Double Hi-jacked
Of course most Conservatives know that being called a neo-con is not a compliment. The dictionary definition of neo-conservative is to be opposed to liberalism. But the thing that baffles me is that there is a group of people like these neo-cons only on the other side of the aisle even bigger than the neo-cons, and they don't even have a correct name.
Strangely, the dictionary definition has nothing to do with opposing Conservatism.
Here's the definition:
A political movement beginning in the 1960s that blends traditional liberal concerns for social justice with an emphasis on economic growth.
So right here at the better wing for the first time, I will be coining a new meaning for the term neo-liberal.
Here's my definition
A form of Liberalism that is generally opposed to Conservative ideologies and is more concerned with Conservatives than other political subjects.
Copyright, Cody O'Connor. November 4, 2005.
So now that I've covered my new meaning I'd like to go a little more in depth on the nature of a neo-lib and why I named this article "Double Hi-jacked".
Back in the good old days we had good Democrats, people like FDR. Years later those good Democrats were Hi-jacked by the farther left Liberals with presidents like Carter, LBJ, and Clinton. Up to this day, those Liberals have been Hi-jacked by neo-liberals who's only agenda is to slam the neo-cons agenda. These people started to sprout out during the Bush presidency and they have spread far and wide since then.
We've got neo-lib congressmen. People like Howard Dean where all I hear about from him is how "Republicans can't make an honest living"
We've got neo-lib celebrities who show up at anti-Bush/anti-war rallies and slam the president.
We've got regular people in the American community who I would label neo-lib. Just recently I talked to two people who think the Cheney heart attack "gag" is really funny.
The point is, is that they are everywhere you look. Television, radio, books, newspapers, classrooms, congress and everything else and they're all doing the same thing. Bashing Republicans.
But lets get something straight here, the Democrats just did their thing and left the Republicans be. When the Liberals took over they would talk badly of Republicans only when necessary and they would back it up. But now that we are in the neo-lib era the Liberals talk badly of Republicans and Conservatives at every single given chance, whether they can do it for a good reason or not. And if they can't back it up it's all just emotion.
(aka hate with no valid reason for it)
Honest Liberals and Democrats are very few and far out now. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Joe Liberman. I'm sure there are a few others, but they don't get all the attention like the neo-libs now do.
So why is it the hateful ones that now get all of the attention and credibility? Is that really what this nation is turning into? Two sides hating each other while the honest ones with reasons to dislike sit back?
I think they've gotten off easy because they haven't yet to be called what they are, neo-liberals. The Conservatives have been tuned into enemies by some just because a crowd hears the word neo-con and everyone knows and fears the evil neo-cons. Them and their agendas, their war plans, Halliberton, and the such.
So why can't we fight fire with fire? Here at the better wing I will use the term neo-lib until a large portion of the blogoshpere realizes that it isn't a good thing to be. Then just maybe we will give the honest Democrats a chance to talk and the people who hate Bush because he can't say nuclear will lose their spotlight and receive a name similar to the one they've been giving us.
So many Conservatives have been shut out by the media because nobody can trust a "neo-con", so if we can do the same thing then we've got all of the extremists out of the spotlight and inside the gap between the left and the right we may be able to find some middle ground.
It's fire with fire and I think it will overall be better for our country.
Strangely, the dictionary definition has nothing to do with opposing Conservatism.
Here's the definition:
A political movement beginning in the 1960s that blends traditional liberal concerns for social justice with an emphasis on economic growth.
So right here at the better wing for the first time, I will be coining a new meaning for the term neo-liberal.
Here's my definition
A form of Liberalism that is generally opposed to Conservative ideologies and is more concerned with Conservatives than other political subjects.
Copyright, Cody O'Connor. November 4, 2005.
So now that I've covered my new meaning I'd like to go a little more in depth on the nature of a neo-lib and why I named this article "Double Hi-jacked".
Back in the good old days we had good Democrats, people like FDR. Years later those good Democrats were Hi-jacked by the farther left Liberals with presidents like Carter, LBJ, and Clinton. Up to this day, those Liberals have been Hi-jacked by neo-liberals who's only agenda is to slam the neo-cons agenda. These people started to sprout out during the Bush presidency and they have spread far and wide since then.
We've got neo-lib congressmen. People like Howard Dean where all I hear about from him is how "Republicans can't make an honest living"
We've got neo-lib celebrities who show up at anti-Bush/anti-war rallies and slam the president.
We've got regular people in the American community who I would label neo-lib. Just recently I talked to two people who think the Cheney heart attack "gag" is really funny.
The point is, is that they are everywhere you look. Television, radio, books, newspapers, classrooms, congress and everything else and they're all doing the same thing. Bashing Republicans.
But lets get something straight here, the Democrats just did their thing and left the Republicans be. When the Liberals took over they would talk badly of Republicans only when necessary and they would back it up. But now that we are in the neo-lib era the Liberals talk badly of Republicans and Conservatives at every single given chance, whether they can do it for a good reason or not. And if they can't back it up it's all just emotion.
(aka hate with no valid reason for it)
Honest Liberals and Democrats are very few and far out now. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Joe Liberman. I'm sure there are a few others, but they don't get all the attention like the neo-libs now do.
So why is it the hateful ones that now get all of the attention and credibility? Is that really what this nation is turning into? Two sides hating each other while the honest ones with reasons to dislike sit back?
I think they've gotten off easy because they haven't yet to be called what they are, neo-liberals. The Conservatives have been tuned into enemies by some just because a crowd hears the word neo-con and everyone knows and fears the evil neo-cons. Them and their agendas, their war plans, Halliberton, and the such.
So why can't we fight fire with fire? Here at the better wing I will use the term neo-lib until a large portion of the blogoshpere realizes that it isn't a good thing to be. Then just maybe we will give the honest Democrats a chance to talk and the people who hate Bush because he can't say nuclear will lose their spotlight and receive a name similar to the one they've been giving us.
So many Conservatives have been shut out by the media because nobody can trust a "neo-con", so if we can do the same thing then we've got all of the extremists out of the spotlight and inside the gap between the left and the right we may be able to find some middle ground.
It's fire with fire and I think it will overall be better for our country.
posted by Cody O'Connor @ 7:28 PM
17 Comments:
At 5/11/05 9:58 AM,
Gayle said…
I like it! "Neo-lib". Tit-for-tat! Excellent post, Cody, with many good points.
On a different subject entirely (sorry) Phantom Driver's blog isn't the only one gone missing. So has Mikes, who ran a blog called "Mike's Good Ones." I had it linked as well as Phantom's. I've removed the links of course, as they don't work, and will be very happy to be able to put them back! This doesn't look good however, considering the fact they are both conservative blogs. We could be next.
At 5/11/05 10:05 AM,
Anonymous said…
That's a good idea. We shold have a whole dictionary of slang terms. Enviro-mental, Moore-on. That kind of thing. Unfoutuanatly Micheal Savage keeps stealing my ideas. Ggrrgh. Anyway, what terms he doesn't think off also we can use.
At 5/11/05 2:07 PM,
Unknown said…
What Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coultier and other mouthpieces of the neo-conservative movement do is no different than these so called neo-liberals you are referring to. I turned Rush on for a few minutes the other day and had to turn it off because I suddenly had the urge to rip my stereo out of my dash and throw it out the window.
You may despise Howard Dean, but you can't say that the guy doesn't stick to his guns. Unlike, Kerry (and validly so), there is no flip-flopping with Dean. He was against the war from the start, he's against the administration. He hasn't lied, tried to cover it up, or toned his language down. Keep in mind, he is the DNC chair. It's his JOB to motivate the DNC base, and if that means beating on the Presedent while he's already down, so be it. It's all politics.
At 5/11/05 5:03 PM,
Anonymous said…
Howard Dean?! THAT's your champion? Not Howard "Tarzan" Dean? If that's the hero of the DNC you guys are worse off then I thought.
At 5/11/05 5:05 PM,
Anonymous said…
Hmmm, Howard "Tarzan" Dean. Another one for anti-liberal slang words. Should we add that one to the list?
At 6/11/05 3:03 PM,
Unknown said…
So he screamed during a speech. What's your point?
Should I bring up the numerous flubs that Bush has made in his storied political career?
At 6/11/05 4:06 PM,
Anonymous said…
Bush may have screwed up speeches but he didn't work himself into a blood frenzy. Are you saying you'd want a guy who gets THAT worked up in the White House?
At 6/11/05 7:02 PM,
Allisoni Balloni said…
He was at a political RALLY, first of all. He was excited about his cause, and among all of the other screaming supporters, the noise he made wasn't something that even the people in the room heard, it was picked up by a microphone. That is the stupidest attack and I have no idea why you would still bring it up over a year later. You talk about dems using every possible attack they can against the president yet you have no problem doing the same thing.
At 7/11/05 9:11 AM,
Gayle said…
Drew, if you want to know what Howard Dean stands for, you need to check out my Let Our Voices Be Heard post "Howard Dean is "Getting Smarter." That will tell you who Howard Dean really is. And if you agree with the statements he has made there, then that will tell us who you really are!
