[the editor window doesn't cut text at the right place so I'll shrink some lines]

> I think Mr. Brooks is confusing neoliberalism with neoconservatism.
>
> He seems to be advocating a “liberalism� that is moderate
> on fiscal/economic issues, moderate on social/personal issues,
> and hawkish on foreign policy.
>
> That might very well describe the views of many moderate
> Democrats, but it doesn’t seem to correspond to the definition
> that is most commonly associated with neoliberalism.

The term “neoconservative” has been used to mean different
things, and “neoliberal” in the USA has been used to mean
something different than what “neoliberal” means outside the
USA.

Outside the USA, “neoliberal” refers to economic policy, and
is given the name “conservative” here in the USA because it
is sought by people on the Right (where libertarians and other
economic “freedom” types have their home). This means the
liberalization of economic activity through reforms that reduce
or end regulations and other government interventionist
measures that interfere with and obstruct economic activities
that would occur freely. “Neo” is used because it’s post-
Keynesian or after the era of government intervention in the
economy as a valued and sought after practice. Why “neo”?
It is a repetition somewhat of how things were before such
interventionism.

In the USA, “neoliberal” typically means post-1980 liberals,
that is, people who have learned their lessons after earlier
liberalism failed and was repudiated in the 1980 elections;
they don’t advocate repetition of New Deal or Great Society
overreach but “saner” and “more modest” goals and policies.
In later years they even used the term “Third Way” for a
while, indicating they were different than the way liberalism
used to be.

“Neoconservative” can mean “post-1960s conservative”
(after the revival of conservatism as liberalism failed); it
currently refers to former liberals and radicals who have
become conservative particularly in foreign policy (many
such people are ex-radicals who went Right when the Left
embraced the Soviet Union and other adversaries of the
West; many are Jews who made the move when the Left
supported not only the USSR but also Israel’s enemies
and often started being vicious toward Israel itself).

The other meaning is similar to the first but is a way to
distinguish the “untrue” from the real conservatives on
the far right, the “paleo” (old) conservatives. The paleos
(who have no power in Washington) detest how much
power Washington has and how friendly the GOP and
other “conservatives” in Washington are with Big
Government. The kindest way I have seen to describe
the neocons as defined this way is “liberals with
economic common sense.”

I believe you have the terms right and others can see
that with the definitions, context really helps when you
hear or see the terms used.

As far as what Brooks said, I don’t agree with it. Of
course now that the Dems have some power again they
will want to appeal to their left wing (which disturbs to
outrages everyone else). But the left wing of the Dem
Party is still not the leadership. Maybe Brooks is
trying to scare readers into being more active so the
GOP has less chance of losing the 2008 elections.

> You argue that social conservatives and the Religious Right have been marginalized > in the Republican power and that its the business community that wields the real
> power.

That is the dominant interest group in the GOP. Other interest groups besides the Religious Right and “economic conservatives” (actually more libertarian and properly called economic liberals; this is called “liberal” and “neoliberal” economics outside the USA) are, like Big Business, analogues to many Dem interest groups: the farm bloc, veterans, small business.

(The vets’ vote if it could be identified would be interesting in 2008 after we have been treated to the Walter Reed embarrassment. VA has been problem ridden for ages but this scandal is pertinent now to the upcoming election. Will the Bush administration and Congressional GOP try to outspend the Dems on this issue?)

> But how do you account for the fact that since Barry Goldwater (Mr. Conservative
> himself), the Republican power has become increasingly MORE socially
> conservative and LESS fiscally conservative.

They waver on social conservatism. They’re just trying to keep those votes solidly GOP. Usually they leave it to the Democrats to repel the Religious Right and other people who don’t like the Dems’ left wing. When the Religious Right that wants more power starts to complain, they get a sop once in a while.

Fiscal non-conservatism? They definitely spend too much. Part of it is that now that the GOP has been in power long enough, it likes an overgrown federal government with (GOP) politicians enjoying excess power. That gives them influence, which has ($$$) value.

