Neo Liberalism

[nadinbrzezinski]

the third way...

These are the two other names of the DLC. The Third Way is a movement with deep European roots and in the United States
it also has the same roots as the neocons

It is a product of the Chicago School and both Milton Friedman and his free trade economics, and Leo Strauss

Now, for those wondering why many in the DLC, whether it is Rham Emmanuel or Du'ers who are DLC, tend to the Authoritarian side? Well it is quite simple... Leo Strauss distrusted democracy, small d democracy. He distrusted the rabbles he saw as a young man in the Weimar Republic. He was a neo Aristotelian, and Aristotle, in his Politics, also didn't trust the Rabble and believed that any political system should have leaders above the rabble to guide the rabble (why the US Senate was not originally elected but an appointed office)

So think about it when you are discussing democracy with these folks... and you bring out candidates running for office... does not matter if they are inside the party or not... if they are not the approved ones by the leadership, they will attack those candidates. So this is not a pattern you are imagining, it is a reality, and an ideological reality

Oh and who started the neo liberal movement in Europe you may ask? Maggie Thatcher

In some ways... as crazy as this sounds, Reagan started the ball rolling in the US.

And Neo Liberals are pro corporate, and anti democratic, as in small d democracy

So if you see some things in common between our neo liberals and the neo cons, especially in foreign policy, you are not imagining it, they are similar because philosophically they are close... and their inspiration is the same. In fact, at the top tier of leadership, some of these folks went to school and studied under the masters.

We can also tie the Neo Cons to objectivism... which shares some things in common with Neo Liberalism as well... such as the deep distrust of small d democracy.

Now this is why this is important to know the origin of movements.... and make no mistake about it, neo liberalism is a movement... and it may be pushed by both "conservatives," and "liberals," across the world... I would even state, this is a world wide movement to change the economy

Does this mean OUR neo liberals are the same as theirs? In foreign affairs there is precious little to distinguish them, but in domestic affairs they will be better for your wallet... so when voting for them... if that is all we have left at election time, you will be voting for your economic interest.

Oh and here is a link for ya

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

[rodeodance]

1. there is recent book out: The short history of Neoliberalism-----that I need to read also

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. One to place on my readying list

I guess

:-)

[baldguy]

3. A neolib is a neocon in a new suit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. In order of aperance philosophically

it is the other way around actually

Neo Liberalism goes far back in Europe

By the way, THIRD WAY, the other term to refer to the movement, was used by Benito Mussolini to refer to fascism...

Oh lord I did it... I used a word that is going to bring them out

But if Fascism is corporatism, the shoe fits

:-)

But that is why you will not see Third Way used too often in the US, and almost not at all in Europe either

[mmonk]

69. The word needs to be brought out if it is to be fought.

[Solon]

4. I've found both Neo-Liberals, and Neo-Cons to be utopians of the worse kind.

Both seem to believe free trade is some panacea that will lead to everyone singing "Kumbaya" and holding hands in peace, or some shit. Neo-Cons have there own delusions, such as believing Iraqis would throw flowers at the feet of our soldiers, yeah, they actually BELIEVED THAT. Its hard to take such people seriously, the problem is we have no choice, they run the government.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Of course

And this utopia leads to errors in judgement

But that is what doctrinaire though leads to

But that is also why they are so authoritarian in nature and cannot see the forest for the trees, as it were

I mean Somalia is a paradise of privatized everything.

[Solon]

12. I think the big problem is that they mistakenly assume that free trade is the removal of barriers...

on trade. In reality, it is much more than just that. The second, and more insidious part, of "Free" Trade, are the set of rules imposed on nations by trade organizations that LIMIT what governments, whether democratic or not, can do to protect their people from abuses in the workplace, environmental protection, etc. This reduces the power of democratic institutions, and places the power into organizations such as the WTO, which aren't transparent, and aren't accountable to the people their policies affect. Its dangerous to assume that free markets leads to having a free citizenry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Well I hate to quote Reagan, but there is no such thing as a free lunch

and they see free trade as exactly that free...

