Conservative Speakers Widely Shunned at Graduation Ceremonies

[Hugo Chavez]

What is your definition of "neoconservative"?

I know you like to pretend there is no such thing just because you get a few different definitions.  but they're not a mythical creature, they actually do exist and they called themselves neoconservatives before the term became unpopular.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Neoconservative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Even the dictionary has a watered down definition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neoconservative

[Hugo Chavez]

Not surprising.

It's not surprising because republicans are less popular than Venezuela under Hugo Chavez

http://www.openleft.com/diary/12937/republicans-less-popular-than-venezuela

[Hugo Chavez]

There are many similarities between neoliberals and neoconservatives; they are almost the same thing, just like Bush and Obama are very similar on key issues. Invasive on social issues; drug war, gay marriage, etc.

what your definition of neoliberal?

[Deicide]

what your definition of neoliberal?

Fairly close to neocons with some minor ideological differences; outcome is the same.

[Cap]

Fairly close to neocons with some minor ideological differences; outcome is the same.

Bingo.  Both like to flush money down the drain, just different toilets.

[Straw Man]

I'd generalize and say neocons are akin to fascists

[Hugo Chavez]

Fairly close to neocons with some minor ideological differences; outcome is the same.

A Primer on Neoliberalism
http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism

Neoliberalism:

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

[Deicide]

A Primer on Neoliberalism
http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism

Neoliberalism:

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

That's a very biased definition. Roosevelt was a neoliberal as was Wilson. Foreign interventionism is another big thing.

[Hugo Chavez]

Now you can take a person who is neoconservative and point out their neoliberal philosophies or even people like Hillary and Bill Clinton and point out their same neoliberal philosophies but to just say neoliberal=neocon is a overly simplistic and limits the functional use of the term.

[Hugo Chavez]

That's a very biased definition. Roosevelt was a neoliberal as was Wilson. Foreign interventionism is another big thing.

no it's not bias   Infact it's the understanding of the term used by most of the world.  It's actually one of the first times I've seen you dump a global perspective for a narrow US understanding.

[Hugo Chavez]

 
ne·o·lib·er·al·ism [ n ō líbbərə lìzzəm, n ō líbbrə lìzzəm ]


noun 
 
Definition:
 
political philosophy: the political view, arising in the 1960s, that emphasizes the importance of economic growth and asserts that social justice is best maintained by minimal government interference and free market forces

 http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861682953/neoliberalism.html

[Deicide]

 
ne·o·lib·er·al·ism [ n ō líbbərə lìzzəm, n ō líbbrə lìzzəm ]


noun 
 
Definition:
 
political philosophy: the political view, arising in the 1960s, that emphasizes the importance of economic growth and asserts that social justice is best maintained by minimal government interference and free market forces

 http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861682953/neoliberalism.html

I was focusing on foreign policy in particular. Bill Clinton was a neoliberal; how did he greatly differ from GW?

[Hereford]

I'd generalize and say neocons are akin to fascists

What's wrong with fascists Straw? 

[Hugo Chavez]

Deicide, Ron Paul is a neoliberal.  See, it's your use of the word that I think is limiting.  Under the proper use of the term, I can talk about Ron Paul's neoliberal views.  I can't under your use of the word.  I mean he sure in the hell in not a neocon.


Liberal theory goes back a very long way, of course, to the 18th century: John Locke, Adam Smith, and writers of that sort.  Then economics changed quite a bit towards the end of the 19th century and neoliberalism is a really revival of the 18th century liberal doctrine about freedoms and individual liberties connected to a very specific view of the market.  And the leading figures in that are Milton Friedman in this country and Friedrich Hayek in Austria.  In 1947 they formed a society to promote neoliberal values called the Mont Pelerin Society.  It was a minor society but it got a lot of support from wealthy contributors and corporations to polemicize on the ideas it held.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/lilley190606.html


Milton Friedman 1912-2006
by Ron Paul
"Milton Friedman was a strong advocate of economic liberty who opposed government intervention in both the purely economic and broader social spheres of our society. "
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html

[Deicide]

Deicide, Ron Paul is a neoliberal.  See, it's your use of the word that I think is limiting.  Under the proper use of the term, I can talk about Ron Paul's neoliberal views.  I can't under your use of the word.  I mean he sure in the hell in not a neocon.


Liberal theory goes back a very long way, of course, to the 18th century: John Locke, Adam Smith, and writers of that sort.  Then economics changed quite a bit towards the end of the 19th century and neoliberalism is a really revival of the 18th century liberal doctrine about freedoms and individual liberties connected to a very specific view of the market.  And the leading figures in that are Milton Friedman in this country and Friedrich Hayek in Austria.  In 1947 they formed a society to promote neoliberal values called the Mont Pelerin Society.  It was a minor society but it got a lot of support from wealthy contributors and corporations to polemicize on the ideas it held.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/lilley190606.html


Milton Friedman 1912-2006
by Ron Paul
"Milton Friedman was a strong advocate of economic liberty who opposed government intervention in both the purely economic and broader social spheres of our society. "
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html

I disagree; I think RP is much closer to a Classic Liberal.

