAYES WITH HIS KID!

3. Some rejection of small-government.the neocons just got hoodwinked by the religious right with Terry Schiavo because the religious right got them into power and then the neocons refused to implement on any of the issues.. so the religious right is morphing one conservative policy (small government) to make itself feel powerful and less like chumps. The neocons meanwhile are doing their damnedest to bankrupt the federal government and 'break the back of the beast'. Then corporate schools, corporate news, corporate health, corporate retirement, corporate life is infused everywhere. And humans have no right to put a public good into the market (like environmental laws). According to the Utopia, the environmental polluters will be put out of business... I guess that means fewer customers but I don't exactly want to think about that. Perhaps we can all be on corporate cancer pills in the last half of our lives!!

4. Acceptance of the welfare state.the neocons have plans for people to be so poor that they 1) join the army 2) labor migration happens out of the USA to get rid of undesirables and excess people who want to be employed. Same as in the 19th Century when Britain said bye bye to Scots & Irish.


Neoliberals proper.

1. Free trade.

2. No government influence in economy.in time, the neocon 'democracies & local customary law will weaken federal governments & of course the UN etc. So that nobody is bigger or more powerful than the corporations and no government intervention will take place that could touch a corporations market (as in preventive health care or enough welfare to live on).


I believe that it is the neoliberal doctrine and the perpetual wars that will make the world the neoliberal one. Where corporations are supreme and human need is met at a local level. For now the neocons just associate with the religious right because it helps to get them elected, it helps to undo national liberalism, it creates tribalism which is good for corporations (when the tribes get together that is democracy and the elites, also a tribe, get taken down).

Neoliberal are what the neocons are. This association with the religious right is only until the government has been so bankrupted that all social programs are rolled away and people get nothing from the federal government and learn to hate it. Then the power resides in the hands of the corporations who decide what government programs are needed (an army if it is not yet private). And rules protecting he domain of each tribal leader & their power. Then the corporations can really pull down the rest of the world's social programs by playing people off against each other.. as capital flight does now.

who are sick of not having a label to fling at the oppostion.

The only group it fits already has a label: DLC.

There is nothing remotely liberal about your definition, so I'd suggest you bag the word in favor of the proper term: "DLC Democrats."

They just wanted a pejorative with the word "liberal" in it. It's like calling this present group in power "Christian." There is nothing remotely Christlike about a single one of them.

For sure the neocons play games with their name. And they drop the anti-semitic bomb when they want to 'rebrand' or 'disappear'.

I think it comes from the fact that all western countries are liberal democracies (traders).

I believe they destroyed the word liberal (for the democrats) so they could reorganize the whole political spectrum to their own use.

Up to us democrats & liberals to not fall for it and not hate the markets & the corporations which are, after all, tools that belong to human beings and not tools that belong to corporations. Some representing the most vile and sociopathic corporations would have us
believe that we as humans are not allowed to put a public good into the delivery system that is the most efficient in the world: the market. They want us to trade in good information like the environment and preventive health by word of mouth and not see it on the news or have regulations in place so the delivery on good information will be a done deal at the source of the problem.

Up to us to take back the word. And to take back the markets (that only work when the elites do not have too much monopoly power betweens them remember the dark ages. The markets were invent say 10,000 years ago (or longer). They belong to all of us.

It is not the other way around.

By going so black and white they hope to break the back of liberals and divide them into market likers (who would then vote neoliberal in the future) and market haters (who make up a small percentage of the Democrats and are Utopians). There are many more shades of grey. That is where we have to be. And where we have to take the fight.

As far as I'm concerned, daily existence, ideally, should take place in one's local sphere, in terms of consumption. It's too late to re-do what's been done, but you can take a dent out of the global free market, by producing a good and selling it locally, and supporting locally made goods.

I am for the free market -- and I'm neither a neo-liberal or a neo-con -- the closest thing that I am is an amalgam of a centrist libertarian and a left-wing minarchist -- if that makes any goddamn sense. As in -- I believe in the liberal (as in today's usage of liberal) critique, but not the liberal solution.

I believe taking back those markets, in today's corpo-fascist reality is divesting the market FROM the government.

don't necessarily have to be neocons.

Their goals are kind of oddly tangential of the other's, but I don't think the outcome for either, is the same. I think that the neoliberals are market worshippers, but I don't know what their foreign policy stance is -- as in, how much government interference they're willing to tolerate to secure oil fields in other parts of the world, etc.