There are costs in externalizing costs and internalizing all profits... we call it exporting labor to the cheapest place you can find

Problem is that sooner or later those you left behind will not be able to consume even that cheap crap

[Solon]

24. That's true, they also don't account for the "invisible" form of oppression...

and that's economic oppression. We all hear about Political oppression, committed by governments such as Burma, atrocities committed by governments, etc. Yet, that's not the only way to oppress a people, a 12 year old girl, forced to work in a shoe factory for 16 hours a day, simply because if she doesn't, her family will starve. A girl who cannot leave in the middle of the shift, and looks towards the door, at the men with guns and batons, and she knows if she even so much as attempts to speak out about the working conditions, she will get beaten, or even worse, fired. She goes back home, to a tin roofed shack, with a paycheck that can barely cover a meal a day, and that meal is bought at the company run store. The irony is that the government she lives under could be the most free democracy in the world, but it wouldn't matter, the oppression she suffers isn't from the government, but from the employer. That's how much the power shifts in the 3rd world, and to be honest, the United States isn't far behind.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. SHHH... you are bringing out what most folks in the US

don't want to think about when they buy crap at (insert here megastore)

By the way, it is already in the US... as in colonial territories in the Pacific...

Heifenger, to mention one company, uses that extensively and tells us proudly made in the US

But uses Chinese slave labor

[Solon]

36. You bring up an even more extreme example, "slave" isn't even an exaggeration...

people, either forced or tricked, into working in factories for 16 or more hours a day, and aren't even allowed to leave company property, they live, work, and breathe the company, and cannot leave until their contract, written in a language they cannot read, but were forced to sign regardless, is up. They sign away literally ALL their rights, to free speech, to privacy, hell, even the sanctity of their bodies are violated. Women who end up pregnant are forced to have abortions, men and women are forcibly segregated, etc.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. That is why I used the term

I know it's inflamatory for some, but if it quacks like a duch, and walks like a duck, it is a turkey

;-)

[Solon]

46. Indentured Servitude probably would be a more accurate term...

Especially in a historical context related to modern practices. When the U.S. was a British colony, is was common for people to emigrate to the colony by being charged for the ride on a ship, and having to pay it off through their labor over a period of time. In other cases, some people in Britain ended up in debt, and opted for indentured servitude instead of debtor's prison. I know this descriptions makes the practice seem benign, almost, but in reality it was atrocious, those who were indentured servants were, for all practical purposes, slaves, they signed away their lives for a period of time. The only thing that differentiated them from the African slaves that arrived later was that they could look forward to freedom somewhere along the line.

This practice is again in vogue, though they don't call it indentured servitude, but, in reality, that is exactly what it is. Now that I think about it, there is no difference between the modern and old versions of this practice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. True... and the practices have been around

for even longer than that...

Many of our practices have been around since we created states....

Some, a few, have gone away (like salting the earth and burning cities).. but many go back thousands of years

[hootinholler]

48. Also the root of the US Attorney firings...

Black was his name and he was fired at the request of Jack Abramoff.

From
In Guam, a US territory in the Pacific, investigators were looking into Abramoff's secret arrangement with Superior Court officials to lobby against a court reform bill then pending in Congress. The legislation, since approved, gave the Guam Supreme Court authority over the Superior Court.

In 2002, Abramoff was retained by the Superior Court in what was an unusual arrangement for a public agency. The Los Angeles Times reported in May that Abramoff was paid with a series of $9,000 checks funneled through a Laguna Beach, Calif., lawyer to disguise the lobbyist's role working for the Guam court. No separate contract was authorized for Abramoff's work.
...

The transactions were the target of a grand jury subpoena issued Nov. 18, 2002, according to the subpoena. It demanded that Anthony Sanchez, administrative director of the Guam Superior Court, turn over all records involving the lobbying contract, including bills and payments.

A day later, the chief prosecutor, US Attorney Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release announced that Bush was replacing Black.

-Hoot

[applegrove]

54. Utopians are always dangerous. That should become a maxim. It should

be illegal for Utopians anywhere to get elected.

[KansDem]

7. After reading this, I now believe I have an uncle who is a "neo-liberal"

He once said to me that only citizens who owned property should be allowed to vote. At the time I was a renter...

I don't talk to him much.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Or he could be one type of Libertarian that draws

from the early history of the US where only property owners were able to vote.

