WHERE ARE ALL THE NEOCONS NOW ?
- Thread starter bryanz
- Start date
I went to college and was around New York in the early & middle 80s. It was a complete Hell hole, we used to really raz our buddies (from college) who were from New York about Koch & Dickens. If you went to a Yankee game & accidentally walked the wrong block, you were in serious trouble, New York was like that movie THE WARRIORS, no kidding.
Bryanz, we can agree to argue about taxes and things like that. But I think that we can also agree that this so called war in Iraq is a total sham, with no way of winning. We were lied into it and left weaker, as a country, for it. It is so costly in terms of lives and money that it over shadows everything.
Do you know how a so called traditional Republican Conservative can suuport this war and the deficit it has caused?
Do you know how a so called traditional Republican Conservative can suuport this war and the deficit it has caused?
My opinion things are best when you have either conservative or moderate dem as pres and the congress have slight majority of opposite party. Is the ultimate check and balance. (like last admin)
It is just a damn shame that most the money on the Dem side is controled by liberals making exposer for moderate dems non existant.
It is just a damn shame that most the money on the Dem side is controled by liberals making exposer for moderate dems non existant.
damn, you people are clueless when it comes to neoconservatism.
To be a "neo" conservative, one must have had to have been a liberal or a leftist at one time. No way the Facisists in power today EVER even sniffed the left at any time in their lives.
The neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad has been likened to the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution. Author Michael Lind argues that the neoconservatives are influenced by the thought of Trotskyists such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman, who argued that "the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois 'new class'". He sees the neoconservative concept of "global democratic revolution" as deriving from the Trotskyist Fourth International's "vision of permanent revolution". He also points to what he sees as the Marxist origin of "the economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism", which he describes as "Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history." However, few leading neoconservatives cite James Burnham as a major influence, as he differed with them on many issues.[2]
Critics of Lind contend that there is no theoretical connection between Trotsky's "permanent revolution", which is concerned with the pace of radical social change in the third world, and neoconservative support for a "global democratic revolution", with its Wilsonian roots.[3] But Wilsonianism does share with the theory of permanent revolution very similar concerns about the democratization of ostensibly backward parts of the world.
Lind argues furthermore that "The organization as well as the ideology of the neoconservative movement has left-liberal origins". He draws a line from the center-left anti-Communist Congress for Cultural Freedom to the Committee on the Present Danger to the Project for the New American Century and adds that "European social democratic models inspired the quintessential neocon institution, the National Endowment for Democracy."
During the 1970s political scientist Jeane Kirkpatrick increasingly criticized the Democratic Party, of which she was still a member, since the nomination of the antiwar George McGovern. Kirkpatrick became a convert to the ideas of the new conservatism of once-liberal Democratic academics.
During Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign, he hired her as his foreign policy advisor and later nominated her as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, a position she held for four years. Known for her anti-communist stance and for her tolerance of right-wing dictatorships (her criticism of which was often tempered, calling them simply "moderately repressive regimes"), she argued that U.S. policy should not aid the overthrow of right-wing regimes if these were only to be replaced by even less democratic left-wing regimes. The overthrow of leftist governments was acceptable and at times essential because they served as a bulwark against the expansion of Soviet interests.
Under this doctrine, known as the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, the Reagan administration initially tolerated leaders such as Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. As the 1980's wore on, however, younger, second-generation neoconservatives, such as Elliot Abrams, pushed for a clear policy of supporting democracy against both left and right wing dictators. Thus, while U.S. support for Marcos continued until and even after the fraudulent Philippine election of February 7, 1986, there was debate within the administration regarding how and when to oppose Marcos.
In the days that followed, with the widespread popular refusal to accept Marcos as the purported winner, turmoil in the Philippines grew. The Reagan administration then urged Marcos to accept defeat and leave the country, which he did. The Reagan team, and particularly the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, Elliot Abrams, also supported the 1988 Chilean plebiscite that resulted in the restoration of democratic rule and Pinochet's eventual removal from office. Through the National Endowment for Democracy, led by another neoconservative, Carl Gershman, funds were directed to the anti-Pinochet opposition in order to ensure a fair election.
In this sense, the neoconservative foreign policy makers of the Reagan era were different from some of their more traditionalist conservative predecessors, and from the older generation of neoconservatives as well. While many of the latter believed that America's allies should be unquestionably defended at all costs, no matter what the nature of their regime, many younger neocons were more supportive of the idea of changing regimes to make them more compatible and reflective of U.S. values.
The belief in the universality of democracy would be a key neoconservative value which would go on to play a larger role in the post-Cold War period. Some critics would say however, that their emphasis on the need for externally-imposed "regime change" for "rogue" nations such as Iraq conflicted with the democratic value of national self-determination. Most neocons view this argument as invalid until a country has a democratic government to express the actual determination of its people.
For his own part, President Reagan largely did not move towards the sort of protracted, long-term interventions to stem social revolution in the Third World that many of his advisors would have favored. Instead, he mostly favored quick campaigns to attack or overthrow terrorist groups or leftist governments, favoring small, quick interventions that heightened a sense of post-Vietnam triumphalism among Americans, such as the attacks on Grenada and Libya, and arming right-wing militias in Central America, including backing the Contras seeking to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.
Most importantly, Reagan took the opposite course from the neocons in relation to the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev, pursuing a conciliatory strategy toward disarmament and eventual liberalization as opposed to one of confrontation and rearmament. Reagan had made his most decisive break with the neocons in 1983 when he refused to remain engaged in the civil war in Lebanon and was at the same time generally indifferent to Israel. Many neocons became furious with Reagan for all of these reasons, most infamously, Norman Podhoretz came to liken him to Neville Chamberlain.
In general, many neocons see the collapse of the Soviet Union as having occurred directly due to Reagan's hard-line stance, and the bankruptcy that resulted from the Soviet Union trying to keep up the arms race. They therefore see this as a strong confirmation of their worldview, in spite of the accusation that they have largely rewritten this history.
To be a "neo" conservative, one must have had to have been a liberal or a leftist at one time. No way the Facisists in power today EVER even sniffed the left at any time in their lives.
The neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad has been likened to the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution. Author Michael Lind argues that the neoconservatives are influenced by the thought of Trotskyists such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman, who argued that "the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois 'new class'". He sees the neoconservative concept of "global democratic revolution" as deriving from the Trotskyist Fourth International's "vision of permanent revolution". He also points to what he sees as the Marxist origin of "the economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism", which he describes as "Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history." However, few leading neoconservatives cite James Burnham as a major influence, as he differed with them on many issues.[2]
Critics of Lind contend that there is no theoretical connection between Trotsky's "permanent revolution", which is concerned with the pace of radical social change in the third world, and neoconservative support for a "global democratic revolution", with its Wilsonian roots.[3] But Wilsonianism does share with the theory of permanent revolution very similar concerns about the democratization of ostensibly backward parts of the world.
Lind argues furthermore that "The organization as well as the ideology of the neoconservative movement has left-liberal origins". He draws a line from the center-left anti-Communist Congress for Cultural Freedom to the Committee on the Present Danger to the Project for the New American Century and adds that "European social democratic models inspired the quintessential neocon institution, the National Endowment for Democracy."
During the 1970s political scientist Jeane Kirkpatrick increasingly criticized the Democratic Party, of which she was still a member, since the nomination of the antiwar George McGovern. Kirkpatrick became a convert to the ideas of the new conservatism of once-liberal Democratic academics.
During Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign, he hired her as his foreign policy advisor and later nominated her as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, a position she held for four years. Known for her anti-communist stance and for her tolerance of right-wing dictatorships (her criticism of which was often tempered, calling them simply "moderately repressive regimes"), she argued that U.S. policy should not aid the overthrow of right-wing regimes if these were only to be replaced by even less democratic left-wing regimes. The overthrow of leftist governments was acceptable and at times essential because they served as a bulwark against the expansion of Soviet interests.
Under this doctrine, known as the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, the Reagan administration initially tolerated leaders such as Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. As the 1980's wore on, however, younger, second-generation neoconservatives, such as Elliot Abrams, pushed for a clear policy of supporting democracy against both left and right wing dictators. Thus, while U.S. support for Marcos continued until and even after the fraudulent Philippine election of February 7, 1986, there was debate within the administration regarding how and when to oppose Marcos.
In the days that followed, with the widespread popular refusal to accept Marcos as the purported winner, turmoil in the Philippines grew. The Reagan administration then urged Marcos to accept defeat and leave the country, which he did. The Reagan team, and particularly the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, Elliot Abrams, also supported the 1988 Chilean plebiscite that resulted in the restoration of democratic rule and Pinochet's eventual removal from office. Through the National Endowment for Democracy, led by another neoconservative, Carl Gershman, funds were directed to the anti-Pinochet opposition in order to ensure a fair election.
In this sense, the neoconservative foreign policy makers of the Reagan era were different from some of their more traditionalist conservative predecessors, and from the older generation of neoconservatives as well. While many of the latter believed that America's allies should be unquestionably defended at all costs, no matter what the nature of their regime, many younger neocons were more supportive of the idea of changing regimes to make them more compatible and reflective of U.S. values.
The belief in the universality of democracy would be a key neoconservative value which would go on to play a larger role in the post-Cold War period. Some critics would say however, that their emphasis on the need for externally-imposed "regime change" for "rogue" nations such as Iraq conflicted with the democratic value of national self-determination. Most neocons view this argument as invalid until a country has a democratic government to express the actual determination of its people.
For his own part, President Reagan largely did not move towards the sort of protracted, long-term interventions to stem social revolution in the Third World that many of his advisors would have favored. Instead, he mostly favored quick campaigns to attack or overthrow terrorist groups or leftist governments, favoring small, quick interventions that heightened a sense of post-Vietnam triumphalism among Americans, such as the attacks on Grenada and Libya, and arming right-wing militias in Central America, including backing the Contras seeking to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.
Most importantly, Reagan took the opposite course from the neocons in relation to the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev, pursuing a conciliatory strategy toward disarmament and eventual liberalization as opposed to one of confrontation and rearmament. Reagan had made his most decisive break with the neocons in 1983 when he refused to remain engaged in the civil war in Lebanon and was at the same time generally indifferent to Israel. Many neocons became furious with Reagan for all of these reasons, most infamously, Norman Podhoretz came to liken him to Neville Chamberlain.
In general, many neocons see the collapse of the Soviet Union as having occurred directly due to Reagan's hard-line stance, and the bankruptcy that resulted from the Soviet Union trying to keep up the arms race. They therefore see this as a strong confirmation of their worldview, in spite of the accusation that they have largely rewritten this history.
more....
Contrary to appearances, the neoconservatives do not represent a political movement, but a small, exclusive club with incestuous familial and personal connections.
What do William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, and Robert Kagan have in common? Yes, they are all die-hard hawks who have gained control of U.S. foreign policy since the 9/11 attacks. But they are also part of one big neoconservative family -- an extended clan of spouses, children, and friends who have known each other for generations.
Neoconservatives are former liberals (which explains the "neo" prefix) who advocate an aggressive unilateralist vision of U.S. global supremacy, which includes a close strategic alliance with Israel. Let's start with one of the founding fathers of the extended neocon clan: Irving Kristol. His extensive resume includes waging culture wars for the CIA against the Soviet Union in the early years of the Cold War and calling for an American "imperial" role during the Vietnam War. Papa Kristol, who has been credited with defining the major themes of neoconservative thought, is married to Gertrude Himmelfarb, a neoconservative powerhouse on her own. Her studies of the Victorian era in Britain helped inspire the men who sold Bush on the idea of "compassionate conservatism."
The son of this proud couple is none other that William Kristol, the crown prince of the neoconservative clique and editor of the Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard. In 1997, he founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a front group which cemented the powerful alliance between right-wing Republicans like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, Christian and Catholic Right leaders like Gary Bauer and William Bennett, and the neocons behind a platform of global U.S. military dominance.
Irving Kristol's most prominent disciple is Richard Perle, who was until Thursday the Defense Policy Board chairman, is also a "resident scholar" at the American Enterprise Institute, which is housed in the same building as PNAC. Perle himself married into neocon royalty when he wed the daughter of his professor at the University of Chicago, the late Alfred Wohlstetter -- the man who helped both his son-in-law and his fellow student Paul Wolfowitz get their start in Washington more than 30 years ago.
