Thoughts on Neo-conservatism?

Thoughts on Neo-conservatism?

Other urls found in this thread:

theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cory-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/
fpif.org/from_keynesianism_to_neoliberalism_shifting_paradigms_in_economics/
cnbc.com/2017/01/13/bernie-sanders-pharma-bill-vote-reveals-new-battle-lines-commentary.html
washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/28/bernie-sanders-takes-another-swing-at-big-pharma-with-bill-to-allow-drug-imports/?utm_term=.9fcc13df8b5c
thehill.com/policy/healthcare/321597-sanders-introduces-bill-that-would-allow-the-purchase-of-drugs-from-canada
businessinsider.com/members-of-house-and-senate-introduce-drug-importation-bill-2017-2
slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/01/12/americans_want_to_buy_cheaper_medicine_from_canada_why_did_12_democrats.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

imperialist garbage

Paleo all the way. Pat Buchanan was the best voice on the McLaughlin Group.

It's shit for (some of) the same reasons that Hayek pointed out about socialism.

I like Pat
American Conservative is pretty based mag

This

A fraud just like social liberalism.

Traitors and RINOs who saw vacancies on the other side of the aisle and rushed to fill them.

I still unironically support the war in iraq and it will eventually be a success. Suck on that pinheads

A bunch of lunatics.

They're actually liberals and not even real conservatives, but since republicans are the idiot party in the us now, they fit in somehow.

Would've been ace if it were actually realist and not just crypto-Israeli crap

What the heck is neo conservatism?

There isn't such an ideology as conservatism. Conservatives are completely subjective to time and place. In the wake of democracy, monarchists were conservatives, then those against libertarian economy were conservatives, now biggest conservative parties in europe are libertarians in economy.

The only defining feature of neoconservatism is military interventionism, so it's basically total trash.

That doesn't make you a Neo-Con.

>The only defining feature of neoconservatism is military interventionism
That's wrong tho.

>That's wrong tho.
What else? I mean sure it's generally "socially conservative" but that's not a primary feature, and cucks like Rubio are increasingly downplaying the religious angle.

Israeli nationalism

Free Marketeering and supply-side economics.

My impression is that neo-cons are more partial to big government spending than standard cons.

>"paleo"cons

You're not wrong, but the two aren't mutually exclusive.

>being against globalism
this makes you pant on head

Neo-cons are pro-globalism, you nitwit. Their entire foreign policy hedges on it

I have a book for you. I know you've never read one before, but this is a good place to start.

>pro-free market
>buy wholesale into democratic peace theory
>not globalist because a retarded user who just got into political history at his current age of 16 says so
Seriously, fuck off

globalists are not real conservatives, or real liberals eithers. You are obviously in the wrong here, fellow. It's the Bannon types like you who runied the GOP.

>projecting this hard
You're telling me that the advisors and main players behind most major free trade agreements, known neo-cons, are not globalists because of your own personal made up theory and on top of this I'm some irrelevant shit from a yellow journalism rag because I called you out on it? WEW LAD. Please take some poli sci courses when you get to Uni so your Professor can either educate you or the very least take a book and hammer it across your thick skull.

I was expelled from undegrad because I called out all the paleo-globalist shill profs of their protectionist bullshit. I bet you're one of them. don't you have a class to indoctrinate?

Big fan of it.

>"real conservatives"
>"real liberals"
i bet you think that liberal means left, conservative means right, and that there's only one dimension of political opinion, don't you

so all of you are literally this

>What the heck is neo conservatism?
Ideologically it's neoliberalism.

Only in image. Their corporatists that regularly use government regulation to shut down competition for their special interest groups.

Sure you were. I have a feeling it has more to do with you going full /pol/tard in public and plugging your ears and screeching autistically when your professor tried to bring you into reality.

I'm not a paleocon or a neocon. I'm just not ignorant enough to say stupid shit on an Indonesian Dhow sail painting forum.

