RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


DougSloan: Neo-Liberal??(15 posts)

DougSloan: Neo-Liberal??OldEdScott
Apr 11, 2003 8:55 AM
Notice a thread down the page where the term was raised, and czar, correctly, corrected the poster. It's an interesting label. Fact is, I believe some of our most strident conservatives here may, in fact, gasp, be Neo-Libs.

Check link: http://www.globalexchange.org/economy/econ101/neoliberalDefined.html
maybe, but sounds like Libertarian philosophy to me nmDougSloan
Apr 11, 2003 8:59 AM
Right, but it will be a great pleasure for meOldEdScott
Apr 11, 2003 9:01 AM
to fling the horrid epithet "Liberal" at you guys for a change!
then what are you? nmDougSloan
Apr 11, 2003 9:08 AM
Good God, who knows? See below. nmOldEdScott
Apr 11, 2003 9:11 AM
But seriously, this doesOldEdScott
Apr 11, 2003 9:10 AM
point up how confusing -- and in many cases worthless --political labels are. The neo-conservatives are, in many ways, Trotskyists. The earliest neo-cons were in fact ex-Trots, and you can almost hear The Internationale playing when they wax poetic about the new world order they aim to establish. That's one reason the old-line conservatives are apoplectic about the neo-cons. The Reds have entered the gates.

Then you have folks here called neo-liberals who are much further to the right than even than the Reagan supply siders, and almost as radically right as the monarchist Bushies.

I submit this just to get us all confused about our various labelings and bashings ...
makes senseDougSloan
Apr 11, 2003 9:16 AM
I doubt there are many people who can be labeled in a pure sense. I'll concede a pure Libertarian would be darn close to an anarchist, which isn't very pragmatic. I think labels are largely used so that we know which side of the aisle we support, which is what politics ultimately boils down to, right?

I'm not sure how "liberal" got to be a dirty word. When did that happen? Saying "I'm proud to be a Liberal" is about as popular as saying "I'm proud to be a white Anglo-Saxon protestant yuppie lawyer SUV driving leg shaved cyclist" in many circles. :-)

Doug
We let you guys get control of theOldEdScott
Apr 11, 2003 9:29 AM
terminology. I guess we weren't paying attention. First thing you know, 'liberal' is so offensive that people are reduced to saying 'The L word.' The only other word in the language that gets such treatment is 'the N word.' Good Lord. That should tell you something.

The truly interesting in American politics is this: It's just like wind and weather. Wind at times or in specific places may blow east-west, but the ultimate movement of macro weather patterns is ALWAYS west-east.

America may experience rightward winds, but the ultimate drift of America, over time, is to the left. Forty years ago, we were arguing about civil rights. Now, NO one argues civil rights. They argue details, like affirmative action. Social Security and Medicare were opposed by the right -- now they rush to 'protect' them, especially at election time.

Hell, you guys admit as much in what you ARE willing to endorse. You want to dismantle the welfare state, roll back the New Deal, get government off our backs, clean up the rotten morals in this country left over from the rotten 60s etc etc. The demand itself is tacit admission that the left has been winning in America over time.
no doubt there is left creepDougSloan
Apr 11, 2003 9:49 AM
The world has crept left since Day 1. As societies become denser, I think it is natural to expect changes that reflect a more social view, rather than individual view.

Yes, over time, Liberal causes do win out, despite how nutty some of the ideas or proponents sound along the way. For example, "save the whales" used to sound totally ridiculous to me, as the primary proponents were usually hippie looking lunatics in row boats taking on whaling ships. Now, I could not agree with them more, we absolutely should not permit hunting to extinction. Sometimes, they sound so extreme, especially initially, that they harm their credibility for a very long time.

Also, whenever there is a liberal cause, there is usually someone on the other side who is harmed or must pay in some way. Loggers, whalers, factories, whatever. Sometimes, change is sought so fast that the natural reaction is to resist it totally, on the chance that change will be smaller or slower.

I agree with the result of lots of Liberal causes. No doubt about it. That doesn't mean all of them, though, nor the methods or pace of change sought.

Also, sometimes the ideas are good, but we just need oppositon to moderate. The extremes are usually never good for anyone. For example, New Deal socialism may have brought us out of the Depression, but it also may have created several generations of government dependents, and raised expectations about government involvment to take care of us, while de-emphasizing individual responsibility. Extreme socialism isn't any more acceptable to most people in American than would be pure free market capitalism. So, we have two opposing forces debating to reach what is probably a good middle ground. Dialectic at work.

So, bottom line is that since humans began in almost a pure anarchist state, no doubt there will be continual drift toward more socialist policies, with inevitable ebbs and flows now and then.

Doug
'Left creep.' Good phrase! I like that. Can I steal it? nmOldEdScott
Apr 11, 2003 9:51 AM
sure; please don't cite your source, though nmDougSloan
Apr 11, 2003 9:56 AM
Definition is from a site as fair and balanced as Fox NewsTJeanloz
Apr 8, 2003 4:23 AM
It is a great demonstration of how labels can be thrown onto just about anybody with little success, and how meaningless these labels come to be.

But the "article" is so biased that it contradicts itself to make a point. It is always interesting to see other viewpoints though...
Shows how a certain breed of liberal definesOldEdScott
Apr 11, 2003 9:42 AM
neo-liberalism. Other perspectives are always valuable. You ought to see how a certain breed of conservative defines neo-conservatism.
Check this for a 'fair and balanced' view of the neo-cons,OldEdScott
Apr 11, 2003 10:01 AM
written by a good solid conservative ...

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/deliso73.html
SHHHH don't use that word!!aeon
Apr 11, 2003 10:24 AM
What are you trying to do here, start a war? =)

Seriously though, on my campus being called neo-anything is akin to being called a Nazi (and, as usual, there ARE those ever present comparisons to Hitler. I love reading those.)

This is the thing I really hate about political-spectrum-name-calling. I suppose I would be called a neo-liberal (and damn proud of it), but I certainly don't support the complete removal of the safety net, removing workers rights, or the public good.

If this were a math test, they'd get a failing mark. Somehow (don't ask me how), they manage to come up with this interesting equation:
support for removal of tarrifs and government control = support for complete free trade (with the third world) and privatization of everything

and this:
extreme example of conservatism = the beliefs of all conservatives = proof of the evil of all conservatives, therefore: conservatism is bad, by definition, and liberalism is good, by definition.