[KansDem]

26. That might explain it.

He's retired military... He once referred to the Vietnam draftee as "scum" (he was an active officer at the time--late 1960s/early 1970s). My mom, who I suspect was a lifelong Republican (but moderate--there were moderate GOPers then), despised the Vietnam War. He made this remark to her during a heated phone conversation in which the two stumbled into a discussion of politics (rare for them at the time). She never forgave him for that remark (her first husband was killed over Germany during WWII and her second husband, my dad, died from a disease incurred while on active duty--I suspect she was thinking of them when he made his remark). They didn't speak for years.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Well the retired military

even active, is not automatic for a right winger

My hubby is retired navy... and so is my brother in law, and they are quite liberal in their politics

Hell, we joke as to how much the stereotype should make this a republican household...

:-)

But the neo liberal movement took off around the mid 70s, and many of the founding members were Trotskytes in the 60s... (Horowitz comes to mind)

Oh and I am sorry about your dad and mom

And you are right there were moderate republicans back then... many of them are now blue dog democrats

:-)

[pampango]

30. Actually, your uncle would appear to be a "classic liberal" according

to the definitions at the link in the OP.

"The emphasis on property, in classic and market liberalism, has been replaced (in neo-liberalism) by an emphasis on contract. In the time of Adam Smith, property conferred status..."

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. You are correct

and today those classic views were adopted by SOME libertarians

[cali]

9. You might consider

that there are authoritarians on the left as well. Authoritarianism is not only the purview of neocons, neoliberals or the right. Nor, I'm sure, is everyone who's a member or supporter of the DLC, an authoritarian.

Creating bogymen, something DU does really well.

[Swamp Rat]

13. Posting again to thread where the OP has you on ignore.

Ridiculous.

[cali]

14. What does that have to do with anything?

It doesn't. I find your tagging after me from thread to thread and snarking, just a little strange. Of course considering where else you post, and what you post about, perhaps it's not.

[Swamp Rat]

59. Since you continue to mock my friends, I will respond any damn time I please.

Don't think I will not respond to this passive-aggressive bull shit.

I will call you on this behavior any time I see fit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Cali is free to post

I am free to keep her on ignore

And she KNOWS IT

What is revealing is that I predicted she'd do this

[Swamp Rat]

60. Passive-aggressive behavior is does not fly with me, especially when it is disruptive.

Why is it disruptive in this instance? Because she knows you have her on ignore and she has already stated, perhaps a thousand times, that she does not agree with you or the topics you choose - this has gone on for a couple of years now.

After witnessing this for so long I finally decided to say something because it has gotten really really tedious. When I spoke up after these past three years, she got nasty with me while accusing me of the same, even though I was polite. Maybe I won't be so nice any more.

It is illogical, no very irrational to continue to post to threads where the OP has the responder on ignore. Pathological. It almost seems like stalking.

I may begin using the ignore feature, but I like to keep my mind open to other points of view. That is why I don't use it. Plus, I prefer to tell people straight up how I feel and what I think of them.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. I will note

don't expect the mods to deal with the passive agressive behavior either

That is all

[pampango]

20. How do you know if someone has you on ignore? n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. I've told her

and made it quite public

There is a history not worth going on in a public section of the board

[Solon]

15. You are correct, in a sense, I also don't believe the DLC wants to be authoritarian...

the problem is the very policies that they support on trade, which they believe leads to more freedom for people, do not work that way in practice. I'm not saying every member of the organization supports the exact same policies, however, the organization, overall, has policy positions to this effect. The problem is that such policies shifts power away from democratically accountable governments and towards undemocratic trade organizations and large multinational corporations.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. And listeing to the leaders of the movement, currently such as

Rahm Emmanuel, he is quite about my way or the highway

His discussion on MTP recently (which I saw on a repeat) was revealing

And he is still fighitng the 50 state strategy

The reason, Dean's strategy pushes small d democracy

[cali]

22. I agree And trade is an excellent example.

What I was trying to point out is that tying to pigeon hole in a grand way, really doesn't achieve anything but demonization. Is there a creeping movement of neoliberalism in the dem party, is I think a faire way of putting things. And who in the dem party would fit that description? WWhich elected dem officials could one fairly call neoliberal?