Realistically, it isn't. Neocons aren't really all that concerned with austerity, but they are in favor of privatization and supply-side econ.

[Citation Needed]

>[Citation Needed]
For what claim? They're deeply in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry, for example, which is not a free market.

[Citation needed]

“socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture.” In reality, neoconservatism isn't some cohesive ideology. What it means varies greatly depending on which "neocon" we're talking about.

[Citation needed]

neoconservatism is good in terms of is being reasonably pro-immigration and having a propensity towards trade agreements and international cooperation. The hawkish nation building thing is ok as long as you commit to your wars and choose your battles (we've fucked up 95% of these types of things since WWII, but it shouldn't be discounted practice). Also, capitalism is good. The general "conservative" values that otherwise make up regular conservatism are vague so I won't go into them

You made a claim and are now memeing while refusing to provide proof of said claim. Well done.

Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of Veeky Forums are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used the word "corporatist" to refer to supporters of big business, but corporatism has nothing to do with corporations! Whoops! You should always remember to only use the word "corporatist" to refer the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups on the basis of their common interests! Calling capitalists corporatists is poor form. You should always try to be accurate as to the name of which ideology you're talking about, unless you're deliberating pretending to be retarded to get (You)s!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my part to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>Realistically, it isn't.
Except that's exactly what it is. Neoconservatism IS neoliberals.

Neoliberals are pro-austerity so again, that's not correct. They share some aspects, but not all.

>Neoliberals are pro-austerity
When have neoliberals ever challenged the welfare state?

Since Friedman and Hayek.

Basically old school conservativism + muh Israel

>Basically old school conservativism + muh Israel
Will this meme ever die? Old school conservatism in the US is isolationist.

Yet despite dictating government policy since the 1980s neoliberals never got around to cutting it. Really makes you think.

Except they haven't been dictating government policy since the 1980s. Neo-cons have.

I already provided an example. Do you want a specific recent news article? I assumed you already knew, but here's one:

theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cory-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/

>Corporatism, also known as corporativism,[1] is the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, known as corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of their common interests.[2]
>such as agricultural, business
No need to thank me!

>example
You made a claim and then threw a temper tantrum that someone asked you to prove it. Nice legitimate source btw. I'm absolutely certain you can back that up with something factual and not something that outright calls itself an unofficial source.

Do you not follow the news at all? It was a big story a few months ago. Are you a European pretending he knows American politics?

>Do you not follow the news at all? It was a big story a few months ago
Okay, prove that.

Already did.

A scam that continues to fleece the American people while perpetuating injustices around the world and enriching a small group of unabashed and shameless faggots in Washington and Tel Aviv.

fpif.org/from_keynesianism_to_neoliberalism_shifting_paradigms_in_economics/

>For the last 25 years, economic policy and the public’s thinking have been dominated by a conservative economic philosophy known as neoliberalism. The reference to “liberalism” reflects an intellectual lineage that connects with 19th century economic liberalism associated with Manchester, England. The Manchester system was predicated upon laissez-faire economics and was closely associated with free trade and the repeal of England’s Corn Law, which restricted importation of wheat. Contemporary neoliberalism is principally associated with the Chicago School of Economics, which emphasizes the efficiency of market competition, the role of individuals in determining economic outcomes, and distortions associated with government intervention and regulation of markets.

The elections of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 can be viewed as inaugurating the formal period of neoliberal economic policy dominance. The last quarter century has seen an expanding application of neoliberal ideas within both industrialized and developing-country economies. Compared to the 1945-80 era, this recent period has seen substantially slower economic growth and widening income inequality, both within and between countries.

Really makes you think...

You don't know what neoliberalism is, do you?

>Compared to the 1945-80 era, this recent period has seen substantially slower economic growth

>The Intercept is a legitimate source of proof for a claim that you say is a big news story
Bravo. Next you'll link me something from Natural News.

