Neo-liberalism is the practice of Neo -conservatism, why do few Republicans know this?

Question

Presently, I am reading Noam Chomsky’s book Profit Over People Neoliberalism and the Global Order which is a critique of our political and economic system. While I first heard the term neoliberalism more than a decade ago on short-wave radio, the term is not heard often in the mainstream media even today. It is as if this word, containing the middle string of characters, "liberal", is to be shunned and shied away from by those who profusely profess neoliberalism. Yet, the perpetrators of prejudice toward the word liberal have become their own victims to this latest name calling since they themselves are the neoliberals. It is the conservative US Capitalists who have trained the country to denigrate the L-world thereby having to distance themselves from the word itself. And who said that words are not powerful remakers and reshapers of the world we see or want to be seen?

Neoliberalism is the process by which the free enterprise system and its "democracy" are touted around the world as the only successful model for the world to emulate, while ignoring its enormous failures domestically and internation-ally. The "free market" philosophy is professed to be the only viable economic system on the planet yet those professing it are beneficiaries of anything but the free market. They receive incredible tax breaks and perks subsidized by the people struggling to make a decent living. "Free enterprise" institutions are excellent examples of non-democratic power structuring. Conservatives for the most part are neoliberals benefiting the most from government subsidies to corporations through moneys collected from the poorest in society and diverted upward to the top.

Is this why so few Republicans here can offer a serious debate? If you lack understanding of what your ideaology is, how in the hell can you debate it?

Patrick for those of us who know political science, the terms are relatively fixed, known and absolute.

I hope you first three aren't the best the Republicans have to offer on this site.

Here another writter, that may help you guys,
Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo García in "What is Neo-Liberalism" writes,

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....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....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.

Answer 1

It's pretty funny to see conservatives counter our arguments here against neoconservatism,some don't even realize that's a real political ideology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
and not just a slur for conservatives by calling American liberals Neoliberals.You are totally correct.
Neoliberalism refers to a historically-specific reemergence of economic liberalism's influence among economic scholars and policy-makers during the 1970s through 1990s. In many respects, the term is used to denote a group of neoclassical-influenced economic theories, libertarian political philosophies, and political rhetoric that portrayed government control over the economy as inefficient, corrupt or otherwise undesirable. Neoliberalism is not a unified economic theory or political philosophy -- it is a label denoting an apparent shift in social-scientific and political sentiments that manifested themselves in theories and political platforms supporting a reform of largely centralized postwar economic institutions in favor of decentralized ones -- and few supporters of neoliberal policies use the word itself. Arguments of this sort gained a great deal of currency after the Stagflation Crisis of the 1970s, the Developing World Debt Crisis of the 1980s (which primarily affected Latin America but was felt elsewhere[2]),and the Soviet Collapse of the early-1990s.

Answer 2

I don't agree at all. Both parties have severe faults (some shared by both). To believe that either political party is correct about everything is ridiculous. To believe that one of them has acheived "enlightenment" is actually stupid. The Democrats aren't sitting in the Senate meditating all day. The idea of a bipartisan system is that the government is built of polar extremes, so that every viewpoint is heard. The operative word being "extreme". Politics is not a team sport. Don't base your opinion of an issue on the party affilitation of the person speaking to you.

Answer 3

I won't debate this at all because much of it is true. We used to have laws in effect that did not condone monopolies for the express purpose of promoting free enterprise, but that has gone by the wayside.

Both sides are engulfed with a pack of deceitful politicians who have sold out on the American people. They pander to those who represent large corporate interests and special interests groups.

As far as the names go, it really doesn't matter because the difference between the two are in reality indistinguishable.

Answer 4

What drives me crazy is that you see or hear of so many people that claim ("Why can't I find a republican who can rationally defend his beliefs?", or some similar statement). Then you have a whole lot of republicans that claim they can't find a liberal/democrat that can defend his beliefs.

With so many self-styled brilliant debaters on both sides, why can't they find each other? Maybe more importantly, do they even really want to?

Answer 5

why is it you alwasy here the word neocon ,
but rarely neolib?
I think it's an attempt to make the right seem to be aligned with
the only other group of people associated with the word neo and thats the neonazi
the left never cease's to amaze me with the smear campaign

Answer 6

the actual definitions of these terms do not hold weight. They are redefined every couple of months. Using the actual definition of "neocon" im not sure Bush could be considered one. He was more conservative in his early years. I don't think he was ever a liberal. I'm not republican..............

Answer 7

LMAO...that is the writer's opinion. Liberals have caused the "denigration" their own label by acting like lunatics in public...it is probably their far left fringe that does this, but how often do you see the rest of them denounce it?