Perle's own protege is Douglas Feith, who is now Wolfowitz's deputy for policy and is widely known for his right-wing Likud position. And why not? His father, Philadelphia businessman and philanthropist Dalck Feith, was once a follower of the great revisionist Zionist leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky, in his native Poland back in the 1930s. The two Feiths were honored together in 1997 by the right-wing Zionist Organization of America (ZOA).
The AEI has long been a major nexus for such inter-familial relationships. A long-time collaborator with Perle, Michael Ledeen is married to Barbara Ledeen, a founder and director of the anti-feminist Independent Women's Forum (IWF), who is currently a major player in the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and another neo-con power couple -- David and Meyrav Wurmser -- co-authored a 1996 memorandum for Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu outlining how to break the Oslo peace process and invade Iraq as the first step to transforming the Middle East.
Though she doesn't focus much on foreign-policy issues, Lynne Cheney also hangs her hat at AEI. Her husband Dick Cheney recently chose Victoria Nuland to become his next deputy national security adviser. Nuland, as it turns out, is married to Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol's main comrade-in-arms and the co-founder of PNAC.
Bob's father, Donald Kagan, is a Yale historian who converted from a liberal Democrat to a staunch neocon in the 1970s. On the eve of the 2000 presidential elections, Donald and his other son, Frederick, published "While America Sleeps," a clarion call to increase defense spending. Since then, the three Kagan men have written reams of columns warning that the currently ballooning Pentagon budget is simply not enough to fund the much-desired vision of U.S. global supremacy.
And which infamous ex-Reaganite do the Kagans and another leading neocon family have in common? None other than Iran-contra veteran Elliott Abrams.
Now the director of Near Eastern Affairs in Bush's National Security Council, Abrams worked closely with Bob Kagan back in the Reagan era. He is also the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, long-time editor of the influential conservative Jewish publication Commentary, and his wife, Midge Decter, a fearsome polemicist in her own right.
Podhoretz, like Kristol Sr., helped invent neo-conservatism in the late 1960s. He and Decter created a formidable political team as leaders of the Committee on the Present Danger in 1980, when they worked with Donald Rumsfeld to pound the last nail into the coffin of detente and promote the rise of Ronald Reagan. In addition to being Abrams' father-in-law, Norman Podhoretz is also the father of John Podhoretz, a columnist for the Murdoch-owned New York Post and frequent guest on the Murdoch-owned Fox News channel.
As editor of Commentary, Norman offered writing space to rising stars of the neocon movement for more than 30 years. His proteges include former U.N. ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick and Richard Pipes, who was Ronald Reagan's top advisor on the "Evil Empire," as the president liked to call the Soviet Union. His son, Daniel Pipes, has also made a career out of battling "evil," which in his case is Islam. And to tie it all up neatly, in 2002, Podhoretz received the highest honor bestowed by the AEI: the Irving Kristol award.
This list of intricate, overlapping connections is hardly exhaustive or perhaps even surprising. But it helps reveal an important fact. Contrary to appearances, the neocons do not constitute a powerful mass political movement. They are instead a small, tighly-knit clan whose incestuous familial and personal connections, both within and outside the Bush administration, have allowed them grab control of the future of American foreign policy.
Contrary to appearances, the neoconservatives do not represent a political movement, but a small, exclusive club with incestuous familial and personal connections.
What do William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, and Robert Kagan have in common? Yes, they are all die-hard hawks who have gained control of U.S. foreign policy since the 9/11 attacks. But they are also part of one big neoconservative family -- an extended clan of spouses, children, and friends who have known each other for generations.
Neoconservatives are former liberals (which explains the "neo" prefix) who advocate an aggressive unilateralist vision of U.S. global supremacy, which includes a close strategic alliance with Israel. Let's start with one of the founding fathers of the extended neocon clan: Irving Kristol. His extensive resume includes waging culture wars for the CIA against the Soviet Union in the early years of the Cold War and calling for an American "imperial" role during the Vietnam War. Papa Kristol, who has been credited with defining the major themes of neoconservative thought, is married to Gertrude Himmelfarb, a neoconservative powerhouse on her own. Her studies of the Victorian era in Britain helped inspire the men who sold Bush on the idea of "compassionate conservatism."
The son of this proud couple is none other that William Kristol, the crown prince of the neoconservative clique and editor of the Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard. In 1997, he founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a front group which cemented the powerful alliance between right-wing Republicans like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, Christian and Catholic Right leaders like Gary Bauer and William Bennett, and the neocons behind a platform of global U.S. military dominance.
Irving Kristol's most prominent disciple is Richard Perle, who was until Thursday the Defense Policy Board chairman, is also a "resident scholar" at the American Enterprise Institute, which is housed in the same building as PNAC. Perle himself married into neocon royalty when he wed the daughter of his professor at the University of Chicago, the late Alfred Wohlstetter -- the man who helped both his son-in-law and his fellow student Paul Wolfowitz get their start in Washington more than 30 years ago.
Perle's own protege is Douglas Feith, who is now Wolfowitz's deputy for policy and is widely known for his right-wing Likud position. And why not? His father, Philadelphia businessman and philanthropist Dalck Feith, was once a follower of the great revisionist Zionist leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky, in his native Poland back in the 1930s. The two Feiths were honored together in 1997 by the right-wing Zionist Organization of America (ZOA).
The AEI has long been a major nexus for such inter-familial relationships. A long-time collaborator with Perle, Michael Ledeen is married to Barbara Ledeen, a founder and director of the anti-feminist Independent Women's Forum (IWF), who is currently a major player in the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and another neo-con power couple -- David and Meyrav Wurmser -- co-authored a 1996 memorandum for Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu outlining how to break the Oslo peace process and invade Iraq as the first step to transforming the Middle East.
Though she doesn't focus much on foreign-policy issues, Lynne Cheney also hangs her hat at AEI. Her husband Dick Cheney recently chose Victoria Nuland to become his next deputy national security adviser. Nuland, as it turns out, is married to Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol's main comrade-in-arms and the co-founder of PNAC.
Bob's father, Donald Kagan, is a Yale historian who converted from a liberal Democrat to a staunch neocon in the 1970s. On the eve of the 2000 presidential elections, Donald and his other son, Frederick, published "While America Sleeps," a clarion call to increase defense spending. Since then, the three Kagan men have written reams of columns warning that the currently ballooning Pentagon budget is simply not enough to fund the much-desired vision of U.S. global supremacy.
