Home | About | Donate

Neocons and Neolibs: How Dead Ideas Kill


Neocons and Neolibs: How Dead Ideas Kill

Robert Parry

For centuries hereditary monarchy was the dominant way to select national leaders, evolving into an intricate system that sustained itself through power and propaganda even as its ideological roots shriveled amid the Age of Reason. Yet, as monarchy became a dead idea, it still killed millions in its death throes.


Foreign policy should be THE issue in this election -- and in that, Trump is to the left of Clinton.


Not much of a debate is needed: Either you vote for a proven violent person or you vote for someone who isn't. It ain't hard, folks. :v:


"Examining her long record in public life, there can be little doubt that Clinton is a neocon on foreign policy and a neolib on economic strategies. She stands firmly with the consensus of Official Washington’s establishment, which is why she has enjoyed its warm embrace."

Clinton represents the worst of both neo's.

I fully expect that after getting us bogged down in a war with Syria we'd start seeing unsubstantiated reports about Iran violating the nuclear agreement, which would be a precursor to war with Iran.

I'd also expect her to once again embrace the 'gold standard' of trade agreements and to start trimming the budgets of social programs and Social Security.

I don't understand how anyone who claims to be a progressive can say they'll vote for Clinton under any circumstance.


Saying it and doing it are two completely different things. Talk is cheap. Unfortunately the only way to get elected in this country is to BS one's way in. Not pretty, but you've gotta be a bad ass....or appear as one.

If I may add: Obama talked peace and less war (twice) to get elected then re-elected. What happened there?


Trump is violent. He certainly doesn't have the record Hillary has, but he hasn't had access to the same tools Hillary has had, either. His rhetoric in this campaign is violent in and of itself, and resulted in violence. In the pursuit of his developments, he has a reputation for arrogance, strong-arming, and the rape of pristine places so a few rich folks can play golf. I would fully expect that to translate into increased violence. Even then, it would still be damn hard to beat Hillary's record.


That’s because, from available alternative news websites, there are evidences that ISIS is a creation of the neocons in collaboration with Saudi Arabia and Israel. The purpose is to wreak havoc in the Middle East, particularly Syria. Much of the time, ISIS operations occurred in the wide open desert and it wouldn’t take more than a few weeks to wipe them out if the US is serious over this task. Or if Turkey didn’t supply them with weapons for oil stolen from Iraq/Syria. Or if US planes didn’t “accidentally" drop arms “in the wrong place” - right in the hands of the ISIS. So Trump knows a thing or two when he talks about “really bombing” ISIS.


Smacking protesters around? Isn’t that what the present Democratic government doing, not only with Occupy protesters, but even on harmless, unarmed college kids who were pepper sprayed? Ever heard about a woman who was assaulted and had to GO TO JAIL for “assaulting” the security officer who was, in effect, manhandling and molesting her? Or how 76-year old Ray McGovern who was roughed up, handcuffed, and arrested for merely turning his back in the presence of her royal majesty Hillary Rotten Clinton?


Thank you Mr. Perry. So many times I have said or used the term neocon/neoliberal in reference to Clinton and wondered if the people really understand that those two ideologies have been the force that controls the decisions in this country. After Bush stole his first election there was an air of corruption that came across this country and it seemed like everyone jumped on the wagon. The curtain came down and it all became clear though and we are seeing why now. He exposed the Republican party's corruption. Clinton's and Obama have now exposed the Democratic party. I guess both felt it was entrenched enough that they didn't have to hide it anymore.
What makes this election monumental is that now that they are exposed, what are we going to do about it? They're betting nothing. Clinton is betting we will all be so scared of Trump we will vote for her. Trump is a wild card but in a serious conversation appears to be left of Clinton on foreign policy and not as far right on domestic issues as many other Republicans. We have to stop neocon foreign policy not just for us but for the world that is suffering from their decisions. The killing has to stop. Clinton cannot be president and if we can't vote for Bernie in the end, vote Green party or write him in but for God's sake #NeverHillary.


I agree he's a wild card, he's all over the place in his speeches but in one on one conversations he is not so gun ho on bombing all over the world. Who knows with him but we do know about her.


Golf courses and sand traps vs destroyed towns, countrysides & bomb craters...and dead people. Lots of dead people.