A]t the heart of classical liberalism", wrote Nancy L. Rosenblum and Robert C. Post, is a prescription: "Nurture voluntary associations. Limit the size, and more importantly, the scope of government. So long as the state provides a basic rule of law that steers people away from destructive or parasitic ways of life and in the direction of productive ways of life, society runs itself. If you want people to flourish, let them run their own lives."[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

[Hugo Chavez]

I disagree; I think RP is much closer to a Classic Liberal.

A]t the heart of classical liberalism", wrote Nancy L. Rosenblum and Robert C. Post, is a prescription: "Nurture voluntary associations. Limit the size, and more importantly, the scope of government. So long as the state provides a basic rule of law that steers people away from destructive or parasitic ways of life and in the direction of productive ways of life, society runs itself. If you want people to flourish, let them run their own lives."[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

You're going to have a real hard time trying to wedge anyone into a specific category.  Ron Paul by the proper definition strongly holds neoliberal views.  But then so do globalists.  So we can talk about a globalist's neoliberalism and we can talk about Ron Paul's but would that make Ron Paul a globalist?  no...  It's not that simple and then if you know the meanings and use them properly it is simple.  Neocon=Neoliberal is not usefull in anyway and only limits the conversation.

Ron Paul is in line with Milton Friedman correct?  Milton is one of the "Architects of Neoliberalism"  Ron Paul believes in many of the ideologies that make up neoliberalism put forth by Friedman and the like.  Is it not therefore correct to be able to talk about Ron Paul's neoliberal philosophies?  Of course it is and that is proper with a proper understanding of terminologies.  Neocon=Neoliberal is not usefull whatsoever.

[Deicide]

You're going to have a real hard time trying to wedge anyone into a specific category.  Ron Paul by the proper definition strongly holds neoliberal views.  But then so do globalists.  So we can talk about a globalist's neoliberalism and we can talk about Ron Paul's but would that make Ron Paul a globalist?  no...  It's not that simple and then if you know the meanings and use them properly it is simple.  Neocon=Neoliberal is not usefull in anyway and only limits the conversation.

Ron Paul is in line with Milton Friedman correct?  Milton is one of the "Architects of Neoliberalism"  Ron Paul believes in many of the ideologies that make up neoliberalism put forth by Friedman and the like.  Is it not therefore correct to be able to talk about Ron Paul's neoliberal philosophies?  Of course it is and that is proper with a proper understanding of terminologies.  Neocon=Neoliberal is not usefull whatsoever.

Hmm...that might be true. Too bad everyone forgot about Classical Liberalism....

[Hugo Chavez]

Hmm...that might be true. Too bad everyone forgot about Classical Liberalism....

The only people who have are the ones that learned their politics from Rush Limbaugh and the like.  People like Hedgehog and others here have lectured on classical liberalism for some time.  To others it's just a label synonymous with "pinko commie"

[Deicide]

The only people who have are the ones that learned their politics from Rush Limbaugh and the like.  People like Hedgehog and others here have lectured on classical liberalism for some time.  To others it's just a label synonymous with "pinko commie"

 

[Deicide]

 "The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule."
-The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek

[Soul Crusher]

I'd generalize and say neocons are akin to fascists

No different than what modern liberals are.  The two are exactly the same but for one or two issues.

[BM OUT]

nice conspiracy theory.

it's not difficult to figure out.

most colleges have large #'s of smart people (students and faculty) who have rejected most if not all of what conservatives (I should say neocons) stand for.

There is no "demand" to hear their message. 

Yes,there is a HUGE demand to hear Ellen Degenerate speak and Michelle Obama with her 500.00 sneakers that she wears to feed the poor.Thats real enlightnment there.

[Straw Man]

Yes,there is a HUGE demand to hear Ellen Degenerate speak and Michelle Obama with her 500.00 sneakers that she wears to feed the poor.Thats real enlightnment there.

wtf does either have to do witht the topic (especially the comedian)

[Dos Equis]

The problem with becoming a two issue party is that too many people get eliminated.

The entire country has been going to shit for years and all what have conservatives been worrying about? Gay marriage and abortion so the family could be 'protected'. Clinton, outsourcing jobs, NAFTA, GAT, China buying all our debt, two wars, millions of jobs lost, growing the Govt post 911 and they're still pretending gay marriage is the biggest threat to American families.

No freaking jobs is the American family's biggest threat!!

I really don't see conservatives focused on only two issues.  Homosexual marriage is something that has been on the ballot in well over 30 states.  It's something liberals and conservatives don't want.  But it hasn't dominated the landscape.  Hard to call this a partisan issue.   

Same with abortion.  Millions of people, including voters, care about abortion, but it hasn't dominated party platforms, speeches, political discourse, etc. 

[Deicide]

I really don't see conservatives focused on only two issues.  Homosexual marriage is something that has been on the ballot in well over 30 states.  It's something liberals and conservatives don't want.  But it hasn't dominated the landscape.  Hard to call this a partisan issue.   

Same with abortion.  Millions of people, including voters, care about abortion, but it hasn't dominated party platforms, speeches, political discourse, etc. 

What's more important, the destruction of the dollar, run away inflation and the collapse of the American empire? Or gay marriage?