And which infamous ex-Reaganite do the Kagans and another leading neocon family have in common? None other than Iran-contra veteran Elliott Abrams.
Now the director of Near Eastern Affairs in Bush's National Security Council, Abrams worked closely with Bob Kagan back in the Reagan era. He is also the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, long-time editor of the influential conservative Jewish publication Commentary, and his wife, Midge Decter, a fearsome polemicist in her own right.
Podhoretz, like Kristol Sr., helped invent neo-conservatism in the late 1960s. He and Decter created a formidable political team as leaders of the Committee on the Present Danger in 1980, when they worked with Donald Rumsfeld to pound the last nail into the coffin of detente and promote the rise of Ronald Reagan. In addition to being Abrams' father-in-law, Norman Podhoretz is also the father of John Podhoretz, a columnist for the Murdoch-owned New York Post and frequent guest on the Murdoch-owned Fox News channel.
As editor of Commentary, Norman offered writing space to rising stars of the neocon movement for more than 30 years. His proteges include former U.N. ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick and Richard Pipes, who was Ronald Reagan's top advisor on the "Evil Empire," as the president liked to call the Soviet Union. His son, Daniel Pipes, has also made a career out of battling "evil," which in his case is Islam. And to tie it all up neatly, in 2002, Podhoretz received the highest honor bestowed by the AEI: the Irving Kristol award.
This list of intricate, overlapping connections is hardly exhaustive or perhaps even surprising. But it helps reveal an important fact. Contrary to appearances, the neocons do not constitute a powerful mass political movement. They are instead a small, tighly-knit clan whose incestuous familial and personal connections, both within and outside the Bush administration, have allowed them grab control of the future of American foreign policy.
The Lind Shtick
Shush, Michael Lind, Shush.
ichael Lind wrote a very dumb piece for the New York Times yesterday.
But before I get to that, I should put my cards on the table. Michael Lind has always annoyed me. In the early 1990s, because I was so cool, I used to hang out a lot at the offices of The Public Interest, which is still the best hard-core (not in the smutty sense) public-policy magazine in America. Lind was then the executive editor of The National Interest, a companion journal which shared office space with the PI. My first introduction to Lind was when he threw a hissy fit over the fact that a couple of us were playing wiffle ball with a crumpled-up piece of paper during lunch hour.
Lind was technically correct that knocking a piece of paper around the office was ?unprofessional,? but I generally don?t like hissy fits or men who throw them. And I guess that?s why I?ve always been particularly immune to Michael Lind?s shtick.
Yeah, that?s right, shtick.
You see, Michael Lind became a little famous in the mid 1990s for declaring, with entirely imagined authority, that the ?conservative intellectual movement? had ?died.? In what seemed to me a profoundly disingenuous article for Dissent, Lind described how conservative intellectuals had become Vichy-like pawns of the occupying army of the Religious Right. Like a medieval pope excommunicating an entire nation, Lind waved his hand over the whole conservative intellectual world, including many of his friends and colleagues, and declared it impure, intellectually ossified, morally tainted, and professionally corrupted.
Around the same time, Lind took quite a few shots, some of them quite deserved, at Pat Robertson in the radical lefty New York Review of Books. Lind also made it clear that he considered himself a hero for going after Robertson and that conservatives, everywhere, had ostracized him for his moral courage.
And here?s the kicker: Lind did all of this as Republicans took over the House and Senate for the first time in decades.
The Left, moping like a big dog whose food bowl?s been moved, snapped up Lind like he was a T-bone. Going after Robertson instantaneously made him a hero to Frank Rich and all of the people who let Rich do their thinking for them. And, smearing his friends and colleagues was simply proof of his integrity.
First came the fawning profiles, and then the plum job offers. Like a rock star carried on the shoulders of adoring fans, the Left passed him from one prestigious outlet to another: The New Republic, The New Yorker, Harper?s. Rolling Stone actually dubbed Lind ?What?s Hot? ? alongside a picture of him in an embarrassingly fashionable ensemble. In the pages of The New Yorker, he started ridiculing Washington as full of ?dweeby white guys.?
Indeed, Lind, a famously un-hip fellow, allowed the liberal media to turn him into a lefty Tom Wolfe. Apropos of that, he even wrote a novel called Powertown, which claimed to show the sexy, shadowy underbelly of the ?real? Washington, complete with an insider?s view of a D.C. crack house. As a friend remarked who knows Lind: ?This, from a guy who sweats uncomfortably in the lobby of a four-star hotel.?
Now, it?s worth remembering that over the preceding decades, every generation saw hordes of liberals and leftists move to the right. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, and Richard Perle were former Democrats; David Horowitz, Peter Collier, and Ron Radosh, former Sixties radicals. Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Michael Novak, Richard Neuhaus, and ? oh yeah, just to end what could be a much longer list ? Ronald Reagan and the millions of Democrats who elected him, migrated to the sunny uplands of conservatism over the course of this century.
So in the middle of the 1990s ? when the Contract with America swept conservatives into both houses of Congress, and when Bill Clinton (then still the great pale hope of liberals) was miserably unpopular with average Americans ? it?s hardly shocking that the Left would use Lind as a salve for their bruised psyches. Lind told them precisely what they wanted to hear: that the Right is run by bigots, religious fanatics, and corrupted intellectuals addicted to the filthy lucre of nefarious but media-savvy foundations hell-bent on creating some form of theocracy. And Lind wasn?t just some hysterical keyboard-pounder at The Nation; he was an ?eyewitness.?
The fact that all of this was a either a deliberate lie on Lind?s part ? or, more likely, a phantasmagoric concoction of imagined slights, personal agendas, and rank careerism ? didn?t matter. Adding a neo-leftist?s hissy fit to the shrieking chorus coming from the op-ed page of the New York Times made for pitch-perfect harmony.
The Oracle of the NYT
Oh, hey, that reminds me: Michael Lind had a very dumb piece in the New York Times yesterday.
Asked to offer a eulogy on the political demise of Pat Robertson (Robertson is resigning as head of the Christian Coalition), Lind announced that ?Pat Robertson has been the most influential figure in American politics in the past decade.?
