Loach
The original liberals were against government and thought people should be freed as much as possible from its clutches, so the Thatcherites, Mulroneyites, and Reaganites and their allies who are trying to cut back on the reach of government are in fact neo-liberals, i.e. the inheritors of the liberal tradition of political economic thought.
Think of the word “liberal” and its obvious roots in common with words like “liberation”, and of the term “liberal democracy”, which designates a country whose leaders are chosen by the ballot box but which grants freedom from tyranny to its citizens, i.e. lets them have freedom of thought and to an extent action.
But since the 1970s this neo-liberal initiative has been all mixed up with social conservatism, which led to the coining of the neologism neo-conservative or neo-con. In their desire to control social behaviours they see as unsavoury, they are the opposite of liberals, who are very tolerant of personal behaviour.
And in another sense of conservative, meaning wanting things to stay the same, what I call neo-liberals and Americans call neo-cons are again the opposite of conservatives, because they want society to change.
So what you call neo-cons are in fact neo-liberals who are also, in self-contradiction, social conservatives who want to control people’s behaviour.
Got that? <g>
And in Canada, there is yet another meaning to “Liberal”, referring the party that has governed us for most of our existence by staying resolutely in the middle and poaching the most popular ideas from the parties to the left and right of them. So to a Canadian, “Liberal” means middle of the road, except in BC where our right wing governing party is called the Liberals even though they are strong allies and share personnel with the federal Conservative party, which is not conservative at all because it is controlled by neo-liberals who want to change Canada from the way it runs now, but is also conservative because it is very enthusiastic about imposing moral standards on others.
LC |