At 7/11/05 10:36 PM,
Daniel Levesque said…
Neo-lib. Hmmmm. Semms to me they have been around for too long already.
www.ravingconservative.com
At 8/11/05 6:20 AM,
Cody O'Connor said…
Neo-lib. Hmmmm. Semms to me they have been around for too long already.
True, but the term neo-lib has yet to be used mainstream like neo-con is. They're out there, they just are nameless.
At 10/11/05 5:19 PM,
Dan Trabue said…
But actually, Neo-liberal already has a commonly accepted definition and, interestingly enough, neo-liberalist ecoomic policies are generally being endorsed by conservatives.
In spite of the dictionary definition you provided, which almost sounds positive, neo-liberal policies have had a devastating effect on places like Nicaragua.
So, as a liberal, I'll say No Thank you to the Neo-liberal tag, either your definition or the real one. No truly progressive people would want to be associated with the label.
At 10/11/05 6:52 PM,
Anonymous said…
Progressive? Isn't that a nice term for liberals who don't want to admit it? Come on, if you're liberal just say it. Personally I don't see high taxes, gov. control, and isolasionism as progressive, but that's just me.
At 11/11/05 10:38 AM,
Dan Trabue said…
I said, "as a liberal..." I'll accept either term, prefer progressive though as I'm not a typical liberal (ie, moderate liberals supported Clinton. Radical progressives didn't.)
And I have not advocated high taxes, gov't control NOR isolationism.
What progressives HAVE advocated includes:
reasonable taxes to pay for things that make logical sense, HUGE rollbacks in the budget for military/industrial/road-building and other areas (which would allow for LOWER taxes, not higher.
end of deficit spending
Less gov't control in our lives
(Repubs are the party of Deciding who can get married, what we can smoke or drink, PATRIOT Act, who can have medical procedures done and not, etc, etc...really, to suggest that the Republicans are FOR less gov't intrusion is really not looking at the facts.)
3. Logical involvement in the world, not isolationism. To oppose actions that we think will only stir up more terrorism is not isolationism, it's logic.
Thanks for the discussion and I know some of y'all are fairly young, but as you're learning debate, try to focus on what people really stand for and not what you suppose they stand for. It helps everyone.
At 11/11/05 11:07 AM,
Cody O'Connor said…
Less gov't control in our lives
(Repubs are the party of Deciding who can get married, what we can smoke or drink, PATRIOT Act, who can have medical procedures done and not, etc, etc...really, to suggest that the Republicans are FOR less gov't intrusion is really not looking at the facts.)
Not all Republicans agree on gay marraige and abortion. But if you want my take, I'm okay with gay marraige, I'm pro-life, and I support the patriot act. But what you got to understand is that when we say limited government and more freedom we don't go as far is what the libertarians want, we've got to draw some lines somewhere. But looking on the other side, it's far from socialism where it's much more government control.
When I talk about less government intrusion I talk about no affirmative action, smaller government, welfare trials, reduced spending and such.
What the Republicans are really saying is less socialism, not more libertarianism. Just because I want more freedom doesn't mean I want laws to be taken down.
If I can try to explain it a little better, with socialism, the government doesn't trust people to make their own decisions so the government helps the people. In communism, the people get barely any decisions to make, as most are made by the government.
With a Conservative idiology, the government wouldn't step in and say "We're not going to let you gamble because we don't think it's a good decision". The government would say "hey, you're a grown man, if you want to play the slots for an hour, go ahead"
I hope I've explained it better, sorry if the thoughts are a little scattered.
At 11/11/05 11:18 AM,
Cody O'Connor said…
By the way, abortion is the only government intrusion that I support, because I don't think murder should be a choice. And when I say government intrusion, I don't mean arresting someone. I'm talking about making choices that are within the law, I think if you break the law, then the government should have the right to do something.
To say it all shortly...
I want government to give people the right to make any choice they want as long as it's within the law, if it is a choice that breaks the law, then I believe the government has the right to do something. But with abortion, I believe that is murder and it should be illegal (unless the baby or mother is at risk, or it is the result of rape/incest)
So there you go, the Republicans do support limited government.
At 11/11/05 1:44 PM,
Dan Trabue said…
Very well done, Cody. I disagree with your positions but you did a fine job of defending and explaining them.
For what it's worth, most US liberals do not want a socialist state, where gov't is making decisions for people or taking property from people. That would be an exaggeration of most liberals' positions.
We ARE in favor of reasonable laws and regulations in the defense of personal liberty and justice. And keep in mind that when you say you support limited gov't that our military is by far the largest single part of US discretionary spending.
Cut THAT budget in half and you've gone a long way towards creating a smaller gov't. Advocate for more and more, then you're no longer a small gov't supporter.
Post a Comment
<< Home