Remember -- "big hegemony" sucks up taxes -- and that doesn't just include taxes from the middle class -- it also includes taxes from corporations, and the wealthy, who do share a considerable amount of the tax burden in this country (it may not be proportional, but it comes to a fair amount) -- I don't know to what extent neoliberals champion high taxes to support a militaristic society.

This is not to say that the neo-liberals are anarchists, because, mostly -- they're not -- they're champions of globalism and international treaties -- and one thing about the neo-liberals is that they actually believe that globalism, free market, etc., will bring about global social justice.

Neoconservatives are known for having a weak domestic program -- in my opinion, their domestic program is "whatever it takes to get them elected," and I'm not so sure that they're not even playing Bush, the Religious Right and some corporatists for the rubes they are -- which you DID mention, above. However, IMHO, the Neocons don't necessarily want a small government, and don't necessarily want to dismantle the welfare state. It's a careful balancing act to keep, on one hand, your corporate backers happy, on the other, a full-scale military program that intends to operate on many fronts.

And then -- there's the possibility of unrest -- in my opinion, Government's most salient application -- for the wealthy -- is providing the illusion of "social security," to keep the bulk of the human capital in line, lest they get wise to the "haves" and decide to pull a "third estate" kind of thing.

I'm pretty sure that between pandering to the delusionals, keeping the police state in check, controlling the media, and sucking up money for the giant pork project known as "the military," they're fairly happy with the government.

I think where the neo-liberals would want to tear down the welfare state, that the neoconservatives would be much more hesitant to do so -- for one: taxes, and for another -- keeping the masses relatively fat and happy is actually GOOD for the neocons, since their power is derived merely from idealism and their alliances with corporatists and the footsoldiers of the religious right.

Though, I'm sure, in exchange for continued corporate support, the neocons could probably be convinced to go along with some of the more wacky neo-liberal theories -- just to see what happens -- with a guarantee, I'm sure, that the military would continue to receive full funding.

I just feel sorry for those dumb freeps and the right-wing christians -- who are nothing more, in this scheme, than aggregate theory and push-button robots. Must suck to be them. Of course, they don't know it -- which, when encountering their bravado, only makes it sadder.

Neo = Pro Corporatocracy

They believe in "exporting revolution" much as how trotsky endorsed
the exporting of the marxist revolution.

The problem i have with both neoliberalism and neoconvict'ism, is this
exporting by force.

In the end, when the "exporting by force" factor is included, they are
both "colonialism" under a new brand name.

else in the world has to be democratic. American Elites are tired of being outdone by Saudi ones. So - I would guess - why they want democratic reform in Saudi Arabia (to kill off the tribals that the elites always create to keep power, to kill off the elites (democracy does that) that keep investing and buying up the USA with their petro-dollars).

I don't think the Saudis like this. I wonder who the 'money people' are that Rumsfield talked about today? The ones infusing the insurgents with money? If it was Syria or Iraq then Rummy would have 'spoken the country that has no name'. But if it is the Saudis trying to destabilize the 'democratic movement' in the ME (so they can continue with the petro dollars and funding tribals and keeping their was wealth till the oil runs out) then that could explain why the Prince was hand holding Bush.. and doing it in front of cameras.

ELITES GONE WILD!:popcorn:

See the neocons have been using Big Oil. Friendships fall apart.

Its more than american and saudi. It includes the british establishment,
the berlusconi mob, even this new asinine pope.

They are a revolution without borders, one that demands respect for
"THEIR" property, and their rules of enslavement. Indeed, that be
"democracy" these days. Frankly, as much as i'm not a putin fan, the
fact that he's told those chumps to shove off warms me heart.

Looks like the neocons had a plan to remake the world and they didn't fully inform the Saudis.

Democracy is a noble venture. Liberals have always been for that. But forcing it on a time-table will start wars of one kind or another. What if the Saudis **** off?

I mean they make out Chavez to be such a danger when really he is willing to trade in Oil, he just wants a better deal for the people and he got elected for that.

That is why the old way of diplomacy works cause you don't vainly call out what the game plan is before things are in place. You use a little finesse. By the time the Saudis would have realized that democracy was breaking out all over the place, Iraq would have been secured.

Thanks for destabilizing the world!!

Personal freedom and corporate responsibility...

describing the neo-liberals. I think you are describing the Third Wayers.

Google Third Way. I think you will find that fits your definition of neo-liberal better. Neo-liberals are neocons (well the Utopia version as opposed to the present ones).

Do you have a link for that definition? Cause it sounds nice.:cry: