2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe difference is nothing short of breathtaking.
Hillary: Is a Neo-con or Neo-liberal, whichever you prefer
Bernie is NOT.
There are a zillion others, but we all know them by now I suppose. I can't get past that first one to worry about the others.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)For the first time in DECADES we have in Bernie Sanders a Presidential candidate for whom we can vote with a clear conscience, without needing to hold our noses. On issue after issue, Bernie holds positions that Democrats have consistently and overwhelmingly opined as the correct ones.
Yet, when given a choice between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, a significant number of Democrats choose the candidate who holds the wrong positions on so many issues: war, Wall Street, campaign finance, private prisons. Further, they demean and chastise those who disagree.
There is only one conclusion: for those people who support Clinton their talk of opposing wars, reigning in Wall Street, fighting Citizen's United and ending racial bias in the justice system is just that: talk. These things are only important when they can be used as political bludgeons against Republicans. To paraphrase the great Bruce Cockburn, "they don't really give a flying fuck about the people in misery."
Their logic is thus: We must vote for the lesser of two Democrats in the Primary so that we can vote for the Lesser of Two Evils in the General.
It's absolutely bonkers. The only thing that makes sense is that they don't want to move the pendulum to the left.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)I've been waiting nearly 40 years for someone like Bernie to come along.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The evidence is conclusive beyond a shadow of a doubt.
[font color=firebrick][center]The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH at the EXPENSE of the Working Class and the POOR. [/font][/center]
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...thanks for summing it up.
merrily
(45,251 posts)likelier to lose the general to the Greater of Two Evils.
Don't let the liberal be the enemy of the Greater of Two Evils!
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)Neoconservative refers to an aggressive, military-centric foreign policy marked continuous war, to take over the middle east (and any other nations we decide are in our way). The goal is to retain and enlarge U.S.economic hegemony. Neoliberal refers to economic policy based on so-called free trade, with power devolving to the global corporate and economic elite.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)exactly. Neither one of which Will win this election
PufPuf23
(8,787 posts)Neoliberals and neoconservatives are a direct counter to the values and methods of the traditional liberal New Deal Democratic Party.
from wiki:
Neoconservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among Democrats who became disenchanted with the party's domestic and especially foreign policy. Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administrations of George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. Senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, while not identifying as neoconservatives, listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of democracy in the Middle East. Neoconservatives continue to have influence in the Obama White House, and neoconservative ideology has continued as a factor in American foreign policy.[2][3]
clip
Rejecting the American New Left and McGovern's New Politics[edit]
As the policies of the New Left made the Democrats increasingly leftist, these intellectuals became disillusioned with President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society domestic programs. The influential 1970 bestseller The Real Majority by Ben Wattenberg expressed that the "real majority" of the electorate endorsed economic liberalism but also social conservatism, and warned Democrats it could be disastrous to adopt liberal positions on certain social and crime issues.[37]
The neoconservatives rejected the counterculture New Left, and what they considered anti-Americanism in the non-interventionism of the activism against the Vietnam War. After the anti-war faction took control of the party during 1972 and nominated George McGovern, the Democrats among them endorsed Washington Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson instead for his unsuccessful 1972 and 1976 campaigns for president. Among those who worked for Jackson were future neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Richard Perle.[38] During the late 1970s, neoconservatives tended to endorse Ronald Reagan, the Republican who promised to confront Soviet expansionism. Neocons organized in the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation to counter the liberal establishment.[39]
clip
Neoliberalsim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism (or sometimes neo-liberalism)[1] is a term which has been used since the 1970s and 1980s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences[2] and critics[3] primarily in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism .[4] Its advocates support extensive economic liberalisation policies such as privatisation, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[6] The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 200708 one of the ultimate results.[12][13][14][15][16]
The definition and usage of the term has changed over time.[5] It was originally an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s in an attempt to trace a so-called 'Third' or 'Middle Way' between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning.[17] The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which were mostly blamed by neoliberals on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term neoliberal tended to refer to theories at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism, and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.
clip
Policy implications[edit]
Neoliberalism seeks to transfer control of the economy from public to the private sector,[154] rationalized by the narrative that it will produce a more efficient government and improve the economic health of the nation.[155] The definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be John Williamson's statement of the "Washington Consensus."[156] The Washington Consensus is a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank).[157] Williamson's list included ten points:
Fiscal policy governments should not run large deficits that have to be paid back by future citizens, and such deficits can have only a short term effect on the level of employment in the economy. Constant deficits will lead to higher inflation and lower productivity, and should be avoided. Deficits should only be used for occasional stabilization purposes.
Redirection of public spending from subsidies (especially what neoliberals call "indiscriminate subsidies" and other spending neoliberals deem wasteful toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment
Tax reform broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates to encourage innovation and efficiency;
Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
Floating exchange rates;
Trade liberalization liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs; thus encouraging competition and long term growth
Liberalization of the "capital account" of the balance of payments, that is, allowing people the opportunity to invest funds overseas and allowing foreign funds to be invested in the home country
Privatization of state enterprises; Promoting market provision of goods and services which the government cannot provide as effectively or efficiently, such as telecommunications, where having many service providers promotes choice and competition.
Deregulation abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions;
Legal security for property rights;
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"strong and wrong" to "weak and right". That's his wife, "strong and wrong". I call it authoritarian adulation. The overriding admiration of toughness. The hell will weak-assed empathy.
Response to silvershadow (Original post)
felix_numinous This message was self-deleted by its author.