10-18-2004, 04:36 PM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 477
|
Quote:
Originally posted by punkworld
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 
|
As I said, you have YOUR VERY OWN, ideas on political history. 
I'll just simply agree to disagree with you because I am 100% certain of my facts, neither of us are going to change the others mind about anything, and we both believe Bush is dangerous and needs to be removed. |
|
|