WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
"That's not a simple answer, it's simplistic." - So isn't "politics is a lot of things". If you could you reduce it to a simple sentence, the closest I've heard is either
Who's interests are being served? or Politics is the struggle over resources.
Both are simple but say a lot. 'Politics is a lot of things' could be replaced with 'carpet scraps are a lot of things'.
Classical liberalism, neoliberalism, conservatism, paleoconservatism are all terms referencing ideology. Do you consider my use of the word "Neoliberalism" incorrect NWP?
If so, how?
I don't use the term lightly and have tried to understand the ideology to spot it's reference points in conversations here as elsewhere. Here is one of the better articles that have tussled with what is Neoliberalism that I have read recently:
"People throw the term around loosely, as they do with “fascism,” with the same confounding results. Imagine living under fascism or communism, or earlier, classical liberalism, and not being allowed to acknowledge that particular frame of reference to understand economic and social issues. Imagine living under Stalin and never using the communist framework but focusing only on personality clashes between his lieutenants, or likewise for Hitler or Mussolini or Mao or Franco and their ideological systems! But this curious silence, this looking away from ideology, is exactly what has been happening for almost thirty years, since neoliberalism, already under way since the early 1970s, got turbocharged by the Democratic party under the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and Bill Clinton.[1]We live under an ideology that has not been widely named or defined."
Neoliberalism is like syphilis. It presents itself in many ways and is a master of disguises to go undetected. One of it's strengths is it's weird refusal to be acknowledged at all. Not a bad hat trick but, thankfully, there are history books written and people old enough to not buy into it's immaculately conceived deceit.
It's a con and most folks know they're being ripped off. It blunts progress, for a fee from the interest it serves, by managing the lowering of expectations of the citizenry.