Neoliberalism is the empire's financial warterboard robbing the world, forcing austerity upon the masses and wealth to the world elites. The neocons are the fist of the empire using force to gain compliance. Both are one side of the empire's power and are supported by the democratic and republican establishment.


Yes, if Hillary(Goldman Sachs) or Trump(Goldman Sachs) win it will only bring the fight for a people's democracy closer to fruitation. I do not think it matters which you choose they are both from the same ball sack. I refuse to vote for either.


I guess the tactic had been well-known even before the label “neoliberalism” arrived - not much different from many post-WW2 neocolonialism except that, as the US went on a decades-old military build-up, the tendency to enforce its diktat through military means became more frequent. Incidentally, the word “fist” was used by Thomas Friedman in describing how globalism was enforced by the US armed forces (Lexus and the Olive Tree).


Sigh ...Trump’s thugs are not - as yet - part of the state's institutions. The forces that went against Occupy and the individuals I mentioned are. And we’re not talking about “capable” violence, but violence manifested.


Indeed. Never thought ISIS existed a dozen years ago. Or a “repug line” related to ISIS before the terrorist group's existence.


I believe neoliberalism took off in the late 70s and signaled an economic shirt fro production to financial manipulation. Money was needed and came by privatization and the selling out of the commons, or austerity economics.


Apparently people who think there is such a thing as neoliberalism and neoconservatism do not understand what classic liberalism and conservatism are.

Classic liberals (e.g., John Sturart Mill and Adam Smith) were in favor of maximum liberty. So, in the economic sphere, governments should not interfere in the market by enacting regulations that limit the liberty of capitalists to make money. Adam Smith proposed laissez-faire capitalism where humans act out of rational self-interest and the market produces the best outcomes. The problem with this philosophy is that when humans act solely out of self-interest, the result is: "greed is good" (Gordon Gekko in the movie "Wall Street") and, "selfishness is a virtue" (Ayn Rand, the high priestess of laissez-faire capitalism).

The notion that the invisible hand of the market will produce the best outcomes is bunk. Alan Greenspan (a devotee of Ayn Rand) testified before Congress after the economic meltdown in 2008. He was asked why the invisible hand of the market did not prevent the irrational greed on Wall Street that caused the housing bubble in the first place. He could have said: greed is good. He could have said that the business cycle (booms followed by busts) is inevitable under capitalism. What he did say is that "there must be a flaw in the theory." A FLAW? Is the pope Catholic?

Classic conservatives (e.g., Edmund Burke) were appalled by the excesses of the French Revolution where the mob chopped off the heads of the king and aristocrats because they were privileged by birth and took land away from the Church and divided it up among themselves because the Church told them that if you are poor this is the will of God and kings rule by Divine Right of Kings. The French Revolution was a Marxist Revolution of class warfare before Marx was born. Burke was a conservative because he wanted to conserve the ancient regime where kings were chosen by God and the Church told the people to be happy with their lot in life because their reward is in heaven (this is why Marx called religion the opiate of the people).

Since classic conservatives wanted to limit liberty (especially the liberty of the mob to destroy the monarchy and set up a republic in France), John Stuart Mill said of conservatives: "I never meant to say all conservatives are stupid. I meant to say stupid people are usually conservative."

So, when a politician today talks about free trade and conserving what existed in the past (America was great when it was the dominant power on the earth and taxes were low and there were no government regulations of the free market), they are classic liberals and conservatives, not neoliberals and neoconservatives. FDR was a neoliberal because unlike Mill and Smtih, FDR wanted to use the federal government to limit the liberty of the wealthy to amass great wealth and to tax them to enact social welfare programs that benefit the poor (e.g., Social Security). Neoconservatives want the US to intervene in the world unlike classic conservatives who were isolationist because they opposed entry of the US into WWI and WWII, until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Perhaps if there had been neoconservatives in 1932, somebody would have whacked Hitler and prevented WWII and the Holocaust.


Disagree, and the fact is that decades of studies have shown that most voting choices come down to economic issues.


FDR's agenda wasn't at all about "limiting the liberty" of the rich to accumulate wealth, but about preventing them from doing so in ways that harmed government and ordinary people -- the audacity of imposing legitimate rules and restraints. One can enhance his wealth by robbing a bank, yet this is illegal.