His evidence? Well, let?s see: John Ashcroft is the attorney general. The Religious Right walloped John McCain in the primaries. The House has passed anti-cloning legislation; conservative magazines ? namely NR, Commentary, and The Weekly Standard ? have run articles critical of Darwinism. Leon Kass, ?the religious right?s favorite intellectual? according to Lind, runs the president?s bioethics commission. And, oh yeah, both Al Gore and George Bush talked about God a lot in the last election.
He also simply asserts that, ?Thanks to Pat Robertson, the religious right also captured ? and killed ? the conservative intellectual movement. By the mid-1990s, as the Christian Coalition consolidated its control over the Republican Party, any intellectual to the right of center who dared to criticize the television preacher was purged.?
Shush, Michael Lind, Shush.
ichael Lind wrote a very dumb piece for the New York Times yesterday.
But before I get to that, I should put my cards on the table. Michael Lind has always annoyed me. In the early 1990s, because I was so cool, I used to hang out a lot at the offices of The Public Interest, which is still the best hard-core (not in the smutty sense) public-policy magazine in America. Lind was then the executive editor of The National Interest, a companion journal which shared office space with the PI. My first introduction to Lind was when he threw a hissy fit over the fact that a couple of us were playing wiffle ball with a crumpled-up piece of paper during lunch hour.
Lind was technically correct that knocking a piece of paper around the office was ?unprofessional,? but I generally don?t like hissy fits or men who throw them. And I guess that?s why I?ve always been particularly immune to Michael Lind?s shtick.
Yeah, that?s right, shtick.
You see, Michael Lind became a little famous in the mid 1990s for declaring, with entirely imagined authority, that the ?conservative intellectual movement? had ?died.? In what seemed to me a profoundly disingenuous article for Dissent, Lind described how conservative intellectuals had become Vichy-like pawns of the occupying army of the Religious Right. Like a medieval pope excommunicating an entire nation, Lind waved his hand over the whole conservative intellectual world, including many of his friends and colleagues, and declared it impure, intellectually ossified, morally tainted, and professionally corrupted.
Around the same time, Lind took quite a few shots, some of them quite deserved, at Pat Robertson in the radical lefty New York Review of Books. Lind also made it clear that he considered himself a hero for going after Robertson and that conservatives, everywhere, had ostracized him for his moral courage.
And here?s the kicker: Lind did all of this as Republicans took over the House and Senate for the first time in decades.
The Left, moping like a big dog whose food bowl?s been moved, snapped up Lind like he was a T-bone. Going after Robertson instantaneously made him a hero to Frank Rich and all of the people who let Rich do their thinking for them. And, smearing his friends and colleagues was simply proof of his integrity.
First came the fawning profiles, and then the plum job offers. Like a rock star carried on the shoulders of adoring fans, the Left passed him from one prestigious outlet to another: The New Republic, The New Yorker, Harper?s. Rolling Stone actually dubbed Lind ?What?s Hot? ? alongside a picture of him in an embarrassingly fashionable ensemble. In the pages of The New Yorker, he started ridiculing Washington as full of ?dweeby white guys.?
Indeed, Lind, a famously un-hip fellow, allowed the liberal media to turn him into a lefty Tom Wolfe. Apropos of that, he even wrote a novel called Powertown, which claimed to show the sexy, shadowy underbelly of the ?real? Washington, complete with an insider?s view of a D.C. crack house. As a friend remarked who knows Lind: ?This, from a guy who sweats uncomfortably in the lobby of a four-star hotel.?
Now, it?s worth remembering that over the preceding decades, every generation saw hordes of liberals and leftists move to the right. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, and Richard Perle were former Democrats; David Horowitz, Peter Collier, and Ron Radosh, former Sixties radicals. Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Michael Novak, Richard Neuhaus, and ? oh yeah, just to end what could be a much longer list ? Ronald Reagan and the millions of Democrats who elected him, migrated to the sunny uplands of conservatism over the course of this century.
So in the middle of the 1990s ? when the Contract with America swept conservatives into both houses of Congress, and when Bill Clinton (then still the great pale hope of liberals) was miserably unpopular with average Americans ? it?s hardly shocking that the Left would use Lind as a salve for their bruised psyches. Lind told them precisely what they wanted to hear: that the Right is run by bigots, religious fanatics, and corrupted intellectuals addicted to the filthy lucre of nefarious but media-savvy foundations hell-bent on creating some form of theocracy. And Lind wasn?t just some hysterical keyboard-pounder at The Nation; he was an ?eyewitness.?
The fact that all of this was a either a deliberate lie on Lind?s part ? or, more likely, a phantasmagoric concoction of imagined slights, personal agendas, and rank careerism ? didn?t matter. Adding a neo-leftist?s hissy fit to the shrieking chorus coming from the op-ed page of the New York Times made for pitch-perfect harmony.
The Oracle of the NYT
Oh, hey, that reminds me: Michael Lind had a very dumb piece in the New York Times yesterday.
Asked to offer a eulogy on the political demise of Pat Robertson (Robertson is resigning as head of the Christian Coalition), Lind announced that ?Pat Robertson has been the most influential figure in American politics in the past decade.?
His evidence? Well, let?s see: John Ashcroft is the attorney general. The Religious Right walloped John McCain in the primaries. The House has passed anti-cloning legislation; conservative magazines ? namely NR, Commentary, and The Weekly Standard ? have run articles critical of Darwinism. Leon Kass, ?the religious right?s favorite intellectual? according to Lind, runs the president?s bioethics commission. And, oh yeah, both Al Gore and George Bush talked about God a lot in the last election.
He also simply asserts that, ?Thanks to Pat Robertson, the religious right also captured ? and killed ? the conservative intellectual movement. By the mid-1990s, as the Christian Coalition consolidated its control over the Republican Party, any intellectual to the right of center who dared to criticize the television preacher was purged.?
Con't
If you?re wondering where the vast Gulag Archipelago of purged conservative intellectuals is, so am I. But more on all that in a moment.
Lind goes on to say that the Religious Right didn?t deserve its influence. In fact, religious voters were never the election-deciding swing-voters Robertson claimed. ?Only a bipartisan political elite unfamiliar with the working-class majority,? Lind declares, ?could have been fooled by Pat Robertson into thinking that the mainstream swing voter resembles Ben Jonson?s Puritan, Zeal-of-the-land Busy, more than Norman Lear?s Archie Bunker.?