Much of the time, many GOP politicians are in fact more liberal than many would like. Not to mention the far right and what they think of (the older, broader definition of) neoconservatives — what one person said rightly are “liberals with [some] economic common sense” (who are ready to throw that sense away to buy or at least keep votes).

> Back in 1981, Goldwater famously (or infamously) said “I think every good
> Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.�

He is not, not, not a model for the entire Religious Right, much less for everyday people who are religious.

> Nowadays, you see Republican presidential candidates (even “moderates� such as > McCain) running to kiss Fallwells’s ass in order to have a shot at winning the
> Republican primaries.

I hate to be oblique but McCain never was respected by wiser minds — he was often either too liberal or deliberately antagonistic. The guy can’t even sell himself, is just a cynical exploiter. Didn’t he appear at the college championship football game and simply waddle to and fro and shake everyone’s hands at the center of the field (where he was on teevee and got some free air time) without saying much to anybody?

* sigh *

To the extent that the Religious Right is a voter bloc, yes, they are being courted. It is my view (my hope, actually) that this is mainly a defensive rather than a heartfelt measure. (Don’t want them to stay home and give Hillary Clinton an advantage.)

The Religious Right issue would cease to be a GOP problem if we had multi-party elections and proportional representation.

> Judge the Republican party by the fruits it bears. During the last six years, has
> President Bush done a better job at promoting social conservatism or fiscal
> conservatism?

Hmmm. You didn’t say “good job.” I wonder why not. *grin*

> I rest my argument.

Did he really do either that well?

What did he attempt to do more? It’s hard to say because the media were lax (or selective, as they often are) with such things as pension funding reforms. Things that many objected to (Social Security “rescue”) probably aren’t counted by many. The occaional sop to the Religious Right gets treated to screeches (trying to define a fetus as a citizen, etc.)

Bill Clinton over George W. Bush? Paul Tsongas over Rick Santorum? Does anyone honestly believe Brooks would vote for the Democrat in either case?

Brooks is a partisan Republican. As such, he should worry more about the need for Republican moderates like McCain or Romney to grovel before the most extreme elements of his own party. The Democrats aren’t taking advice from him.

DLS,

You argue that social conservatives and the Religious Right have been marginalized in the Republican power and that its the business community that wields the real power.

But how do you account for the fact that since Barry Goldwater (Mr. Conservative himself), the Republican power has become increasingly MORE socially conservative and LESS fiscally conservative.

Back in 1981, Goldwater famously (or infamously) said “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.” Nowadays, you see Republican presidential candidates (even “moderates” such as McCain) running to kiss Fallwells’s ass in order to have a shot at winning the Republican primaries.

Judge the Republican party by the fruits it bears. During the last six years, has President Bush done a better job at promoting social conservatism or fiscal conservatism?

I rest my argument.

Right on target.

Those too far left are kept on the fringe so they don’t cause too many votes to be lost if those who are like them had their votes won. It’s similar with the GOP although fmore weighted toward the center than the wing in the case of the GOP.

As a matter of fact, what probably made farther-left people seethe was when Al From told Jesse Jackson and others like him (far to the left, in other words) that “there was no room for you” in the leadership of the Democratic Party, and implicitly, in elections if From had his way.

That’s another example why five or more parties and proportional representation would be welcome in the House of Representatives and elsewhere. Those on the far left have more power in the Democratic Party than the far right (not the fiction of the liars on the Left, but the reality), but those on the wings have little to no real power or influence. (The Dems are risking loss of likely victories in 2008 if they shift to left! The Democratic Party is the only realistic choice in the rigged system we have to the GOP.)

Oh, of course. Each and every one of them are sensible. No doubt at all.

[Ow, my tongue hurts!]

There is extremist among conservative “movement” ideologues, but in the GOP such as in Washington, the far right is marginalized when not totally excluded. Not only that but “social conservatives” and the Religious Right (a subset of that group) are often marginalized along with others. The business community is much more powerful than the ability of conservative immigration reformers to accomplish nearly anything at all, for example.