[Solon]

33. Look at their policies on trade...

Generally speaking, as far as Presidential candidates are concerned, all the top tier are neo-liberal in some form or another. However, I believe all recognize that it isn't perfect, and wish to reform and renegotiate treaties to include things such as labor standards and environmental protections. I haven't seen many specific proposal on how or what they would reform in relation to current treaties. However, I think they are lacking in one area, democratic accountability. The concerns I have about any type of trade agreement is the establishment of undemocratic institutions that are supposed to regulate that trade, such as the WTO. The policies of the WTO literally affects billions of people, yet those people have no voice in how the WTO is run, nor are even aware of its policies. The lack of transparency and the lack of accountability are, I believe, the biggest issues here. We should, in the meantime, try to create fairer trade agreements, however, we should also keep an eye on the ball, and seriously think about some form of international accountability through a democratic process.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. NAFTA has many side agreements that have never

been enforced

My favorite is the one that opened the borders for free imigration between the three nations, no migratory papers needed if you had a job

Tell me how well that one has worked out... and why migratory lawyers in the US haven't used that one escapes me

My second favorite one was the status of labor unions, as in the abilty to organize

My third favorite one was the parity in pay for all workers in north america... I guess it will happen but not the way any of us envisioned.

:-(

So in my cynical view those side agreements are put in place to quiet the chattering classes

[Solon]

40. I know NAFTA itself limited free movement to certain professions...

The side agreements I've heard about, they were, and are, smokescreens, an attempt to "improve" NAFTA through unenforcible provisions. Its a relatively common trick, write a provision that sounds good on paper, but is unenforcible in practice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Bingo

but unless you are willing to see how this smelly sausage is made and understand it

And many who defend free trade, really don't get this

There is no free lunch, PERIOD

And in this day and age itis sad they are still not undestanding the incredible cost this country is paying for this crap

[pampango]

45. That's a really good point about democratic accountability.

International organizations like the WTO, the UN, NATO, ASEAN, and many others are only accountable, if they are at all, to their member governments not to the people that live in those countries.

It would seem like an extremely tall order to achieve this kind of democratic accountability in such places, since most of the world has trouble achieving any such accountability on a domestic level. I understand the useful role of a voluntary international organization that provides a framework of agreed upon rules and a dispute resolution mechanism in facilitating trade between countries. The problem is that, when it becomes as powerful as the WTO is and has such an impact on the lives of real people, there needs to be some method for democratic accountability.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. A neo-lib is a neo-con who says he "regrets" the civilian casualties.

But, also says that he/she sees the need for inflicting them.

[T.Ruth2power]

11. From link

Their belief in the moral necessity of market forces in the economy, is probably the first defining feature of market liberalism. The second is the belief in entrepreneurs themselves, as a good and necessary social group. To summarise:

For all liberals, interactive process legitimises outcome: in market liberalism, the market is the primary process, and market transactions are the interaction.


Market liberals believe that economic transactions should take place in a framework which maximises the effect of each transaction on every other transaction. (That is an abstract definition of the free market, but it makes the later transition from liberalism to neoliberalism easier to understand).


Liberals see the market as good, and often as semi-sacred. They want the market to be as large as possible, involving all of society. In modern liberal-democratic states almost all adults participate in the market. A private club in a Communist state, where members can hold a closed free market, would satisfy no liberal.


Liberals are hostile to economic self-sufficiency - so strongly, that they believed in war to 'open up markets'. The most famous example is the Opium War, when Britain forced the Chinese Empire to allow the import of opium. This liberal belief in market expansionism has revived after the end of the Cold War.

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

Don't forget about the brutal repression that is required by neo-liberalism

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Oh it is part and parcel of it

I like to call that end stage capitalism

Which by the way has precious little to do with the capitalism of either Smith or Ricardo who were all for tarriffs and against monopoloies

[iamthebandfanman]

23. Neo=Fascist no matter what word comes after n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. It is marketing partly

partly it has some differences from classic fascism

But yes, you are right

And it is a global movement by elites of all stripes.

