We all know that a Neo-Conservative is not good people.
One might then assume that a Neo-Liberal would be.

No so fast!

It's time to compare these two extremes and discover that in fact,
they are not opposites at all!





From Wikipedia


Neo-Conservatism


Neo-Liberalism

I didn't read it yet, sky... I've already read so much that they are the same thing , and founded in the same roots... the Wiki's probably mentioned Irving Kristol , Henry "Scoop" Jackson, etc... I didn't look yet, but I bet a dollar that both entries mentioned them, or at least both mentioned one of them. Neo-conservatism IS Neo-liberalism.

Here is an excerpt in John W. Dean's book "Worse than Watergate" pgs. 103-104 first edition, about Congressman Ron Paul's analysis:

"...A Cliffs Notes-level analysis of neoconservatism is found in a widely circulated floor speech by Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) , a libertarian (thus no fan of neoconservatism). "Modern neoconservatives are not necessarily monolithic in their views," the congressman says, "but they generally can be described as follows":

*They agree with Trotsky's idea of a permanent revolution
*They identify strongly with the writings of Leo Strauss
*They express no opposition to the welfare state and will expand it to win votes and power.
*They believe in a powerful federal government
*They believe the ends justify the means in politics-- that hardball [in] politics is a moral necessity
*They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
*They believe certain facts should be known only by the political elite, and withheld from the general public.
*They believe in preemptive war and the naked use of military force to achieve any desired ends.
*They openly endorse the idea of an American empire, and hence unapologetically call for imperialism.
*They are very willing to use force to impose American ideals.
*They scoff at the Founding Fathers' belief in neutrality in foreign affairs.
*They believe 9/11 resulted from a lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
*They are willing to redraw the map of the Middle East by force, while unconditionally supporting Israel and the Likud Party.
*They view civil liberties with suspicion, as unnecessary restrictions on the federal government.
*They despise libertarians, and dismiss any arguments based on constitutional grounds...."

This is exactly why we have to stop using the term "liberal" and "conservative" in political discourse. These terms have been so distorted that they no longer have any meaning. Stick to "progressive" and "regressive".

progressive adj 1: favoring or promoting progress; "progressive schools" [ant: regressive] 2: favoring or promoting reform (often by government action) [syn: reformist, reform-minded] 3: (of taxes) adjusted so that the rate increases as the amount increases [ant: regressive] 4: gradually advancing in extent 5: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties [syn: liberal] [ant: conservative]

regressive adj 1: returning to previous condition: reverting to an earlier, less developed condition or way of behaving 2: taxing poorer people more harshly: describes a tax system in which those with low incomes pay proportionally higher taxes than the wealthy

Both ideaologies suck. I'm a techno progressive civil libertarian new ager collective individualst myself and I am proud of it!

Oh, shit. The naming game again. I'm a liberal democrat, anid I'll explain it to you if I have to as we go along. Don't try to confuse things with this "classical liberal" shit. I yam what I yam, and I make a resonable effort at consistency, but I don't slave at it. Some of my best friends are republicans, but it bothers me when they move in next door to me

To be honest, I find most liberal democrats in America to be conservative.

How many Democrats do you know?

Congress? Even the Political compass says they are center-right. It seems to me that all the Democrats want is to stay in the 90s while Republicans want to turn the US into a right-wing utopia. I don't view Democrats as an opposition to Republicans, but rather a beurocratic opsitical to their demonic agenda.

How many Democrats do you know?

A few, some liberal enough for me, some not.

Not bad, but a few isn't very many.
Meaning, I bet there are some you don't know that are considerable more liberal than you give them credit for.
Take me for instance. I'm quite a bit left of center, all though I'm not distant left on all issues. In fact, sometimes in some instances, I'm pretty well right. But that does not mean I'm a conservative. Far from it!
I consider myself a Socialist Democrat.

I think you would find that on this forum, most if not all of us are Liberals, though on each individual issue we don't come down in the same places on the yard stick. Yet, we're all liberals. Progressive even!

And we here on this forum are small numbers. There are Millions of Liberals just like us! People who are liberal, even progressive, yet not always liberal on every issue.


The texture of the current government though, yes, the liberal aspect of our government is decidedly close to center, with the right even further right than normal. This tilts the balance way out of shape to the right. So much so that todays Centrist, would 20 years ago be known as a pretty strong Conservative.

I believe, and sincerely hope that November will be the beginning of the process to set this texture back to normal. No, November won't be some quick fix. It is hoped though, that it will be a good solid beginning!

I'm hangin' with Morfos on this one...I could never move far enough to the right to be called a liberal, much less a mainstream democrat.

Knowing you Zooks, I'd have to agree

I am a socialist that hates libertarians and individualists. They are nothing more then Capitalist Pigs covered in their own shit.

I'm with Zooks! as well.

So guys, how long do you think until the Neo-Cons go back to being Neo-Libs? In 08? Sooner? Later?

The are essentially the same thing, with slight differances.
They can occupy the same room with out josteling each others values.

These Neo's have always been around, they just had an opportunity to take advantage of,
and now that is leaving them almost as fast as it came to them,.
Hopefully the whole experience opened a few eyes and minds in the world.
And hopefully the rebound will be substantial!
Seems the Bush Bitch Blair has already begun receiving his just deserts.
It's just too bad the labour party has to take it in the shorts with him!

Hey, I'm a rabid individualist.

Dont get your feelings hurt, Morfo. It is my right to hate you for your greed. Just as it is your right to hate me for believing people are foolish to beleive they own anything. Also, I think the more people try to be "unigue" the more they tend to be leemings. Just be. It is clearly obvious that you at least have the right to live and let no mans thoughts about you guide what you do.

I still agree with many of your other artibutes and nothing in the world says who amoung us is right or wrong. All we can go by is our own conscience to guide us and offer others the same respect.

I am curious though, why are you such an individualist?

Why does being an individualist mean you are greedy?
A Hermit in the woods is an extreme individualist, but hardly greedy!

That definition is pure BS...I dont know one self-acclaimed liberal it fits. wikipedia, where you make up the definitions, until someone else bitches about them....

Its talking about Neo-Liberials Wire, not liberials.