KDelphi,

You use the term “neo” incorrectly. Yes, if it makes you feel better, many others do also.

You do use the term as if it means “ultra”-something or other. It’s incorrect.

AFriend—ie see where I said, “I think it is”...

that would be me. That is why I gave you my own definition…I am not sure exactly what you are after.

I do NOT think that it means “Ultra” liberal (??)and I do not think I use it that way. I said that both “neos” were a morphing, or deforming of both liberal and conservative.

I think the Neo-liberal Democratic party is extremely conservative, in certain ways..they are only “liberal” (or should I say, conservative?) when it comes to laissez-fare ecnomic policies that favor the rich. I guess you could say “fake liberal”, as in “I feel your pain”.

It is a difficult term. I read Klein’s The Shock Doctrine, and, suddenly realized why the DLC and New Dems parties were actually the old GOP, before ultra-religious zeal took over. That is why it feels so wrong to me.

Its not a “professional” usage or anything. Do you have a better term? I am not the only one to use it and I didnt make it up.

KDelphi,

Yes, I’ve found those same definitions. But the reason I asked what a new liberal was to you is due to how you use the terms Neo-Con and Neo-Lib. You’ve not used them in the terms you found on the Net. You use those terms as if they mean Ultra Conservative or Ultra liberal.

Leefeller/AFriend—i was answering “AFriend” in that post…sorry…

He asked me if I had a definition of “neo-liberal” yet…

Leefeller—I can tell you what I think it is, but, for some reason, i dont think you will accept that definition. Sorry I didnt get back to you sooner—I had some stuff to do. Here is the “textbook” one:

“Neoliberalism: origins, theory, definition”
“Since the 1990’s activists use the word ‘neoliberalism’ for global market-liberalism (‘capitalism’) and for free-trade policies. In this sense, it is widely used in South America. ‘Neoliberalism’ is often used interchangeably with ‘globalisation’. But free markets and global free trade are not new, and this use of the word ignores developments in the advanced economies. The analysis here compares neoliberalism with its historical predecessors. Neoliberalism is not just economics: it is a social and moral philosophy, in some aspects qualitatively different from liberalism. Last changes 02 December 2005.”

To me, and others, It is the “New Dems”, it is DLC, it is Reagan, it is Clinton, Obama and Clinton.  It is a Shock Doctrine of economics and social policy.(ie free trade agreements, bailouing out banks and Hurricane Katrina) It is putting the needs of multi-natls first and people second. It is allowing corp to “buy up water”. It is allowing people to make profits from death, as in war and health “insurance’.  It is ‘welfare reform”. “De-institutionalization” without any follow up. It is the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror” , which are both really wars on the poor. It is firing Black water and hiring DynaCorp and pretending that it makes a difference.

Stuff like that. Stuff the two parties agree on.

Here is another one:
“The definition of neoliberalism presented here is more abstract than usual - but it also suggests that neoliberalism has been underestimated. A widely quoted example of those ‘usual definitions’ is What is “Neo-Liberalism”? by Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo García:

Neo-liberalism is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer….Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter- American Development Bank….the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That’s what makes it ‘neo’ or new.”

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html

What more do you want?

Referring to Rumsfeld’s handshake with Saddam Hussain.

“That single handshake has been seen thousands of times on television and in print”.

A Prop wash handshake before supporting the great Hussain Despot, before we installed the mighty American Democracy in our image, when the Great Hussain Despot cut his own puppet strings, so it was in the wisdom of the mad. In Iran, absent the second part, the puppet strings were cut with the despot and thrown in our laps.

KDelphi,

Still unable to explain what a “new liberal” is? Who are these mythical people you keep going on about?

ompaloopa, my my our barin must be in overdrive right now. Better sleep with you 6/7 billion friends maybe they can give you some comfort

oshmoondika. since your skill set revolves around what your jock strap carries then you must be equal to a dwarf-sized midget with illusions of height.

opaloompa, maybe you think the 6/7 billion are equal to you guess its low esteem on your part but from my skill set 7 billion can’t carry my jock strap. So if feel they are your equal than all I can say is good but don’t respond to my posts because its obvious that I’m your better!!

shmoondika your yearning for the John Wayne days bespeaks your inadequacies and insecurity. The world is made of 6/7 billion people. You are not better than anyone regardless of what you think of yourself. If on the other you believe you are of the “chosen” ones by the creator then you have to accept the facts that everyone on the planet believes they are the chosen ones.

