Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
Okay... exactly how do you define populism and neo-liberalism? Because to my knowledge, neo-liberalism is an extremely pro-market doctrine that goes hand-in-hand with libertarianism, and populism has always favored public schools, roads, etc.
|
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?....?
neo-liberalism is predominantly an international term, which has taken on some domestic relevance. It is a doctrine that mant practice but few admit to. Joe Lieberman is a classic example of a free trade, pro-globalization, neo-liberal. He is also, btw, pretty pro-public schools, and uhhh, pro-roads (please, find me somene anti-roads, would ya??).
It's true, populists often called for more government intervention, debt relief, collectivization, etc., primarily because it often stemmed from the agricultural regions of our nation. William Jennings Bryan was a progressive populist, but he was also an anti-Catholic prohibitionist. Populism often went hand-in-hand with big government social programs and moral conservatism. You can see shades of that populism in the third party campaign of George Wallace, as well as the Goldwater campaign. These men figured out that while Southerners might not be economic libertarians, they were certainly moral conservatives, and that could be used. This culminated with Reagan. Do
not confuse populism with big government Liberalism, because they do
not go hand-in-hand, despite the title of "the people's party." Van Buren and the Dems may have been the first to "popularize" electoral politics and exploit the vote, but that's not entirely populism.....
Threaded Mode
