|
Edited on Mon Feb-21-05 09:32 AM by skids
OK, I'll admit it. Despite a college education and leaning progressive, I'm an ignorant American. I know just about as much about world politics as I do about feminine hygene. So don't berate me too badly when I say I only picked up on the term "neoliberal" some short months ago.
For those just about as ignorant as I am, "neoliberal" is the term that, as far as I've been able to comprehend so far, a good portion of the rest of the world uses to describe political parties and organizations that are pro-corporate. That assessment may get on the nerves of a few who have adopted the label, but that's the way it seems to me just from glossing things over.
So are our "neocons" really "neoliberals"? Well, some parts of their philosophy seem to line up, but if you consider what they do rather than what they say, they don't. The whole limitation of government ideal is balefully neglected by the current "neocon" administration, and that part of "neoliberalism" would seem to be more in line with "paleoconservativism" if deeds are judged rather than words. However in looking at writings that try to tell the difference between "neocons" and "neoliberals" the primary difference cited is that neoconservativism believes neoliberalism must be acheived through a strong police/military push.
The bloat in government that results from the military buildup explains why neoliberalism would seem to be closer to paleoconservativism than neoconservativism on that one single matter. The neocon ideal would be to dismantle the police presence after global domination is acheived. The end result, in their dreams, would be identical to neoliberalism. We all know that won't happen, and a dictatorship/plutocracy would ensue (and that if a non-military neoliberal approach were to succeed, that would eliminate only the dictatorship, still leaving us with a plutocracy.)
To me this is splitting hairs. Shouldn't we call it like we see it? Or, if that would upset too many potential allies, shouldn't we emphasise the fact that the two differ by only a shade of meaning by coining another term, say "neolibcons"?
And if enough people started doing that, wouldn't it really piss them off to no end?
(Just as long as we keep using the words "soccer" and "football" in order to assert our Americanism, that is.)
(EDIT: I don't usually plead for recommendations, but this being posted so early, if you think it is worth discussion, might I suggest....)
|