It is just so far away from the strident ideology of the [neocon] ... right.
I totally disagree. Neocons have never been opposed to corporate welfare. I'd argue that neoconservatism has much more in common with national socialism than it does with libertarianism. (This is not an intentional call to Godwin's law. I really think that the policy comparison is legitimate.) The only reason that the Bush administration has given lip-service to libertarian tenets is to hang onto the votes of the oldsters.
I think I agree with you. Surely hard-core Libertarianism would scorn nationalization, but I would say that the Neocons maybe only oppose that notion rhetorically, but are ready to act flexibly/opportunistically to snatch or divest as circumstances dictate (like when we pull the rug out from under state-owned businesses in Iraq and send in Halliburton or GE). The whole nationalization thing just seems so far from the speechifying that "small government" Bush leagues spouted 2000-2001.
The strategy of the Bush-supporting Norquists in 2000+ seemed like an admitted desire to starve federal programs until they withered away. I guess that just didn't extend to preemptive wars or bank bailouts. It is still just astounding to me. On a bet the "small government" Republicans just printed an extra $85 billion to nationalize a finance/insurance company.
I would like to think that if I was really a principled Republican, and not a "whatever makes me some dough" not-so-free-neo-marketeer, I would be pretty embarrassed.
But this is all liquidity under the bridge. I guess my main concern is "what next"?
Previous Topic
Index
