"neocons" vs. "neoliberals" and framing

[skids]

OK, I'll admit it. Despite a college education and leaning progressive, I'm an ignorant American. I know just about as much about world politics as I do about feminine hygene. So don't berate me too badly when I say I only picked up on the term "neoliberal" some short months ago.

For those just about as ignorant as I am, "neoliberal" is the term that, as far as I've been able to comprehend so far, a good portion of the rest of the world uses to describe political parties and organizations that are pro-corporate. That assessment may get on the nerves of a few who have adopted the label, but that's the way it seems to me just from glossing things over.

So are our "neocons" really "neoliberals"? Well, some parts of their philosophy seem to line up, but if you consider what they do rather than what they say, they don't. The whole limitation of government ideal is balefully neglected by the current "neocon" administration, and that part of "neoliberalism" would seem to be more in line with "paleoconservativism" if deeds are judged rather than words. However in looking at writings that try to tell the difference between "neocons" and "neoliberals" the primary difference cited is that neoconservativism believes neoliberalism must be acheived through a strong police/military push.

The bloat in government that results from the military buildup explains why neoliberalism would seem to be closer to paleoconservativism than neoconservativism on that one single matter. The neocon ideal would be to dismantle the police presence after global domination is acheived. The end result, in their dreams, would be identical to neoliberalism. We all know that won't happen, and a dictatorship/plutocracy would ensue (and that if a non-military neoliberal approach were to succeed, that would eliminate only the dictatorship, still leaving us with a plutocracy.)

To me this is splitting hairs. Shouldn't we call it like we see it? Or, if that would upset too many potential allies, shouldn't we emphasise the fact that the two differ by only a shade of meaning by coining another term, say "neolibcons"?

And if enough people started doing that, wouldn't it really piss them off to no end?

(Just as long as we keep using the words "soccer" and "football" in order to assert our Americanism, that is.)

(EDIT: I don't usually plead for recommendations, but this being posted so early, if you think it is worth discussion, might I suggest....)

[cestpaspossible]

1. A lot of posters use the term 'neoliberal'

as an insult applied to other Democrats or progressive with whom they happen to disagree, without giving much thought to a broader encompassing meaning for the term, rendering it essentially meaningless.

Which is how I would describe all labels, except within the context of a particular discussion. That's why many statutes begin with a Definitions section...

[Solon]

2. I can give you my definitions of both, though many may not agree...

Neo-Liberals and their parties usually are Pro Top Down Gobalization, as in they prefer that Corporations and international banking and trade organizations are the ones to "regulate" commerce altogether, with little to no government oversight. Orgs like the WTO and the IMF, along with Corporate CEOs, as of right now, are the ones who regulate global commerce, with disasterous consequences and now resistance worldwide.

Now the difference between them and Neo-Cons is two fold, for one, Neo-Cons are more Nationalistic than Neo-Liberals, but only to a point. Neo-Cons will move Heaven and Earth to benefit domestic corporations in advantage to foriegn competitors. This is a policy of "American First" Globalization. Second, they believe in using the "Big Stick" before the talk softly part. They are not only nationalistic, but also militaristic as well. Neo-Liberals are much less so, except in regards to death squads and so to keep people down who oppose Globalization in general, look up what Dole did in the Philipines recently to see Globalization in action.

You see, Neo Cons will use their own militaries to further Corporate Goals, as well as Mercs used by corporations, they do not oppose them either. Neo Liberals will use diplomacy and extortion first, before resorting to violent options, however, when the violent option is met, they mostly use local privateers to do their corporate master's bidding.

[porphyrian]

3. Take a look at the PNAC website.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

This is pretty much the defining document of neoconism. Wade through some of this shit and see what you think.

[skids]

4. Hrm, how about this:

neoliberal: a species of plebovorous would-be plutocrats
neocon: an omnivorous, cannabalistic, predatorial neoliberal

OK, that's it, I'm going to start just calling them all "neolibcons" and see if they wince.

[HereSince1628]

5. From Wikipedia

The term neoliberalism is used to describe a political-economic philosophy that had major implications for government policies beginning in the 1970s – and increasingly prominent since 1980 – that de-emphasizes or rejects positive government intervention in the economy, focusing instead on achieving progress and even social justice by encouraging free-market methods and less restricted operations of business and "development". Its supporters argue that the net gains for all under free trade and capitalism will outweigh the costs in all, or almost all, cases.

It can be contrasted with economic nationalism, fair trade and anti-capitalism, three different alternatives to neoliberalism.

<SNIP>

Neoconservatism is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the "new conservatives" in the United States. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government.

As a rule, the term refers to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and with Commentary and The Weekly Standard.