There is extremism in the Democratic Party that is a constant concern of the leadership (one reason why they probably put up the fake-front “Third Way” nonsense in front of us when claiming to be a “New” more sensible Democratic Party for the past several years. Hillary Clinton has played this false front excellently in preparing to run for the Presidency. “We’re the new Democrats. We’re not radical and we aren’t threatening you any more.”)

The GOP has to worry about Religious Righters frightening women (who are frightened more by extremist NOW and related propaganda), say, but there are few things that the GOP does that threaten or worry normal, intelligent people. That is not true with the Democratic Party, which has a radical heritage as part of harmful baggage it carries, as well as other special interest groups often harmful in one way or another (unions, lawyers, etc.). The GOP won’t let racism be standard policy the way the Democrats routinely engage in anti-religious bigotry and do much, much worse to businesses, for example.

The Democrats still have much convincing to do to attract better voters. The GOP doesn’t have that problem. What are the Democrats’ recent victories, if any? They have been recent GOP failures. (Iraq, Iraq, Iraq…) And up until 2006, the GOP was still preferred by most, because the GOP was more trustworthy. (I believe many of us in 2006 chose to send the GOP a signal by voting Democrat. It was worse than merely “NO CONFIDENCE.”)

Meanwhile, all “(real) Americans” [TM] know the Democratic Party is toxic waste, so when the GOP and America! [TM] are under attack, it’s easy at election time to unify GOP voters.

(So many who often vote GOP do so only because it’s the lesser of two evils.)

It’s the GOP that in fact has been far too nice while the Dems attack the GOP. And that comes from people who are regularly older and much wiser.

The kids you mention are simply naive and immature. They’ll think better once their frontal lobes are fully developed someday.

The problem for the Dems is if they go too far left they lose more voters than they gain. The “center” or “middle” (not as distorted on this site to mean “a moderate Democrat exemplified by the DLC-DNC or perhaps left of that because the DLC-DNC is too conservative for my taste, and Brookings has been a disappointment, too”) is large. Look how many people who ordinarily and sensibly avoid the Dems because they are toxic waste, or lately, because the Dems have been seen as weak on terrorism and security measures (which the GOP has exploited, of course). Now look at how many people (which by the numbers obviously voted GOP in the last elections by large margins) turned a big thumbs down to the GOP (more precisely, to W and the War, followed by the GOP in Washington, corruption, and more big government) and voted Democratic. (That happened in 1992, by the way, and W’s father.) There’s a large middle out there, or at least a large group that is neither extremist nor beholden to either party.

The Democrats have had to recoil and reconsider their many losses since liberalism in the USA became radical and pathological in the mid-to-late 1960s and especially since 1980 when the USA repudiated the earlier liberalism (which has made the Left reactionary and revanchist to this day).

The Democrats still try to do leftist things from time to time but each time they do this they alienate many voters. If the Dimmies try to appeal to their party’s left wing (which reaches far into radicalism), for every new vote they may regain or rescue, they will lose two, three, four, ten, or more from those who might vote either way and those who are definitely liberal but react the way older liberals have since radicalism came into play.

That’s not a problem with GOP, who (despite lies from the Left) has no far right presence (even those flirting at the edge like Pat Buchanan have no clout and have faced party-power “excommunication”), who is a fallback by the Religious Right mainly as a shelter in the USA from anti-religious bigotry from the Left (their demands when they actually want something are rarely met except once in a while as a sop to keep them voting GOP rather than staying home at elections) and many in the GOP, particularly in the notorious Northeast, are people who should be Democrats instead.

The GOP’s problem is that of trying to please everybody while almost never fielding strong candidates who people believe really will reform government. In Washington the GOP is often as happy as the Democrats with gross federal overexpansion beyond true constitutional bounds and happy with big-government spending Democrat style. (The GOP prefers hide-the-pain borrowing to Dimmie-style rob-’em-now-as-well-as-later taxation.) When the GOP has a perfect chance to win, it often proceeds to lose (1996 with Dole versus a doomed Clinton is the classic example).