In fact your kind better suck it up since even your dollar is worth diddly and the comic book movies Hollywood puts out will not save your derrier.

AFriend—We certainly are! And its a good thing. I can post any link I like. I never expect people like you to read anything that they disagree with.

Mandinka—There is a place where they still think this way—I think it is called Texas, and, you could make the Bushes the royal family! Unless you are a real mandinka—I dont think that they are crazy about anybody thats not white down there..

omoop, yep your right a return to the good old days of John Wayne would be ideal. Rather than our current foreign policy of please pretty please like me… and just to show how much we need your good will here’s an extra $50 Billion. Now can we be friends. Now you may want to be a sucker but that my friend is NOT the American way, you can lick all the boots you like but is solves NOTHING ask Neville Chamberlain

Neocon/chickenhawks and comical right wingers like Bolton and Gingrich pine for the days when John Wayne would mouth. “ma’am a good Indian is a dead Indian” just before climbing his horse and riding into the sunset.

With over 700 military bases scattered through out the world the US msm still refers to Putin, Chavez, Castro, Hamas, and the chinese ledership as “desports”.

When will the sheepll wake up and smell the gas.

RobertinWestbury,

Your point is well taken. Making a big deal out of a handshake is a waist of time.

Many still insists today that Donald Rumsfeld’s diplomatic handshake with Saddam Hussein during the Regan administration meant everything. That single handshake has been seen thousands of times on television and in print. To the critics that handshake is certain proof that “Saddam was our boy”.

It’s all ludicrous posturing by the opposition. Let no one get away with saying only one political party does this.

KDelphi,

I was more hoping you cold explain what and who is a “new liberal”.

For example: You write of Dick Cheney, a long time conservative, as a “new conservative”. There is nothing new about Vice President Cheney’s conservatism.

Are you certain you’re not enveloped in some mythical, comic book, type villains?

Honestly, there is no need for you to share informational links with me. I won’t be reading them. I know enough about your opinions to understand we are worlds apart in the current events we see. You support murderous thugs as long as they support your causes. To you murder can be overlooked.

I’ll never agree to that.

AFriend—Yes. Try Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine.

Here she is on the Bailout: (supported by neo-cons and neo-libs alike):
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

It is NOT true liberalism. It is free mkt capitalism, with, perhaps a little Keynes or FDR thrown in to satisfy people of the 1960’s.

They may not call it that, but Greenspan, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon and others all agreed, that their laissez-fare brand of “free mkt” Capitalism was the only way to go. Like neo-conservatism is a morphing of conservatism into something that no one really likes,(ie Bush, Gingrich) so neo-liberlism morphs liberlism into a money-laden , Capitalistic process that benefits only the wealthy.

It got us where we are today. That is why the duopoly , as well as Capitalism, as it is practiced in the uS today, has brought down the economic world.

the big difference between Reagan and Nixon was they were adults smart and understood the give and take in negotiations. This empty suit is incapable of understanding when he is taken advantage of. One only has to judge his European fiasco to realize that he should be banned from traveling and only allowed to speak with a teleprompter

“Echoing Buchanan’s ire was Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and would-be presidential aspirant. “Everywhere in Latin America, enemies of America are going to use the picture of Chavez smiling and being with the president as proof that Chavez is now legitimate, that he’s acceptable,” he complained.”

The man has won 5 fair elections. 

He’s legitimate.  Whether Gringrich, Buchanan and the right like it or not.

KDelphi,

The Chicago school of new liberalism?

Reagan, Nixon and Bush were/are despots.

AFriend—thaey cannot take form me what I do not have. I think you are under the mistaken impression that I am middle class or something…that would be wrong.

I recieve a newslwetter from Venezuela everyday, which seems to indicate something very different from whast you describe. Venezuela is not the only place turning away from the fake “free mkt”. Everyone is.