So, to sum up: The Christian Coalition is bad and not representative of America. Conservatives are spineless for sucking up to it. Lind ? and other ?right-of-center? intellectuals, to remain nameless, who ?dared? to criticize Robertson ? are martyrs for pointing this out. Golly, where have I heard all that before? Same old shtick.
But what about the substance of the argument? Well, Lind is a very smart guy. And, like many smart guys, he?s a master at connecting all sorts of weak links into what looks like a very strong chain. So let?s go link by link.
Lind contends that the election?s religious rhetoric was a symptom of the ?bipartisan political elite?s? ignorance of the blue-collar folks Lind knows so well (no doubt this reclusive author of a book-length epic poem on the Alamo hangs out with a lot of Teamsters). Well, first of all, forgive me if I?m wrong, but haven?t American politicians always talked about God? And in the last two or three decades, haven?t the presidential candidates who didn?t mention the Almighty been the ones who tended to, well, lose?
Moreover, in a climate where the professional political consultants have digitized the electorate down to a collection of ones and zeroes through focus groups, polls, and surveys, I somehow doubt that they haven?t market-tested a lot of this religion stuff more than Lind suggests. And, of course, there?s also this funny thing called ?believing in God? which might explain some of the religious rhetoric of the election. We know Bush is legitimately born-again. Whether Gore is a sincere believer is a mystery, but you don?t have to be an expert to understand that Gore?s weaknesses were only helped by his seeming more of a believer. That vast chunk of America that we in Washington call ?the red states? apparently votes for the guy who sounds like George Bush for a reason.
Sure, the Religious Right gave McCain a hard time in the primaries, but they did it chiefly by having more votes ? which is at least inconvenient to Lind?s view that they have no popular support. Yes, John Ashcroft got to be attorney general in part to placate the Christian Right. So what? He?s also qualified and a bona fide conservative. Yes, I suppose Leon Kass is popular among the Religious Right, though I would think Marvin Olasky is the Religious Right?s favorite intellectual. Also, since Lind is fond of charging Pat Robertson & co. with being anti-Semitic, it?s funny how he doesn?t mention the fact that the man he labels as the Religious Right?s favorite intellectual is also a devout Jew.
Then there?s this idea that all conservative intellectuals have sold their souls because they?ve run ?anti-Darwin? articles. First of all, that?s simply deceitful on his part, making it sound like Commentary has adopted the position that the world is 6,000 years old. I don?t agree with all of the anti-Darwin stuff out there (I?m a passing fan of evolutionary biology). But many of the articles and authors Lind smears wholesale are actually quite serious and interesting. And National Review, for example, has published articles on all sides of the current debate. How come it?s corrupt, when it says negative things about Darwin ? but not brave like our heroic Mr. Lind, when it says positive things?
Moreover, the inquiry going on about evolution has a back-story. First, Marx and Freud ? the other two secular and once seemingly invincible gods of the 20th century ? have only recently died. Some conservatives, myself included, do think it?s worth whacking a little cant and dogma off of Darwin?s hide, even if that leaves what?s left stronger and more persuasive. And, where Lind sees cowardice and corruption, I see people who?ve been willing to endure the scorn of people like Lind from the pages of the New York Times. Let us not forget that Marx and Freud were once established scientific fact as well. And, moreover, let?s see Lind?s friends at Dissent run a negative article about Marx, Freud, or Darwin.
Lind wants it every which way. Where conventional wisdom sees the Religious Right as weak, he says, ?No, it?s powerful.? When conventional wisdom says the Religious Right?s influence is based on popular appeal, he says, ?No, it?s a paper tiger.? When conservative intellectuals bolster the Religious Right, he says they?re liars; and when the government does something he doesn?t like ? anti-cloning legislation, opposition to gay rights ? he says it?s because of the undue influence of the Religious Right, and the blinkered stupidity of all those politicians who don?t use his books as a bible.
There?s a common phenomenon in the world of journalism. For want of a better phrase, let?s call it the pilot-fish syndrome (the creatures that feed alongside sharks). A writer becomes famous, or let?s say well known, for ?exposing? or attacking a person or an institution. The problem is that he then becomes dependent upon that person or institution to keep himself alive. Michael Lind?s hysterics about the Religious Right and the conservative movement have reeked of bad faith for a very long time but he?s gotten a good ride out of them. One wonders what will sustain Lind now that Pat Robertson?s gone; he certainly can?t live off his complaints about dweeby white guys.
If you?re wondering where the vast Gulag Archipelago of purged conservative intellectuals is, so am I. But more on all that in a moment.
Lind goes on to say that the Religious Right didn?t deserve its influence. In fact, religious voters were never the election-deciding swing-voters Robertson claimed. ?Only a bipartisan political elite unfamiliar with the working-class majority,? Lind declares, ?could have been fooled by Pat Robertson into thinking that the mainstream swing voter resembles Ben Jonson?s Puritan, Zeal-of-the-land Busy, more than Norman Lear?s Archie Bunker.?
So, to sum up: The Christian Coalition is bad and not representative of America. Conservatives are spineless for sucking up to it. Lind ? and other ?right-of-center? intellectuals, to remain nameless, who ?dared? to criticize Robertson ? are martyrs for pointing this out. Golly, where have I heard all that before? Same old shtick.
But what about the substance of the argument? Well, Lind is a very smart guy. And, like many smart guys, he?s a master at connecting all sorts of weak links into what looks like a very strong chain. So let?s go link by link.
Lind contends that the election?s religious rhetoric was a symptom of the ?bipartisan political elite?s? ignorance of the blue-collar folks Lind knows so well (no doubt this reclusive author of a book-length epic poem on the Alamo hangs out with a lot of Teamsters). Well, first of all, forgive me if I?m wrong, but haven?t American politicians always talked about God? And in the last two or three decades, haven?t the presidential candidates who didn?t mention the Almighty been the ones who tended to, well, lose?