What you see with the Democrats is a reluctance to do the more stupid things to appeal to the party’s left wing (and related NUT-roots chumps on the Web) so as not to lose voters (also true with image; far-left Hillary Clinton has posed as more to the right for ages now in preparation for seeking the Presidency) while the GOP has a broad enough scope of voters it, too, has moderate voters and other voters who will vote Democratic even just to express disappointment or disgust — as we saw in the 2006 elections.

There are plenty of moderates on both sides. Maybe more moderates need to be more sharp in how they describe and express what they want and their likes and dislikes. That superficial measure may be sufficient for Brooks and others in Washington who really don’t want that much change, least of all that which would diminish their clout and their incomes.

He seems to be advocating a “liberalism” that is moderate on fiscal/economic issues, moderate on social/personal issues, and hawkish on foreign policy.

That might very well describe the views of many moderate Democrats, but it doesn’t seem to correspond to the definition that is most commonly associated with neoliberalism.

Wikipedia’s definition:

Neoliberalism is a label for economic liberalism that describes government policies aiming to promote free competition among business firms within market, notably liberalization and monetarism…

More specifically, neoliberalism promotes a stable currency, a balanced budget, free market capitalism, and free trade. Characteristic aspects include expansion of the market to a 24-hour global trading cycle, contract maximalization, increase in the frequency of contracts, continuous assessment, and derivative markets.

Global Exchange’s definition:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating “free” enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers’ rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say “an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone.” It’s like Reagan’s “supply-side” and “trickle-down” economics — but somehow the wealth didn’t trickle down very much.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF “THE PUBLIC GOOD” or “COMMUNITY” and replacing it with “individual responsibility.” Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves — then blaming them, if they fail, as “lazy.”

Essentially, neoliberalism is market liberalism, which in the United States, we typically associate with fiscal conservatism. Neoliberalism says nothing about social/personal policy or foreign policy (although two of the most well known neoliberals, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were indeed foreign policy hawks).

Milton Friedman, who championed capitalism but continued to referred to himself as a “liberal” even after fiscal progressives coopted the term, was often labeled a neoliberal. Yet Milton Friedman was not a hawk on foreign policy (he opposed going to war with Iraq and has pointed out that war leads to bigger government) and was hardly a moderate on social/personal issues (he personally convinced Nixon to end the military draft, he adamantly called for end to the War on Drugs, and he argued that prostitution should be legalized).

What’s important here is knowing Mr. Brooks’ background. He is a former liberal who converted to a conservative back in the early 80s. But like many liberal-to-conservative converts, he is a foreign policy hawk–he is a senior editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard and was an outspoken advocate of going to war with Iraq.

The Democratic Party desperately needs to abandon some of its fiscally naive policies and adopt a more principled and internally consistent position on foreign policy.

The last thing it needs to do is listen to foreign policy hawks like Mr. Brooks.

Brooks should write about how the GOP marginalizes and works to drive out its moderates with organizations like Club for Growth. Republican presidential candidates must pass muster with such formidable party bigwigs as Grover Norquist (by signing a pledge for no new taxes) and James Dobson (by recanting their sins and pledging to uphold conservative family values). With the exception of issues like Iraq, I don’t see that happening on the Democratic side.

I do not think that you should mix sanity and politics in the same sentence. A more likely scenerio now will be a collapse of the Republican party due to changing demographics in the United States and the dominance of the Democratic Party.

If the Democrats are the one relevent political party, I doubt that the moderates will have much say in the matter. The left side of the Democratic party will have total control. Look at DC, Mass, or city councils in places like Chicago where there is no Republican Party. They are not moderate.

Politics is getting uglier by the day. It’s the Independents who can bring sanity back on stage center. I hope.