I ask you—if someone declares themselves to be an enemy or a friend, shouldnt we judge their actions? The US has behaved like the enemy of Latin Am for a very long time. The Chicago School of neo-liberalism has turned the entire hemisphere against us.

Chaves is the consumate showmen—I’ll give you that. But, he is responding to US (esp CIA) actions, The entire of Latin Am is turning away from laissez-fare Capitalism. I hope that we do, also, before it is too late for millions of us.

In answer to being “absolote”—yes we should have a free mkt for designer shoes and stuff, I guess. But, to do so for the basic necessities of life is inhumane and immoral.

Maybe the middle class wil have to get “less comfortable” before they see that it is a scam—its a shame.

Sorry Afreind, for some reason I missed Kdelphi’s name at the top of your last post, sorry my mistake.

Leefeller,

“Assumptions made into facts seems most convenient, so stereotyping all the posters on this thread with one broad stroke, could be wrong or very presumptions but not correct, except for the fact they do not fit a special prescribed agenda.”

—-

Feel free to be specific and point out where I stereotyped all posters in this thread.

Afrined

Assumptions made into facts seems most convenient, so stereotyping all the posters on this thread with one broad stroke, could be wrong or very presumptions but not correct, except for the fact they do not fit a special prescribed agenda.

KDelphi,

The monetary and political systems you praise sound terrific. Truly. On paper and in deep political conversation with your friends regarding the “fairness” of central control, your ideas are Utopian. Oddly enough they also happen to be the most brutal in actual life.

I’ve seen enough of your opinions to understand that you hold a great deal of passion, and lend your strongest support, toward the most oppressive amongst us. You see Chavez as a bold hero as he rails on about the wicked Western world.

I know you believe you’re being kind, open minded and thoughtful.

In the actual world Chavez is an oppressive murderer and the Castro Brothers would deny you your Internet and “compel you” to turn over any money you worked hard for in the name of what’s “good for the state”. Don’t like that? Dare to question the method in public? You get to go to jail to learn the lessons of patriotism.

But the speeches are terrific!

Paracelsus,
“Where did you find out so much about Venezuela?”

—-

I know of no single source for the information I shared here. I’ve simply been paying attention.

My regular reading, if you wish to search archives, are U.S. State and Defense Dept, U.N. Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, STRATFOR, U.S. News&Wrld; Report, New York Times, Foreign Policy Quarterly and various sundry periodicals.

I also subscribe to Google Alerts using the Key words, “Hugo Chavez”, “Venezuela Supreme Court”, “Venezuela culture”, “Valencia” and “Venezuelan Elections”.

Quite honestly, however, one really does not have to do as much reading and studying as I enjoy to know a great deal about the Chavez government. One really just needs an interest in the subject.

P.S. I stand solidly behind what I’ve written.

But then Reagan’s peace offensive only followed the pattern set by Buchanan’s old boss, Richard M. Nixon, whose most lasting achievement as president was to establish official relations with the People’s Republic of China.

After making peace with our enemies it seems that we have borrowed from their manuals on despotism to become like them.

If Afriend’s research can be cited and verified, I could say that Obama’s friendliness toward Chavez should not be all that surprising. Perhaps they can compare notes and swap recipes. As to Chavez funding anti-government groups against Colombia, it would seem to be an experiment to implement new techniques of subversion. The whole world is one large laboratory for Big Brother.

@ AFriend

Where did you find out so much about Venezuela?

KDelphi, no problem with alliances between peoples; I’m all for peaceful trade and cooperation. But stupid, wasteful foreign wars and having to see certain peoples and countries as “enemies” just because the US government calls them so—no way.

Interpretative comments as assumptions, as to my support of Chavez?  Assumptions are weak when making decisions. Why not the contrary?  When one suggests Chevez’s comments sound like Bush’s? How according to AFreind’s comments on the subject would that be supportive of Chavez?

“Fee Fi Foe Fum”, or something like that was said by the Giant looking for Jack.

Foe, could be hood lingo for “What yo doe tat foe”?

Is Foe an enemy? Who is your foe?  What the foe.

And then we have “I ask again. Isn’t a foe someone who describes themselves as such? ” Then went on to Chavez to answer the own question.

