06-05-2017, 12:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-05-2017, 12:21 PM by Eric the Green.)
(06-03-2017, 10:15 PM)Galen Wrote:(06-03-2017, 05:57 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:(06-03-2017, 09:24 AM)beechnut79 Wrote:(02-04-2017, 10:47 AM)David Horn Wrote:(02-02-2017, 06:58 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: Here's the main problem with our political situation today. Both parties are divided. On the Republican side you have the neoconservatives vs. the nationalists. This election has determined that the Nationalists are winning. On the Democrat side you have the neoliberals vs. progressives. The neoliberals are still in power but I think everyone sees the writing on the wall. The future of the Democratic Party are the progressives (or socialist democrats). The neocons and neolib.s are done for. Neoliberalism may have been a good and pure ideology back in the 30s and 40s when it was trying to reverse the totalitarianism of the time, but they've become corrupt warmongers. It's time for them to go. But are we replacing it with something much worse? What happens when your country becomes dominated by a mix of Nationalism and Socialism? A Totalitarian nightmare. The future true left are the libertarians, the ones fighting for freedom both socially AND economically.
Allow unmitigated private power, and get the worst of Gilded Age 1.0. Are you okay with?
Haven't we, for all intents and purposes, been mired in Gilded Age 2.0 for some three decades now? But, despite the creation of a malaise situation which, IMO, is much worse than that of the Carter years, somehow the majority of the public has learned how to compartmentalize the emotions in order to go after the things they value. Any change in political and economic scenery will no doubt occur only if all players are willing to partner for the benefit of all. Then there should be no problem in accomplishing goals. We've been there before and can do it again if a significant portion of the populace will get on board.
That's right. We are mired, and we can move forward again if we choose to.
Drakus got some of his terms confused in his post. Neo-liberals = libertarians. Those are exact synonyms, and they are Republicans; most of them.
You are so full of shit. First thing you got wrong is that many libertarians register as member of the Libertarian Party or as independent. If anything Republicans on the whole are held in contempt by libertarians with notable exceptions such as Ron Paul. If the neo-liberals and libertarians were the same then Obozocare would have been nuked straight off and the Republicans wouldn't be trying to pass a watered down version of Obozocare. This replacement will fail for the same reasons as Obozocare because the same basic structure is there.
All that doesn't matter in the least. Republicans of course are not pure libertarians, as I mentioned. They are not pure enough for you or many of those libertarians who register with the Party. Trump and the Republicans want to utterly decimate Obamacare, and the Freedom Caucus wants to repeal it altogether. So what? There's always shades of opinion. Republicans are just the libertarians who can actually get elected in the USA, just as you might say that Democrats are the social democrats who can get elected. Pure Socialists and pure Libertarians are not going to get elected or implement their policies in America.
Neo-liberalism and libertarianism are just two words for the same thing; that is a matter of definition. Again, Republicans are not pure neo-liberals either, nor are they pure classical liberals.