Moreover, in a climate where the professional political consultants have digitized the electorate down to a collection of ones and zeroes through focus groups, polls, and surveys, I somehow doubt that they haven?t market-tested a lot of this religion stuff more than Lind suggests. And, of course, there?s also this funny thing called ?believing in God? which might explain some of the religious rhetoric of the election. We know Bush is legitimately born-again. Whether Gore is a sincere believer is a mystery, but you don?t have to be an expert to understand that Gore?s weaknesses were only helped by his seeming more of a believer. That vast chunk of America that we in Washington call ?the red states? apparently votes for the guy who sounds like George Bush for a reason.
Sure, the Religious Right gave McCain a hard time in the primaries, but they did it chiefly by having more votes ? which is at least inconvenient to Lind?s view that they have no popular support. Yes, John Ashcroft got to be attorney general in part to placate the Christian Right. So what? He?s also qualified and a bona fide conservative. Yes, I suppose Leon Kass is popular among the Religious Right, though I would think Marvin Olasky is the Religious Right?s favorite intellectual. Also, since Lind is fond of charging Pat Robertson & co. with being anti-Semitic, it?s funny how he doesn?t mention the fact that the man he labels as the Religious Right?s favorite intellectual is also a devout Jew.
Then there?s this idea that all conservative intellectuals have sold their souls because they?ve run ?anti-Darwin? articles. First of all, that?s simply deceitful on his part, making it sound like Commentary has adopted the position that the world is 6,000 years old. I don?t agree with all of the anti-Darwin stuff out there (I?m a passing fan of evolutionary biology). But many of the articles and authors Lind smears wholesale are actually quite serious and interesting. And National Review, for example, has published articles on all sides of the current debate. How come it?s corrupt, when it says negative things about Darwin ? but not brave like our heroic Mr. Lind, when it says positive things?
Moreover, the inquiry going on about evolution has a back-story. First, Marx and Freud ? the other two secular and once seemingly invincible gods of the 20th century ? have only recently died. Some conservatives, myself included, do think it?s worth whacking a little cant and dogma off of Darwin?s hide, even if that leaves what?s left stronger and more persuasive. And, where Lind sees cowardice and corruption, I see people who?ve been willing to endure the scorn of people like Lind from the pages of the New York Times. Let us not forget that Marx and Freud were once established scientific fact as well. And, moreover, let?s see Lind?s friends at Dissent run a negative article about Marx, Freud, or Darwin.
Lind wants it every which way. Where conventional wisdom sees the Religious Right as weak, he says, ?No, it?s powerful.? When conventional wisdom says the Religious Right?s influence is based on popular appeal, he says, ?No, it?s a paper tiger.? When conservative intellectuals bolster the Religious Right, he says they?re liars; and when the government does something he doesn?t like ? anti-cloning legislation, opposition to gay rights ? he says it?s because of the undue influence of the Religious Right, and the blinkered stupidity of all those politicians who don?t use his books as a bible.
There?s a common phenomenon in the world of journalism. For want of a better phrase, let?s call it the pilot-fish syndrome (the creatures that feed alongside sharks). A writer becomes famous, or let?s say well known, for ?exposing? or attacking a person or an institution. The problem is that he then becomes dependent upon that person or institution to keep himself alive. Michael Lind?s hysterics about the Religious Right and the conservative movement have reeked of bad faith for a very long time but he?s gotten a good ride out of them. One wonders what will sustain Lind now that Pat Robertson?s gone; he certainly can?t live off his complaints about dweeby white guys.
"To be a "neo" conservative, one must have had to have been a liberal or a leftist at one time"
If that would be correct- one would have to assume the opposite would also have to be correct--would it not?
If that would be correct- one would have to assume the opposite would also have to be correct--would it not?
this is where it gets a bit tricky, DTB...
Some would argue that, indeed, for one to be a 'neo-liberal' one would have to have been a conservative at one point, assuming you are in the belief that a 'neo-conservative' was a liberal at one time. This little bit here really throws a monkey-wrench into that arguement, no?
In this definition, Clinton( bill, not hill...lol) is the flag-bearer for 'neo-liberalism'
In its US usage, neoliberalism is associated with some of these positions such as support for free trade and welfare reform, but not with opposition to Keynesianism or environmentalism. In the American context, for example, economist Brad DeLong is a prominent defender of neoliberalism, although he is a Keynesian, supporter of income redistribution, and fierce critic of the Bush Administration. In US usage, neoliberalism ("new liberalism") is commonly associated with the Third Way, aka social-democracy under the New Public Management movement. Supporters of the US version of neoliberalism present it as a pragmatic position, focusing on "what works" and transcending debates between left and right, despite new liberalism's similitude to classical center-of-left economic policies (such as has been traditional to 20th century Canada). The overlapping of these usages can create considerable confusion. In international usage, President Ronald Reagan and the United States Republican Party are seen as leading proponents of neoliberalism. But Reagan was never described in this way in domestic US political discussion, where the term is most commonly applied to moderate Democrats like the Democratic Leadership Council.
Some would argue that, indeed, for one to be a 'neo-liberal' one would have to have been a conservative at one point, assuming you are in the belief that a 'neo-conservative' was a liberal at one time. This little bit here really throws a monkey-wrench into that arguement, no?
In this definition, Clinton( bill, not hill...lol) is the flag-bearer for 'neo-liberalism'
In its US usage, neoliberalism is associated with some of these positions such as support for free trade and welfare reform, but not with opposition to Keynesianism or environmentalism. In the American context, for example, economist Brad DeLong is a prominent defender of neoliberalism, although he is a Keynesian, supporter of income redistribution, and fierce critic of the Bush Administration. In US usage, neoliberalism ("new liberalism") is commonly associated with the Third Way, aka social-democracy under the New Public Management movement. Supporters of the US version of neoliberalism present it as a pragmatic position, focusing on "what works" and transcending debates between left and right, despite new liberalism's similitude to classical center-of-left economic policies (such as has been traditional to 20th century Canada). The overlapping of these usages can create considerable confusion. In international usage, President Ronald Reagan and the United States Republican Party are seen as leading proponents of neoliberalism. But Reagan was never described in this way in domestic US political discussion, where the term is most commonly applied to moderate Democrats like the Democratic Leadership Council.
Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.
"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Right-wing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neo-liberalism.
"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, a Scottish economist, published a book in 1776 called The Wealth of Nations. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.
Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s. Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal -- which did improve life for many people. The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted.