Maybe Afrend’s definition, but not Websters, where is it written that a foe declares his foeness before he can be a foe?  It could be either way, but it seems the USA finds foes with relish and places a cherry on top.  Hopefully this enlightened foe finding will become past tense with the new administration.

Leefeller,

Isn’t it time for a new boogy man? Isn’t hating all things “Bush” a waste of time and energy now?

There’s a new U.S. President dealing with despots the likes of Chavez.

—-

I ask again. Isn’t a foe someone who describes themselves as such? Not unlike Hugo Chavez who openly refers to himself as an enemy of all things “Western”?

“The “free mkt” is a lie”. It may be said the free market is an illusion, sold as a bill of goods. Capitalism according to Adam Smith may have had some merit, but corporate monopoly’s would not fit into Orthodox Capitalism. Though I am rusty on my Adam Smith, capitalism is not what it seems to have been sold to be.

Harsh words “The “free mkt” is a lie”. though correct in nature, does seem absolute.  Wouldn’t leaving some wiggle room for discussion be more worthy than, using absolutism’s set in stone?

Paul_GA—Right, but I meant an alliance between peoples—not govts..

AFriend—Maybe youre right. Chavez said he ‘wants to be Pres. Obama’s friend”, so he must be one, by that logic. Or maybe we should “bring them the joys of capitalism” like we have done in so much of the world. Yeah, I’m sure they’d appreciate that.

If you dont think its “corporate America”, then you must be rich.

Yeah, start with Iran Contra, follow with support of dictatorships and multi-natls like Enron trying to take over Latin Ams water supply and continue with CIA assassinations (and many more attempts than “successes”—I’m starting to think that those guys arent so bright)...then you’ll see why we are criticized in what we seem to consider out “back yard”.

You can find out the truth at:
http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/09/response-attacks

You will find out the truth about Friedman and the uS Shock Doctrine there..and their support for Pinochet and other horrible despots.

Naomi Klein writes:”..Expropriation of corporate holdings may be the greatest sin any socialist government can commit in the eyes of the international financial markets (just ask Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez or Cuba’s Fidel Castro). But the asset protection guaranteed to companies under free trade deals did not extend to the Argentine citizens who deposited their life savings in Citibank, Scotiabank and HSBC accounts and now find that most of their money has simply disappeared. Neither did the market’s reverence for private wealth embrace the U.S. employees of Enron, who found that they had been “locked out” of their privatized retirement portfolios, unable to sell even as Enron executives were frantically cashing in their own stocks….

...Meanwhile, some very necessary fences are under attack: in the rush to privatization, the barriers that once existed between many public and private spaces—keeping advertisements out of schools, for instance, profit-making interests out of health care, (note frm KDelphi—I dont know that private profit/class status and health of citizens were ever protected as separate in the uS) or news outlets from acting purely as promotional vehicles for their owners’ other holdings—have nearly all been levelled. Every protected public space has been cracked open, only to be re-enclosed by the market….”

The “free mkt” is a lie.

Afreind,

Different perspectives of what a “foe” defined is, may be in order. 

One could conclude AFreind’s description of Chavez,  described our last president, with some very minor adjustments.

KDelphi, an “entangling alliance” is like a military alliance in which the USA would be constrained by a treaty to fight on behalf of the ally, whether US interests are involved or not.

Leefeller,—“Seems our great nation decides who is to be friend or foe using a pandering of corporate interests guide line”.

Isn’t a foe someone who describes themselves as such? Not unlike Hugo Chavez who openly refers to himself as an enemy of all things “Western”?

Isn’t a foe someone who throttles decades of a Venezuelan open press, an independent judiciary and the right to private property and peaceful assembly? Is that what you believe to be a “friend” of yours?

Or is it wrong for anyone to stand up and state very clearly their opposition against all like Chavez?

I honestly don’t believe that it’s “corporate America” that prevents people from knowing what a true foe is. There must be something else altogether at play there.

A foe is someone who claims themselves to be exactly that.

Despots can be benevolent rulers or not. As some Royalty has been loved by their peoples. 