>using some neoliberal ideas (by your own source) means full neoliberalism
Really makes you think. By that logic, most European states are full communist since they use some socialist ideas.

fpif.org/from_keynesianism_to_neoliberalism_shifting_paradigms_in_economics/

This is an actual article describing what neoliberalism actually is. You're going to say it's wrong because you're an idiot or just retarded?

cnbc.com/2017/01/13/bernie-sanders-pharma-bill-vote-reveals-new-battle-lines-commentary.html
washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/28/bernie-sanders-takes-another-swing-at-big-pharma-with-bill-to-allow-drug-imports/?utm_term=.9fcc13df8b5c
thehill.com/policy/healthcare/321597-sanders-introduces-bill-that-would-allow-the-purchase-of-drugs-from-canada
businessinsider.com/members-of-house-and-senate-introduce-drug-importation-bill-2017-2
slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/01/12/americans_want_to_buy_cheaper_medicine_from_canada_why_did_12_democrats.html

Third most destructive political ideology in the modern era, after communism and nazism.

There. Was finding an actual news source so difficult?

Was clicking the first link to Congress.gov, on the first article I provided, so difficult?

>links the equivalent of a blogspot article
>expects people to take it seriously
>continues to throw a tantrum after his opponent concedes to actual evidence

Your own article states that the U.S. didn't adopt neoliberalism in full, you fucking idiot.

>In practice, policy has not been applied as pure neoliberal theory would suggest. The United States has pursued a path of expansionary macro policy built on large budget deficits, countercyclical interest rates, and the erosion of social protections. The result has been relatively full employment and worsening income distribution. Contrastingly, Europe has pursued contractionary macro policies centered on high interest rates and fiscal austerity while maintaining its institutions of social protection. The result has been high unemployment and only modest progress in alleviating income inequality

>greentexting and making petty arguments like an autist
>not throwing a tantrum

>Source Criticism
>Petty
This is an academic board. If you want people to take anything you post as a serious source, head to /bant/ or /pol/.

>changing the argument to only care about the source when you were totally btfo over the original argument
>not petty

>rightfully disregarded a blogspot equivalent
>conceded when given actual source
>btfo
Sure thing lad

>Not in full
Sorry. Only 90%. My bad. I guess only pure ideology counts as being an ideology now. In that case no country has ever had an ideology as no country has every purely practiced an abstract ideology.

Speaking of source criticism, you could have read the Intercept link and noticed the congress.gov link on the page to which it would have taken you if you'd been arguing in good faith by reading the sources provided to you by your interlocutor.

>Only 90%.
Not even half.

Considering the link was "Bernie Sanders" I'd say otherwise.

Are you conceding my point in as well?

>Considering
I hate Sanders as much as the next guy but I don't follow your reasoning even a little bit.

It could've literally been anything.

That's literally all I'm conceding. You've lost anything else by being a shit over legitimate source criticism.

>Not even half.
I wish it was 0 as neoliberalism is truly the spawn of Satan. I don't like classical liberalism either but at least it's livable. neoliberalism is filth incarnate.

Cool story. That doesn't make the US neoliberal anymore than a few socialist policies make Europe communist.

>It could've been literally anything
I don't even know what you're talking about.

US government is 80% neoliberal, 20% democratic socialist. It's by all means neoliberal.

>In that case no country has ever had an ideology as no country has every purely practiced an abstract ideology.
You're almost there!

>being a shit
[Citation needed]

Whoa, nice statistics, sauce?

The link to congress.gov was hidden under Bernie Sanders. It could be literally anything. For all I know, it could be a link to articles ABOUT Bernie Sanders.

Your own source about neoliberalism contradicts you.

>Make claim
>someone asks you to provide source
>you throw a tantrum
>request for citation is repeated
>you double down on tantrum
>request for citation is repeated a second time
>provide blogspot equivalent
>legitimate source criticism ensues
>tantrum by you over source criticism
>request to provide legitimate source
>tantrum
>more source criticism
>actual sources FINALLY provided 5 posts later
>Concession to legitimate source

You could have just provided a legitimate source for your claims from the get go as requested. Instead, you were a little shit and you're still being a shit after a concession from your opponent because he DARED to question your claims and criticise an illegitimate source.

