Quote:
Originally posted by Dead13
You are absolutely wrong on so many levels it is almost not even worth disputing.
You obviously have your VERY OWN ideas of American political history. I might also add that half of what you said just shows you in no way understood my arguments at all.
First of all trying to claim "neo-Liberalism" evolved in the 70's is the most false thing you said. As a matter of fact the mid to late 70's is when Liberals went back to the more original ideas of Liberalism that began the country. And I never said that "neo-Liberals" evolved with the creation of The New Deal. I said the COUNTRY by and large was liberal until it came about. Thus, The New Deal itself sparked fuel for debate.
|
If you refuse to acknowledge that neoliberalism emerged in the '70s, that shows that you clearly lack knowledge of the subject.
But don't believe me, just look at Google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=neoliberalism
Or were you perhaps referring to "new liberalism"? In that case, new liberalism is something entirely different from neoliberalism.
Now, I never said you said neoliberals evolved with the creation of the New Deal. I literally quoted you, so if you got that from that piece, that's your mistake, not mine. Here it is again:
"the country sought consensus amongst Liberals or better known "neo-liberals" until the New Deal"
Your words, not mine.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dead13
The Constitution was considered by most scholars to be Conservative in nature, while the Declaration of Independence is based on traditional Liberalism and liberals and neo-liberals have been fighting for years to force the Constitution to conform to the same liberal principals as the Declaration of Independence (i.e. the struggle for civil rights, women's rights, and other such trials).
And writings from Locke were not used in the Constitution, he was quoted in The Declaration of Independence. Big difference in these two documents that any Political scholar should not be confusing. One being they were written almost 13 years apart.
|
Indeed writings from Locke were not used in the Constitution, he was paraphrased in the Declaration.
However, Locke's (classical liberal) ideas did heavily influence the Constitution. Hell, Locke actually laid out the basis and was a major inspiration for the very idea of constitutional government.
Let me repeat the main words here:
classical liberal. Classical liberal ideas heavily influenced both the Declaration and the Constitution. Something entirely different from the current connotation the word "liberal" has.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dead13
Then your argument for Republicans is only half right and only for a few years in the original Republican party. Yes the Republican party was created against the ideals of slavery, and racism. However, this was short lived as now its in your face every single day that Republicans subscribe to very conservative ideas, (i.e. The New Right, and Neo-Cons). Republicans made this turn in 1980. Even before the 1980's Republicans had began adopting much more conservative view points. Before the New Deal their ideology would be considered more original Liberalism than the Neo-liberal ideology. Your comments show me you have absolutely no idea what the ideology truly is behind the The Right and the Neo-Cons. To understand that Republicans are conservative and to understand what the conservative ideology actually is, proves that I am correct in my review of that party in its current state.
|
To understand conservative ideology is to understand that there is not a single all-encompassing conservative ideology. Clearly, then, you do not understand conservative ideology.
Much of what you seem to consider "racist" or a "class system" is actually the opposition of government intervention, in the form of, for instance, positive discrimination. Sure, there are also quite a few real racists in the Republican Party, but those are not the dominant force.
The general consensus on neocon ideology (that is, insofar as one exists at present) is that it consists of a very aggressive foreign policy, moderate social conservatism, and a somewhat underdeveloped fiscal conservatism.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dead13
My description of libertarianism is right on the money from its very inception. They believe in social Darwinism and little government. As historically noted the Republicans made a complete 180 degree turn from its original ideology and so have the Libertarians to an extent, but I made it clear that I was not referring to present day Libertarians, but to the historical base of their beliefs. And it is obvious that any ideas further to the right than Conservative are "REACTIONARY," as is the New Right conservatives, Neo-cons, and Nazis.
|
You were talking about people voting Libertarian now but you were not referring to present day libertarians? Wtf?
Libertarians have not made a 180 degree turn, and have always believed in a small government and little government intervention. Social darwinism, however, isn't at all accepted by all libertarians. That's simply untrue.
As for anything "further to the right" than conservative being reactionary, that's just a childishly simplistic conception of politics. Reactionism stands for extreme conservatism, and specifically the attempt to undo political/social progress. However, revolutionary extreme right-wing movements are also very possible. Nazism actually can be considered an example of that, the only reason it ever got called reactionary was marxist propaganda.
There is not a single lineair sliding scale from progressive ("left") to reactionary ("right") that encompasses all political positions. There are many different political dimensions, including the economic left/right and social authoritarian/libertarian contradictions. Anyone who knows anything about politics should realize that.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dead13
My comparisons about Hitler and Neo-Cons is 100% on the money, you just did not take the time to read it properly and understand it. Bush's Neo-cons, like Hitler's Nazis, believe they have a divine right, or right by God, to spread their political ideology by force to anyone who does not subscribe. I did not make any reference to Bush being a Nazi or subscribing to Nazi party beliefs. And again a true understanding of the ideology of Neo-Conservatives proves this to be a valid argument. The point of Bush being dangersouly authoritarian is again part of the New Rights movement. Yes thousands of leaders have been authoritarian, and some for the betterment of their country, however, to understand the reason behind the authoritarian movement within the New Right is to understand why it is dangerous to American values.
|
Making a comparison between Bush and Hitler is a very weak and somewhat pathetic attempt to make Bush and his neocon buddies look bad by association. However, the fact of the matter is that many if not most nations in the history of the world believed they had the right to spread their ideologies across the world, if necessary by force.
In fact, that is one of the main issues of political legitimacy... if a nation truly believes its political system is (objectively) legitimate, this most often implies the right to export it.
Now, neoconservative ideology actually is far less concerned with exporting itself than it is with protecting itself - by any means necessary. It isn't expansionist the way nazism was, quite the opposite really. So your comparison is way off... like I said, it's a weak and pathetic attempt to make neoconservatism look bad.
Needing to make up stuff to make neoconservatism look bad is ridiculous, really. You'd do a much better job sticking to the facts instead of making ridiculous insinuations