By the way... in my view it has failed, so it will enter the next stage... what I'd argue the dangerous stage

[iamthebandfanman]

28. yup and heres why

because its not fashionable to be labled a fascist.

never really has been either

just look at the nazi's false platform of workers rights(socialist)


so , they pick words that are acceptable and simply put NEW infront of it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Well fascism was a new marketing ploy too

Mussolini invented it

It comes from Fasces a Roman symbol

This tension, in its modern form, goes back to the enlightenment

What Burke called Monarchism well today would not fly well either

Not that absolute kings of the 17th and 18th century had much in common with modern authoritarians... (yes they did... the need to keep people down et al) And ironically that American Revolution was a revolt against exactly that

By the way the modern right wing is the equivalent of the Tories of the times

[mdmc]

70. neo-hippies?

:)

This has been one of the best threads that I have read here in a long time.

[Generator]

34. Third way=triangulation

Mark Penn. True believers. Not much in the listening department. And he does remind me of the neo-cons- everythng they touch turns to shit and they think they have all the answers.

[porphyrian]

37. Aristotle also believed in that superstitious essentialism horse shit.

Fuck Aristotle and anyone who thinks they know better than this rabble what's best for me and my country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Yes he did, but it is critical to track where ideas come from

[porphyrian]

41. Sure. I'm responding to those applying his antiquated beliefs to contemporary practice. - n/t

[GETPLANING]

43. Robert F Kennedy Jr said it best.

Conservatives are the party of crony capitalism.
Liberals are the party of true free market capitalism.
What we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called Communism.
The domination of government by business is called Fascism.
And what our job is is to walk that narrow trail in between which is free market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. WOW he is perceptive as usual

he is a good man

[AntiFascist]

49. This is why the US government is setup as a republic, rather than a pure democracy....

even the founding fathers knew of the dangers of uninformed "mob" rule and feared that the people might take property away from landowners, or that anarchy might break out. This is one reason why we elect trusted senators to office who are supposed to make informed decisions for us, and trusted representatives who are supposed to represent our regional interests. The danger comes about when our trusted representatives and senators become corrupt, and/or when they begin representing foreign interests, or the interests of corporations over those of the people. As Naomi Wolf so wisely points out, the problem is further aggravated when collusion with the media occurs and people are intimidated by terrorist threats, or even direct intimidation occurs by government agencies or right-wing pundits. The message from the proto-fascist government is: don't speak out too much or else you might be put on the TSA list, or if you are in a government position you might receive an anthrax letter or be involved in an unfortunate airplane accident.

Unfortunately the DLC has been taken over by those interests which also want the US to pursue an aggressive, empire-building foreign policy and it is all done in the name of national security, when in fact government policies only aggravate our potential aggressors and work to intimidate the populace. The focus on the economic factors by neoliberals may be something of a distraction, when in fact the real problem can be expressed very simply: the petro-dollar economy is in danger of collapsing and foreign support for the dollar is being withdrawn.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Exactly and why I refered to Aristotle

our Senate was set the way it was because of Aristotelian (and Lockean thought)

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Kick for the afternoon crowd

[Elspeth]

52. Hey Nadin, Tom Hartmann was recommending a book about neoliberalism on his show yesterday

I can't remember the damned title. :(

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. We can always look for it on a podcast

sadly I will have to do that soon...

:-(

Station going to flip

And there is not much we can do bout it

[Elspeth]

61. Where are you located Nadin?

I am in San Diego County and our KLSD is flipping too.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. San Diego

we should meet

;-)

Do dinner, coffee

[Elspeth]

66. Yeah. That would be fun.

What are you doing about KLSD? I know Tom talked about podcasts and I don't have an iPod but I might get one if I could stream AAR.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Well we went to the demonstrations

and we bought our new mac laptop from small dogs

I'm debating an ipod or an MP3 player

I know I can stream the programs when I'm at home, but on the road I am considering those two

[Elspeth]

72. I'm almost never home, so an iPod or MP3 player for AAR seems right

I'll really miss it in my car. I would listen to Randi on the way home and now that will stop.

