I'm impressed Ed. Metal forming and political thoughtfullness. Cool.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gus" wrote in message
ps.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

If you were born right the first time, you don't worry about how you
appear
to others. You focus on your own integrity and you have the courage to
admit
when you aren't certain, as well as the courage to admit when you're
wrong.

If there's any single sign that this administration is based on that
born-again fear of admitting imperfect knowledge, it's their
unwillingness
to admit a mistake. Bush's recent mea culpas are coming out like he's
been
constipated for years and just ate a whole pack of Ex-Lax by mistake.

I guess I don't see what being "born again" has to do with anything. I
don't think that gives someone a new personality and fear of admitting
anything.

It's a theory I've been working on for years. d8-) I've known some
born-agains since before they were born for the second time and I've been
struck by certain parallels in their behaviors and their attitudes.

When I learned that W was one of them I had an "aha" response; his
behavior
fits the general pattern. Then when I learned more about his
pre-born-again
life I realized his was an elite version of the life led by an old friend
of
mine, who is now born-again and certain as hell -- not about minor facts
or
little details of life, but about the big things, and especially about
which
social and spiritual attitudes should guide the lives of everyone else. He
fears returning to his old attitudes and ways more than anything, as do
almost all of the born-agains I've known.

But I digress...



NeoLibs provide them with uncertainty in order to keep them off
track,
promoting
and pushing their agendas. g

I didn't miss the g, but what's a "neolib"? It sounds like something
Gunner cut and pasted off of one of his neo-fascist blogs. g

Well, we have frequently used words like "neocon, winger, rightard",
and the ever-popular "neo-fascist" and I just didn't want anyone to
feel Left out.

I don't use rightard and I'm really stingy with the use of winger. But a
neocon (neoconservative) is self-defined, an outgrowth of some articles
written in the 60s by a group of Jewish intellectuals (Irving Kristol and
Norman Podhoretz were prominent among them) who objected to the way the US
reacted to the '67 Mideast War, and who flipped from liberal to
conservative
political postures.

It has a clear-cut history and the development of neocon thinking can be
tracked through articles and essays published in the intellectual-right
press in the years since. The term has broadened and narrowed, then
broadened again. It's not perfectly fixed. But it has a few common threads
and a core of well-defined adherents. The central idea, which has been
central since the first days of the neocons, is that the US should project
its power to "modernize" the key trouble spots around the globe --
particularly the Middle East -- by imposing a form of government and
rights,
and, they may hope, a set of social attitudes that might be exemplified by
the attitudes of, say, Waco, Texas. The Project For The New American
Century
is a major neocon program. You'll recognize the names of the key
participants: they're now filling the second tier in the White House.

The term "neocon" has taken on some opprobrium for warmongering and
heavy-handed political dealing, and most of them prefer to be called
"conservatives" today. But they're something like that new variety of
semi-domesticated Canada goose that spends its winters up north and
doesn't
migrate. It honks like a goose and walks like a goose, but when it comes
time to migrate and act like a goose, it just hangs around and craps up
the
neighborhood. Interestingly, these new geese, which I've heard are now
considered a subspecies by some, showed up at about the same time that
neocons first appeared.

I think you'll find that "neo-fascist" also has a fairly clear definition,
and there are specific groups around the world -- not all with the same
programs, but all of whom share a strong desire for authoritarian rule --
that political scientists label as neo-fascist.

"Neoliberal" has a specific meaning in economics. It refers to the current
US- and UK mainstream economic thought, which most people would call
conservative. It's known in economic policy circles as "the Washington
Consensus."

But I don't know what meaning you're assigning to it in politics. I
suspect
there is none, really; it's just an attempt by conservatives to sling
around
a term that sounds erudite and opprobrious, but which is really just
noise.

In any case, there is no "new liberal" thought that I know of. The 60s/70s
liberals are mostly moribund. Those that remain have no projects or
programs
around which they could cohere. Liberalism itself is little more than an
attitude today, as conservatism tends to be in the mainstream. But there
is
no intellectual or policy-driven core of liberalism as there is with
conservatism.

--
Ed Huntress