Quote:
Originally posted by Dead13
I think your absolutely correct.
I bet it would surprise the hell out of most Americans if they actually knew the entire government was founded on what was considered to be original Liberal points of view and the country sought consensus amongst Liberals or better known "neo-liberals" until the New Deal.
And the racist make the poor poorer and the rich richer is the actual basis of thought for Conservatism. Everyone knows most Republicans are racist and believe in a social order and class system but most people believe that is only because the TYPE of people who are Republican tend to also be racist, not because it is the backbone of their party beliefs.
And the idiots who claim to "vote their conscience and vote Libertarian" are a whole other story. I seriously doubt they even realize the social dynamics of Libertarians is an almost anarchy in which ethnic and social classes beat the piss out of each other in order to survive with the absolute smallest government intervention at all. In France they would be considered "Reactionaries" similar term used for Nazi's and other political movements further right of the Conservatives.
That's right kids, Libertarians go against everything this country was founded on. So in fact do Conservatives.
As a matter of fact the "New Right" and "Neo-Cons" actually operate on a far more Conservative agenda that is aimed at turning our Political Democracy into an Authoritarian State with a harsh rule of majoritarianism. And the "Neo-Cons" actually believe in a similar world domination as Hitler, as they have some "divine right" (as the Aryans did) to spread democracy throughout the world with the real agenda being of one deeply rooted in money.
Which, is exactly what the Bush admin is hoping for. Which, is why for the sake of our own country we HAVE to get rid of him at any cost. The comparisons to Bush and Hitler may not be founded by genocide but their politics are very similar except for the fact that Hitler was able to turn around the German economy and wiped out unemployment in Germany through the creation of a Fascist State.
FDR warned us many times that is was possible with the New Deal that our political system could be taken over by those with mass amounts of money who would be able to force their political will on us and thus destroy the fabric of our Political Democracy. Ronald Reagan was the first "New Right" president to begin this transformation, Bush 1, took us back to a more moderate state, while Bush 2 is pushing the original movement with vigor and forcing the country to slowly conform to his new style of government with a bunch of "Neo-Cons" running the Pentagon.
Now before some of the more Conservative know-it-alls on the board try claiming this is false, I hate to tell you, I am working on a Master's Degree in Political Science and this all came straight out of my text book for Poli 101. The basic political idology and it was wrote by an author who claims to be a normative conservative. 
|
You're making quite a few significant mistakes here. Let me start by saying that after high school, text books are no longer absolute authorities. They're written by people, and people happen to be subjective beings which are very capable of making mistakes.
The US constitution was indeed founded on liberal principles, but those were largely _classical_ liberal principles (e.g. many ideas and even actual pieces of text from Locke were used), and classical liberalism is actually a lot like libertarianism (which you ignorantly claim goes against everything the US was founded on).
Neoliberalism may be fairly similar to classical liberalism, but the actual ideology only emerged in the '70s, so saying "the country sought consensus amongst Liberals or better known "neo-liberals" until the New Deal" is a somewhat odd statement.
An equally odd statement is the one about some of the backbones of Republican ideology being racism (historically false) and a class-driven society (severely misleading, because it insinuates government intervention).
Your description of libertarianism is more than just a bit biased, and it ignores the very basis of libertarian ideology - that a free, market-driven society will be extremely productive and efficient, and will leave no room for racism and struggle between social classes because those things are utterly unproductive.
Calling libertarians "reactionaries" is ridiculous for anyone who actually knows what reactionism is. The closest (influential) thing to libertarianism in Europe is actually commonly referred to as "liberalism".
Your comparisons between Bush and his neoconservatives and Hitler and his nazi's are utterly ridiculous. You supply no real arguments for it, and there is no reason whatsoever to draw a parallel between the two. Yes, Bush is fairly authoritarian, but so were thousands upon thousands of politians in history. What you are doing is much like saying "X has a moustache, Hitler had a moustache, X is largely comparable to Hitler".
If this came straight out of your text book for poli 101, you should burn your textbook for poli 101 and send a letter to your university's board requesting that the professor giving poli 101 be fired for incompetence.
And before you go off and call me a right-wing conservative Republican: I'm actually a social liberal, I think the neoconservative agenda Bush is pushing is very dangerous, and my views on politics are fairly Rawlsian (although perhaps a bit less naive).