[applegrove]

55. I thought the third way was between neo-liberalism and socialism? Am I misinformed?

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. It is centrism you are right, according to the links on wiki

but the way it was used by both Blair and clinton in the 1990s it was triangulation

[applegrove]

57. I don't like Blair but I liked the Clintons. Many people made it into the

middle class back in the 1990s in the USA. Those were good times.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. I liked him as well, even if he was the best

conservative (in a classic sense) President of the late 20th century.

:-)

Hell at the begiing of the century, or even the middle of the century he might have even run as a moderate republican in the mold of somebody like Ike

A symptom of how far we have fallen of the tree

[mod mom]

64. Thank you for this important information. There seems to be several folks here who pooh pooh this

information without true examination. An informed population is exactly what the neos don't want.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Exactly and those who poopooh it

the question to ask is ... who benefits?

[LWolf]

71. K&R n/t

[Hidden Stillness]

73. Confused About one Comment

This is one of these topics that can actually branch out and develop any number of different ways, becoming very complex, but just to take a little part of it, I first started to notice that something was really wrong with the psedo-liberal policies of the Clinton Administration, when I first started hearing news reports from Europeans (during the '90s) blaming corporate deregulation on "neo-liberal" policies--a term I had never heard of--and was shocked at anyone thinking or corporate malfeasance and law-killing as anything other than Republican. Of course, we have all learned the ways of the Clintons and "D"LC, Inc. Whatever the history or background of the pseudo-philosophy, today it relates only to markets and corporations, and seems to have the same attitude as that expressed by the extremist conservative Margaret Thatcher, who actually claimed that there is no such thing as "society."

The main point for me is the odd statement from the OP that neo-"liberal"/"D"LC types are "better for your wallet...," a claim that I cannot fathom at all. When the main part of the degeneration of all modern governing policy is this kick they all got onto, from that bastard Reagan onward, that "freedom" consists only and entirely of dismantling every law ever enacted, restricting or even slowing anything an individual large corporation intends to do, lowering taxes, killing social programs and keeping corporate subsidies, then it could only have led eventually to disaster--and there is no difference between the two "Parties." All policy helps investors, stockholders, management, banks, tax shelter attorneys--and the rest of us just don't exist anymore.

NAFTA and GATT, from the Bush I/Clinton years, lost the first huge waves of factories from the Midwest, and we have never recovered because it was replaced with no further policy; pensions were deregulated and raided; women were kicked off Welfare and ordered to go to work (with no transportation) at jobs that paid less, with no benefits, and children at home alone, and that was Clinton who signed that one. Stocks went up as payrolls were cut, and union jobs outsourced. Everyone knows the whole litany: I cannot understand then, why a policy that went from social/National to only market/corporate, and that cut out the American people as a whole, for a generation now, can be anything but disaster. The people need laws, not deregulation, and whether Republican or Clinton, there was only one policy--gearing everything toward whatever the largest corporate donors wanted, and no attention to consequences for anyone else.

This reminds me of the recent mortgage/price-gouge/foreclosure scandal: when investigations were finally done, it was discovered that many, many cases of "families" living in homes they couldn't afford, were actually lenders/brokers themselves, inventing fake names and taking commissions, and there was no one living at the homes--it was all on paper, all profit, all scam. This, of course, is exactly what happened with Bush I's invented disaster with the savings and loan scandal and collapse, when there was nothing but profit-taking, fraud and crime, because they had deregulated and stopped monitoring that industry, too. There is no difference, when all there is, is an attitude toward "markets" and corporations--they are actually all on the same page there. There is also the familiar joke, told different ways, that a so-called "Libertarian" is just a corporate Republican who wants to smoke marijuana. They do nothing for anyone else.

This is my main point--that on the economic issues, the two "neos" are actually the closest--they only think of markets and individual corporations, they refuse to address any issue unless it is couched as "markets," "investors," etc.--notice Hillary Clinton, who still proposes these utterly worthless "market-based" health care insurance non-solutions, when it is not even appropriate, because they will not give up their first-last-and-always market-based/corporate-centered approach. "D"LC types have been as damaging as corporate Republicans, for the same reasons--and none of these people actually have anything to do with a larger philosophy. They are all corporate profit and "corporate freedom," with US THE PEOPLE as the "oppressor" who must be thrown off!