Seems our great nation decides who is to be friend or foe using a pandering of corporate interests guide line.  Even in our country, peoples interests have taken the back of the bus. Fir special interests make sure this is what happens,  manipulation of MSM, legions of lobbyists, just follow the money.

The Iran Contra song and dance is a starting point of what happens when countries do not pander to USA.

We had Bush for eight years, is our conceited decadence still showing?

At the risk of sounding immodest; I’m stunned that so many here seem to know so very little about real despotism. I am honestly shocked at the number of people who think they support men like Hugo Chavez.

Chavez rails against everything Western, open, free, and democratic. And some of you here seem to love it.

You all have your various reasons for your support but yet most of you seem to know nothing about the current Venezuelan Government. And if you did, and still threw your support behind Chavez, well, in y mind it would unconscionable.

I apologies for being so frank. I am shocked.

What continues to amaze me is not that Right Wingers accuse Obama’s handshakes as evidence of coddling dictators or supporting fascist or communist governments.

No. What continues to amaze me is that those accusations are…
1. Reported by (typically) one media outlet: FOX and then quickly picked up as relevant ‘news’ by every other outlet.
2. Most often born from the mouths of entertainers (Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly) and not from even marginally-expert reporters, responsible insiders or informed politicians.
3. Repeated ad nauseum until they’re validated as a responsible position if only because they’re in the news!

Corporate Media: It’s all about the hype, the sizzle, the outrageous accusations, pushing the fear or anger buttons - whatever it takes to boost the ratings…validity be damned.

NYCArtist—I thought the same thing. If our non democratically elected president and Congress (as well as Judiciary) are not despots, then, Chavez is most certainly not. He was democratically elected, and, when he tried to change the Constitution, so that he could run again, it was defeated. Fox News pundits said, “Oh, yeah, like he’ll really accept the will of the people!”. They weer pretty quiet when he did.

Maybe if the CIA would stop trying to assassinate Chavez, he wouldnt hate them so badly.

Paul_GA—I agree. I am tired of the US MSM defining who ‘Merkins “enemies” should be. I dont know about the “alliances” part…I am for intl unions. But, not with foreign govts.

mlb,

“His only act of “despotism” is to criticize the United States government.”

—-

Your comments make it clear that you support Chavez for a single reason. He’s critical of the United States.

If you could look past that you’ll see a man that was democratically elected and immediately started packing the Supreme Court with lifetime judges. He essentially erected for himself a strong majority in what for decades had been a strong independent Federal Court. He immediately began changing sectional voting board rules and packed the Federal Voting Commission with supporters. He also attempted twice, and failed twice, to get himself a lifetime presidency.

Within two years of a Chavez government Policia Federali began taking people out of their homes and summarily shooting them in the street. Interestingly enough most were men and woman critical of the government.

Within 5 years the Venezuelan government began shutting down the long history of the independent Venezuelan press. This was made easier after journalists and editors began being jailed and/or disappearing.

Today Hugo Chavez himself is fomenting and subsidizing various armed groups and governments that are against all things that smack of a free and open market and anything “Western”. In fact our closest ali in the region, Columbia, another democratically elected government, is being attacked by those same groups and governments that Chavez supports.

Horrendous poverty is found all across the nation. Illiteracy rates are some of the worlds highest. The Chavez government was able to take advantage of record oil prices to give away much needed food and open health centers across the nation. Two things that are in terrific need. But it has also had the effect of Chavez getting re-elected by a majority who are unaware of the daily actions of threats and intimidation. While people like you and I, people who can openly be critical of the government, are hunted, harassed and many killed..

I wrote it another post recently. Hate of the United States for hate sake is not helpful. Knowing that people such as Chavez truly are despots and murderers is a great place to start.

Curious:

To “The Contigent” any dictator, no matter how vicious and genocidal he is, can’t be ALL bad if American leaders dislike or hate. In fact, he can’t POSSIBLY be a dictator if the US President doesn’t like him. Only Hitler is the exception, and maybe, maybe Mugabe.

To TC, any dictator no matter how UN-genocidal he is, if he’s liked and/or worked with by the US President, then he MUST be worse than Hitler.  The only exceptions are some of the Arab leaders, like Mubarak and MAYBE the King of Jordan.