America has been a neoliberal society since the 1980s to any non-retarded observer. That doesn't mean 100% of America needs to be neoliberal.

>post a source that states that the U.S. never adopted neoliberalism but a few aspects of neoliberal ideology
>proceed to call it retarded because it contradicts your claims that the U.S. in neoliberal
Very good job.

>you throw a tantrum
That was not a tantrum, I didn't know what claim they wanted cited, so I gave an example of what I thought they wanted. Then instead of responding to my question like a reasonable adult, they just spammed [Citation needed] a second time.

After that, I provided the first available source for a widely-discussed story containing a link to the specific bill in question supporting my initial claim.

>I didn't know what claim they wanted cited
NIGGER YOU ONLY MADE ONE CLAIM PRIOR TO THAT. The fuck did you think they wanted? A god damn citation on particle physics?

>It could be literally anything
I still don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

It was such a well-known fact that government and corporations collude that I assumed any reasonable user would have been satisfied after mentioning a famous recent example.

>would have been satisfied after mentioning a famous recent example
>famous
So famous that the first citation you provided was from a fake news outlet

If you ask someone for a source when they make a claim about Big Pharma having a lot of political pull, it's reasonable to expect the person of whom you've made this demand to ask for clarification, because everyone already knows that it's true and the only debate is over the way to treat the determinate fact, not about whether the fact's truth-value is true or false.
>Well-cited link is posted that provides you with what you ask for
>Get mad because it isn't on your list of approved sources so you don't bother to read the article
>Assume it's garbage when it's actually what you asked for: a citation of a claim about a generally recognized fact
>Get shown several other articles backing up the claim from more reputable sources
>Continue arguing
This is where you're at now
>yfw

Meh, there's a good chunk of the morons who claim to be "nationalists" but don't support single payer healthcare, nationalizing industries, stepping down from the role of world police, environmentalism, or the removal of divisions between one citizen and another in there.

>If you ask someone for a source when they make a claim about Big Pharma having a lot of political pull
That was not the original claim. The argument wouldn't have even been had if the first response was a legitimate source. Instead we have devolved into tantrums over very reasonable source criticism. If anyone gave you a link to infowars or blogspot, I'm sure you'd shoot it down as illegitimate. There's no reason to criticize someone for doing the same to a progressive version.

>a fake news outlet
I take issue with the use of the term 'fake news' because it's a vaguely defined euphemism intended to make the man on the street equate institutional identity with production of true discourse and attempts to categorize some news outlets as having a set of credentials that renders them panoptic and all others as blind, deaf, and retarded. There are true claims and false claims; there are agents making claims, which are either true or false; there are institutions employing claim-makers; there is not 'fake news' or 'real news.' You are a faggot.
Using the term 'fake news' unironically makes me think that you're incapable of source criticism and take all your cues about truth and falsehood from CNN, MSNBC, or the BBC. Maybe FOX but probably not.

>Meh, there's a good chunk of the morons who claim to be "nationalists" but don't support single payer healthcare, nationalizing industries, stepping down from the role of world police, environmentalism, or the removal of divisions between one citizen and another in there.
Where is that? In America, nationalism is soon as taboo and "far right." although oddly enough, hyper patriotism is still accepted

>You used a phrase that I don't like and therefore anything you say is automatically wrong
On a scale of 1 to drooling and punching yourself in the face, how far down the spectrum are you?

>In America, nationalism is soon as taboo and "far right." although oddly enough, hyper patriotism is still accepted
Oh God, when will I stop seeing retards make posts like this one? Will I have to gouge out my eyes and cut off my hands?

I just broke my nose

Go to whatever school or job you spend your time at and tell your peers that your a nationalist. See what they say.