Neoliberism is the philosophy inevitably underlying that drive to plunder. The “antiwar” attitude fronted by neoliberals is a political illusion — hence why I think you should switch.
It’s like saying you’re “against BLM”, when what you’re really against are the Marxist underpinnings of that organization.
Well, it’s your choice. You don’t have to start in with ad homonym attacks.
Look through the literature and you’ll find the neocon terminology limited to popular press and political journalism, while the scholarly and more serious economic discussions equate the two as essentially the same and prefer the term neoliberal as more accurately descriptive of the origins of the ideology. There is nothing conservative about “Neo-Conservatives” (you rarely even see usage of neo-conservatism except as a description of a collection of persons, rather than ideas), except for a commitment to (nominally) free markets. The term neo-con can be substituted with the term war-hawk with no change in meaning. But the reverse is NOT true — Biden is easily described as a war-hawk, yet few would label him a ”neo-con”.
Yet virtually all the “elites” — Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden, the corporate CEOs and hedge fund managers, many of the “Chicago-School” Ivy League economics professors, the WTO, etc. — all follow the principle economic tenets of neoliberalism, in stark contrast to Trump. And all of them have started a series of endless wars and devastating foreign policies using those tenets as justification, and largely to safeguard the continuation of that ideology.
But if you prefer neocons, fine, it’s semantics. Personally I think it’s sharper-sounding, anyway.
Neoliberism is the philosophy inevitably underlying that drive to plunder. The “antiwar” attitude fronted by neoliberals is a political illusion — hence why I think you should switch.
It’s like saying you’re “against BLM”, when what you’re really against are the Marxist underpinnings of that organization.
Well, it’s your choice. You don’t have to start in with ad homonym attacks.
Look through the literature and you’ll find the neocon terminology limited to popular press and political journalism, while the scholarly and more serious economic discussions equate the two as essentially the same and prefer the term neoliberal as more accurately descriptive of the origins of the ideology. There is nothing conservative about “Neo-Conservatives” (you rarely even see usage of neo-conservatism except as a description of a collection of persons, rather than ideas), except for a commitment to (nominally) free markets. The term neo-con can be substituted with the term war-hawk with no change in meaning. But the reverse is NOT true — Biden is easily described as a war-hawk, yet few would label him a ”neo-con”.
Yet virtually all the “elites” — Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden, the corporate CEOs and hedge fund managers, many of the “Chicago-School” Ivy League economics professors, the WTO, etc. — all follow the principle economic tenets of neoliberalism, in stark contrast to Trump. And all of them have started a series of endless wars and devastating foreign policies using those tenets as justification, and largely to safeguard the continuation of that ideology.
But if you prefer neocons, fine, it’s semantics. Personally I think it’s sharper-sounding, anyway.