Doesn’t this seem just a little twisted?

Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for Obama reaching out to Castro, Chavez and Morales.  I’m a BIG believer that you don’t cut off talking until things are already so much in the shithole that war is inevitable.

Next to Pat Buchanan and the American lunar right Chavez is a secular saint and Newt should get some of the air let out of his head. I think it’s putting pressure on his alleged brain.

Great post Joe Conason! Purple Girl, thank you for your compelling precis, a great complement to Mr. Conason’s post.
Best regards

Same thought as mlb’s first line of comment.  My thought was “who wrote the title?  Chavez is not a despot.”.

I watched a House hearing about the cap-and-trade idea yesterday.  Without exception the Republicans tried to shoot down every aspect of the proposition - and their promise of a “Republican Alternative” never materialized.  Democrats were not 100% behind the idea but at least were willing to discuss the pros and cons. 
  It appears that whether the topic is health care or energy or national security, the Republicans’ answer to everything is negative - accompanied by diatribes and fierce criticism. 
  I am tempted to never vote for ANY Republican again just on principle.  Maybe the “moderates” can form a 3rd party and make a comeback under a new party name.

That Mao would agree to meet the ruling class front-man for imperialism Nixon, a remorseless executioner of the innocent in Vietnam, was a source of dismay for some people.

See what hypocrites the Repubs are? That’s a very good reason why I abandoned the GOP a decade ago.

And I’ll also say this—no foreign leader and no foreign country described by the US government as an “enemy” of America is an enemy of mine. Instead of making new enemies and new excuses for these idiotic foreign wars like in Iraq and Afghanistan, this country needs to make friends. As Jefferson said in his first inaugural, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with ALL nations; entangling alliances with NONE.” (My emphasis.)

Shame on Conason for buying in to the Chavez is a despot propaganda.  Loudmouth maybe, firebrand for sure, and no one says you have to like him, but he’s a democratically elected president. He is not a king or lord and does not exert autocratic control over his country.  His only act of “despotism” is to criticize the United States government.

30 yrs of Brain washing by the Evangelical Right is rearing it’s ugly head.
Newt wants to invade and attack anything that moves.This poses not only a problem internationally, but in Troops numbers and of course money. How does Newt expect US to increase those in Military service- mandatory military service?
Most Repugs refuse to do anything to even TRY to slow down the effects of Global warming, because they won’t even admit there is a problem. In fact they continue to push for increased drilling.
Currrently it seems most Repugs are regrettful that we had prosecuted waterboarding after WW2.Since this created a Legal Precedence which now undermines their agruement legitamizing it under ‘war’ conditions..Remember these were not only Enemies, they were ISLAMIC Extremeist terrorists.
As for the Economy (domestic & interantional) the Repug solution is to do nothing. No bailout to the banks who control all money flow, no help to home owners, no help to industries which employ milllions.
What could be the Future they invision which gives credence to their stratedgies on theses various issues….There will be no Future.
To figure out the Guiding concept which underlies their doctrine, one can only surmise that they have all become Armegeddonists. So starting wars on every continent, letting the economy tank even further, actively working towards global warming and, just to put a bow on it, add justifaction for heinous acts under the Guise of religious Righteousness.
If you view their Policies from this standpoint, it begins to make perfect sense. If the ‘End of Days’ is upon Us, or you hope to precepitate End of Days..War is good, Famine and natural disasters are essential and if you wnt to be sure to Prove your worthiness prove you will go to any extent to provoke and torture the Unworthy or sinful.
These Neo cons have proven they hold no concerns about taxes nor do they fret over deficits.They are unable to formulate a platform, because the one they are really operating from will terrify and repulse most people. Of course they want Obama to ‘fail’. His success, aka Our success, would derail their hopes for the Rapture. In fact they have become so deluded and desperate for this ‘Revelation’ they are willing to push whatever philosophy, agenda and actions to bring it to fruition.
Repugs are ‘obstructionist’, they are ‘Perpetuators’.they don’t love Reagan as a symbol of Republican values- he had none- They love him because he brought the sociopathic doctrine of the evangelical movement into power.