NeoRio1, ok - fair enough, I gather you are a "social conservative" then, a bit more "mainstream." I myself am closest to anarcho-capitalism, which probably is the purest form of capitalism, at least that I know of as a political idea. I am in favour of some type of "minarchism" - a minimal government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism I don't like neo-conservatives since they severely reduce civil liberties and frankly are outright fascists - with their political radicalism projected on society. All the damage they have done the last years is of course a huge contributing factor - and most of the US agrees, along with the rest of the world, that the Bush administration has been the worst in US history - and it has also been the culmination of neo-conservative power in the US, which I hope crashes and burns - never to rise again, the fascists that they are.
Socially liberal is far from a social conservative. The only deep grasp and understanding of ideology i have is the need to be fiscally conservative especially during tough economic times. Fiscal conservative's have no problem trashing Bush because he isn't one. The problem comes when extremely fiscal liberals blame the entire economy on Bush. I truly believe that fiscal liberals dereange the truth of the economy disgustingly.
Ooops, sorry - you are right. I was going too fast through my edit there... I get what kind of central foundation you have politically then. I'm not sure if I could be called "socially liberal" - but I am certainly close to the US tradition of "individualist anarchism." However, I think that formal "social contracts", integrity and trust is something that can be extracted as a consensus, and agreed upon to take part of a society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism
LOL in time Bush will be vindicated. Objective analysis reveals he was a good president who presided over multiple crisis's; the technology crash of 2000, 911, and Katrina. Overall , George W Bush's cheap labor, free market policies enabled a new bull market, and economic prosperity and growth. Also, there are have been no terrorist attacks since 911 on US soil, and Iraq is much more stable.
Like I said, I find your posts amusing... Neo-con Richard Perle blamed Bush for the Iraq War failure, while neo-cons Podhoretz and Muravchik make fun out of the lack of intelligence of Bush, and point to the necessity of "their ideological/intellectual leadership" for policies - seeing Bush as a useful vehicle. Well, Bush certainly has some type of charm - where he gullible as he is gives to thumbs up to everything -- "We have victory!" LOL - neo-cons are detached from the reality of Earth. Hopefully Bush and neo-cons like Perle, Wolfowitz will be held responsible in the not so distant future - although prison time is probably too much to hope for in the utterly corrupt US - and a population that elected the scoundrels two times into office, or at least the courts decided the presidency from the election scandals. When too many corrupt and inept officials are involved, chances are that they will not rock the boat too much... so any "justice" is obviously out of the question.
Gringinho it is very distasteful to call social conservatives facists. Yes there are extremes as there are in both parties but in all reality there are two main groups of conservatives. The first group are the social conservatives that are religious. The second group are the fiscal conservatives which are small government. Social conservatives can be compared to outspoken environmental and secular liberals. They live and breath a couple issues but beyond that their knowledge of actual fiscal issues is stunningly stupified. Therefore there ability to actually implement a facist nation is entirely unforseeable. You see if you focus on one very outspoken group you could pretty much use your imagination to turn this country into anything.
NeoRio1, I am not calling "social conservatives" fascists - I am calling neo-conservatives fascists - because that is what they are. Social conservatives can be regular Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims or just someone with that type of values. Neo-conservatives on the other hand, subscribe to an ideology - a fascist type of ideology. Social democrats of Europe are very fiscally conservative - and so is the Lula government here in Brazil. Neo-conservatives are not fiscally conservatives - but want to spend their way forward, and promote strong militarism and corporatism - total subjectiveness/selfishness.
Buchanan defines paleocon and while he might a tepid supporter of defending Israel anyone who knows him will tell you, Patrick J. can't stand Jews........
Nice try. They were moderate liberals that moved right with a focus on anti-Soviet politics and related ideology, rejecting the move further left of their then new left compatriots. They are not fascists or totalitarians (fascism and totalitarianism are left ideologies that neoconservatism rejects).