But the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale.
A memorable definition of this process came from Subcomandante Marcos at the Zapatista-sponsored Encuentro Intercontinental por la Humanidad y contra el Neo-liberalismo (Inter-continental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neo-liberalism) of August 1996 in Chiapas when he said: "what the Right offers is to turn the world into one big mall where they can buy Indians here, women there ..." and he might have added, children, immigrants, workers or even a whole country like Mexico."
The main points of neo-liberalism include:
THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.
CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminish profits, including protecting the environment and safety on the job.
PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, "Neo-liberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America."
In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutting back social programs. The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.
Elizabeth Martinez is a longtime civil rights activist and author of several books, including "500 Years of Chicano History in Photographs." Arnoldo Garc?a is a member of the Oakland-based Comite Emiliano Zapata, affiliated to the National Commission for Democracy in Mexico. Both writers attended the Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and against Neo-liberalism, held July 27 -August 3,1996, in La Realidad, Chiapas.
Printer-friendly version
Email to a friend
"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Right-wing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neo-liberalism.
"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, a Scottish economist, published a book in 1776 called The Wealth of Nations. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.
Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s. Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal -- which did improve life for many people. The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted.
But the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale.
A memorable definition of this process came from Subcomandante Marcos at the Zapatista-sponsored Encuentro Intercontinental por la Humanidad y contra el Neo-liberalismo (Inter-continental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neo-liberalism) of August 1996 in Chiapas when he said: "what the Right offers is to turn the world into one big mall where they can buy Indians here, women there ..." and he might have added, children, immigrants, workers or even a whole country like Mexico."
The main points of neo-liberalism include:
THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.
CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminish profits, including protecting the environment and safety on the job.
PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, "Neo-liberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America."
In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutting back social programs. The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.
Elizabeth Martinez is a longtime civil rights activist and author of several books, including "500 Years of Chicano History in Photographs." Arnoldo Garc?a is a member of the Oakland-based Comite Emiliano Zapata, affiliated to the National Commission for Democracy in Mexico. Both writers attended the Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and against Neo-liberalism, held July 27 -August 3,1996, in La Realidad, Chiapas.
Printer-friendly version
Email to a friend
I agree, no liberals....but in this instance, GW HAS NO PARALLEL.
AGAIN
How fast everyone forgets, this is the very same guy who wanted to turn our ports over to Arab Scumbags And that he would veto legislation blocking the Arabs.
IF THIS DOESN'T MAKE YOUR HAIR STAND ?
And let's not talk about GW's 3 card monty scheme of SCREWING ELDERLY AND HARD WORKING AMERICANS OF SOCIAL SECURITY
THIS IS WHAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM A COKE HEAD .
There are people that still trust these guys ? :shrug:
now we know why there are term limits...
AGAIN
How fast everyone forgets, this is the very same guy who wanted to turn our ports over to Arab Scumbags And that he would veto legislation blocking the Arabs.
IF THIS DOESN'T MAKE YOUR HAIR STAND ?
And let's not talk about GW's 3 card monty scheme of SCREWING ELDERLY AND HARD WORKING AMERICANS OF SOCIAL SECURITY
THIS IS WHAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM A COKE HEAD .
There are people that still trust these guys ? :shrug:
now we know why there are term limits...
Last edited:
Just to clarify,
I am not saying a republican would not be good for the job...i am not a liberal before the Bush ball lickers get wound up.
I have no trust for any human being that wants to turn our ports over to arab scumbags.
AND THERE IS NO DEFENSE FOR THIS !.
i don't care how staunch a republican or conservative anyone is...
And i am tired of hearing dickheads say how nice these arab scumbags are and our very own president trying to qualify his actions saying they are allies.
How dare he call these people allies...how vacant can anybody really be ??????????
When do the lies stop ? At what cost ? What price do we pay ?
The President of The United States wanted to turn our Ports over to these people under the guise the are our allies.
How many more lies ? What does it take for a bush voter to admit maybe something is wrong here??????????????
Really, what does it take ?????????????
.
I am not saying a republican would not be good for the job...i am not a liberal before the Bush ball lickers get wound up.
I have no trust for any human being that wants to turn our ports over to arab scumbags.
AND THERE IS NO DEFENSE FOR THIS !.
i don't care how staunch a republican or conservative anyone is...
And i am tired of hearing dickheads say how nice these arab scumbags are and our very own president trying to qualify his actions saying they are allies.
How dare he call these people allies...how vacant can anybody really be ??????????
When do the lies stop ? At what cost ? What price do we pay ?
The President of The United States wanted to turn our Ports over to these people under the guise the are our allies.
How many more lies ? What does it take for a bush voter to admit maybe something is wrong here??????????????
Really, what does it take ?????????????
.
Redsfan--appreciate your taking time to go into detail--can't say I agree-- but give you an A for presentation on matter.
No problem, DTB. If I wanted to take the time and do some more digging, I'm sure I could find an arguement that is the exact opposite of what I posted here. All those academic types have got to have something to argue about...:mj07:
trying not to get overly technical...but,the problem today is not "neo-conservatism".....it`s that the extreme liberal wing of the democratic party has hi-jacked their agenda....
the dean`s,the gore`s.....the move-on .orgs....
take back your party...and we`ll have that system of checks and balances back in effect...
jfk and roosevelt must be turning over in their graves....
why do you think that guys like bush are able to get elected for consecutive terms?...why the republicans are able to hold control of congress?...
look in the mirrior...a little introspection goes a long way...
the message needs a little tweeking...
http://www.zombietime.com/world_naked_bike_ride_2006/IMG_6713.JPG
btw...no frog march for the puppetmaster(rove)...
don`t you just hate evil geniuses.... :yup
the dean`s,the gore`s.....the move-on .orgs....
take back your party...and we`ll have that system of checks and balances back in effect...
jfk and roosevelt must be turning over in their graves....
why do you think that guys like bush are able to get elected for consecutive terms?...why the republicans are able to hold control of congress?...
look in the mirrior...a little introspection goes a long way...
the message needs a little tweeking...
http://www.zombietime.com/world_naked_bike_ride_2006/IMG_6713.JPG
btw...no frog march for the puppetmaster(rove)...
don`t you just hate evil geniuses.... :yup
Last edited:
