Neo-Conservatives and Neo-Liberals

Clearing It Up: Neo-Conservatives and Neo-Liberals
Share
Yesterday at 12:33am by one of my favorite alumni, Calvin Johns
Believe it or not, you can be BOTH a Neo-Con and neo-liberal. In fact, that's kinda common.

Neo-Conservatives are a POLITICAL faction that believe in a couple things: First, the average person is not smart enough to rule him/herself. Second, a small group of wealthy elites should run the country. Famous Neo-Cons: Cheney, Rove, et al.

It isn't all THAT evil of an idea. Plenty of great people in history have thought that same thing. Plato agreed with this. Most philosophers of the Middle Ages. Artists. Conservatives and Liberals (believe it or not) alike. I mean, Kant was completely torn over whether people were ready to rule themselves. He said in the end that they were, but he admitted that his culture had not trained them very well to do so.

Neo-liberalism is an ECONOMIC philosophy surrounding the idea that government should get out of the way of businesses to let the "free market" work its "natural" course. Now, this boils down to a small group of very rich people running the economy (and by extension the entire country) instead of a government, which would in this view only be necessary as an infrastructure. This idea is popular among libertarians and many seemingly conservative folk in today's society. Famous neo-liberals: Reagan, Friedman, Thatcher, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama.

See the similarities? The big one is "a small group of rich people running the show." Neo-liberals won't OVERTLY say they want businesses to run the country. They talk about freedom and free market and liberty and deregulation. The thing is, there is no such thing as a "free" or "natural" market. We MADE that market over hundreds of years.

The idea is that the experts of big business should run the economy, not the government. It doesn't take a Marxist, however, to see that a small group of wealthy business owners running the economy alongside a dissolution of the powers of government would lead to a society run by the desires and in the best interest of these already-wealthy giants.

I mean, what is the super awesome healthcare plan provided by the Left? Take tax dollars to give money to the poor, and then force the poor to spend that money on PRIVATE insurance. Wait, really? Yes, really. Tax money goes to people who have no healthcare so that they can buy healthcare from big businesses. I'm not saying that's bad; it might be a lot better than alternatives. But we just need to see what's up, K?

Neo-liberals talk about an "even playing field," but how would anything be even? I mean, if these neo-liberals get what they want, it would be AT BEST like starting a very fair and well-intentioned race with every athlete starting at a different place on the track (and a very small group starting a foot from the finish line). The race is theoretically fair, but it isn't like these neo-liberals want to take all the money in the country and split it up evenly before the starting gun. They want to start right now, each capitalist for him/herself. Each person starting in completely UNEVEN starting places (the rich already rich and the poor already poor).

Now, if you're a politician with a very old, wealthy family, the Neo-Con boat sounds great. If you're a rich business-person who needs to expand his/her business but the pesky government gets in the way, the neoliberal wagon is inviting. What if you're both? Then you're both. Easy.

I mean, technically you can't be both, but philosophically you can share both ideals. And, practically, you can talk like you're both and have double-think incorporating both sides.

I'm not badgering either camp. I happen to be neither. Just clearing up terms that appear to be opposites but are not.