Stupid Neo-Con Pet Tricks

     Neo-conservatism is, in fact, a blending of 50s-70s leftist internationalism with realist theories of power.  To wit, we can bomb people, and we want to help them, so lets bomb them to help them.  It's most colorful example is Iraq.

     This doesn't stop neo-con nitwits from lying.  Take this spoonful of shit, for example...

The distinction between this “neoconservative” position and a “progressive” position amounts to the weight one attaches to two sets of claims. One set, the “progressive,” manifests itself as the demand for expanded freedom or the demand for greater substantive equality in the particular case at hand (that is, in the object of a political dispute). The other set, “neoconservative,” concerns itself with whether a demand for greater freedom might impinge excessively on substantive equality or whether a demand for greater substantive equality might impinge on freedom.

from the article Neoconservatism’s Liberal Legacy by Tod Lindberg of the (seemingly utterly morally bankrupt) Hoover Institute at Stanford University (they come to praise Herbert Hoover, not bury him).

     This fraud labels the progressive movement as completely lacking in rudder, apparently picking and choosing equality or freedom as they feel fit, while ascribing to neo-conservatism the ability to discern courses where neither freedom nor equality is diminished.

     This is, of course, a lie.  Take the international perspective... Iraqis are worse off, we are worse off.  Iraqis are living in the sort of violent world, the kind we would only wish on the neo-cons who lied us into Iraq, and Americans are footing the bill to fatten the bottom line of a few, well-connected corporations, leeches on the Republic.  Then take a quick look at the situation at home, with tax cuts for the rich.  These do not expand equality, but inequality.

     In the future, perhaps Iraqis will have some amount of freedom.  Not the freedom, mind you, to actually own their own oil fields.  Fuck no, not that.  We can already see that the tax system in Iraq, and based on past results in other countries "liberated" by America, that a small set of Iraqis will become fabulously wealthy, and the vast majority will stay incredibly poor.  This rank inequality won't be the result of tyranny, like it was under Saddam's regime, but of laissez-faire inspired capitalism.  It is neither "fair" nor "just" (values which apparently can exist entirely outside the spectrum of freedom and equality), since US firms are picking and choosing who gets rich in Iraq, and mostly they are choosing flunkies of former terrorist masterminds like Allawi or fuckwads like Chalabi.  In America, similarly, the neo-conservatives push to have crony firms, with no apparent records at promoting either freedom or equality, get rich while shifting the tax burden to the poor.  No future Iraq will see a flourishing of either Freedom or Equality with this bunch of malfeasants in power.

     What are progressives?  I believe in more equality.  I believe that the proof that, as income approaches infinity, the marginal tax rate must exceed 50%, is intuitively obvious.  I believe, like Montesquieu, Jefferson, Madison and likely Hamilton, Jay and Adams, that the price of liberty is taxation.  That, like Teddy Roosevelt, after a certain point, freedom is the freedom of the strong to take advantage of the weak.

     I believe even capitalism appreciates a justice system that says that if a billionaire breaks a contract with a pauper improperly, the pauper wins in court.  I believe Tod Lindberg is either Stupid, Ignorant, Duped or Evil in describing neo-conservatism or progressivism as he has done.  No doubt Mr. Lindberg becomes wealthier, paid by the wealthy, to push the theories that further enrich the wealthy. 

     Here's a big Remain Calm FUCK YOU to Tod Lindberg and the Hoover Institute.