The old paradigm was Liberal/Conservative. It was about moderation and compromise. The current White House changed a lot of things, one was to completely destroy that paradigm and raise the prominence of three different factions: the Neoconservatives, the New Conservatives, and the Progressives.
The unifying element in these groups is that none of them fit within the Liberal/Conservative framework. the Neoconservatives are demented far-left radicals who seek to bring about socialism by means of creating far-right fear-generators like extreme Corporate Militarism and Authoritarianism (with Fascism), the New Conservatives are moderates who honor traditional America and have found new value in that honoring (where before they took it for granted), and Progressives are seeking new solutions for building a new America.
Recognizing the instability and power vacuum that is now America, each of these groups is making their stand. The Neocons are well-known and don’t need to be mentioned. The New Conservatives form much of the American population and have champions in such public figures as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Unlike the New Conservatives (who would like nothing more than a return to the Liberal/Conservative paradigm), Progressives see solutions in new projects, new conceptions and ideas for America. Progressives are more critical of liberals and conservatives and are more excited than the New Conservatives about this new system.
In this new America consensus can be easily reached: New Conservatives and Progressives are not codified, not hardened into their way, not extreme, perhaps most importantly are united against the Neoconservatives, and are happy with each other… there is tremendous support between the two groups, far more than there ever was between liberals and conservatives. Whether this will last after the expected overthrow of the Neocons in 2009 is debatable.
June 4, 2007 at 3:50 am |
From your point of view, how would you define the difference between the New Conservatives, NeoCons and Progressives?
June 4, 2007 at 4:27 am |
The Neocons were Trotskyists in the ’60s who became disillusioned with the left and flipped over to an incredibly twisted worldview that tries to establish leftist systems by means of creating overt rightist horrors. The idea is analogous to the Rocky series of movies. The Neocons present a monstrous beast of an opponent for America, through extreme militarism, world domination, authoritarianism, and fascism, which is designed to inspire a socialist uprising in America (and then worldwide, given America’s influence). So I’m not sure how you’d *label* that, but what happened is that they coopted the right in America, took over the Republican party, and since they aren’t rightists themselves they led the party into the ground. America is so stupid it took 16 years of Neocon-controlled White Houses for them to even realize the Neocons are a problem. They haven’t figured out the rest of it yet and maybe never will.
The New Conservatives have only one thing in common: they are fearful about the potential loss of democracy in America. Their position is support for the ideal of traditional American values. They range from support for to fanatical support for the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Founding Fathers. You might call this the true Patriot faction (the Republicans being patriots is just propaganda). They also often but not always follow values of liberal humanism. Despite the name, they are *not* necessarily conservatives… the old Liberal/Conservative paradigm is dead, replaced by the Neocon/New Conservative/Progressive paradigm. The typical New Conservative is a moderate, but they range widely across the political spectrum. This is by far the most populous current faction in America, led by such examples as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
Progressives are much like old-school progressives… they want change in America. They want new ideas, new systems, new procedures. This is a decidedly leftist position (the status quo being rightist). Because of the success of the Neocons in creating rightist monstrosities, however, progressives are spending more time fighting the right than forming new ideas. Also, the complete lack of any progressive force in Congress makes all progressive solutions merely grassroots and local at this time.
The reason there is such an extreme anti-Neocon culture in America, besides the fundamental monstrosity of the Neocons, is that the two other factions are united in complete agreement about the horror of the Neocons. However, because the Neocons are so twisted and ultimately want socialism, there is a curious effect whereby elements of the left support the same ends the Neocons do (they just disagree with the means). This is where Chomsky steps in. While the Old Left (that present in the ’60s and ’70s) often pursued State Socialism, Chomsky pursues some flavor of Democratic Socialism (bottom-up whereas State Socialism is top-down, much like your example of the Nanny State). Noone has yet understood this apparently, but Chomsky has quite possibly singlehandedly destroyed the ultimate goal of the Neocons and simultaneously used the success of the Neocons to promote his version of what the left should be in America. So the Neocons coopted the right, and Chomsky coopted the outcome.
That’s the current political scene in America. The biggest error in all of this is when the Republicans allowed a force which at their heart want socialism into the leadership of their party. Fucking morons. At least it brought a lot of excitement to politics for a change.
September 4, 2007 at 3:34 am |
What about the Libertarians?
September 4, 2007 at 6:31 pm |
Libertarians don’t seem to agree with each other. Apparently there is a Libertarian Left and a Libertarian Right, the latter focusing on economic liberty (liberty of capital) and the former focusing on liberty of labor. This results in the ridiculous event of The Cato Institute and Lenny Bruce sharing the same tent.
I say “apparently” because I believe the Libertarian Right isn’t really libertarian – they use the phrase because it has popular appeal, just like they love using “freedom”, “liberty”, and “justice”, without actually pursuing any of those things, often pursuing the opposite.
As far as the Libertarian Left goes, they are a kind of happy-go-lucky everyone-do-as-you-will people. The Libertarian Left would be a great position to hold if the world was comprised merely of the Libertarian Left, in the same way as flowers smell nice and are appealing except when you’re facing off against a gun, when they become not so useful. Libertarian Leftists make for enjoyable friends and acquaintances, though.
July 20, 2008 at 4:50 am |
[...] have changed positions so many time that neither may have standing on a historical basis. The New Paradigm: New Conservative/Progressive re in Your World Now The old paradigm was Liberal/Conservative. It was about moderation and compromise. The current [...]