Neopaleoliberal©

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet."
--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

I remember reading Romeo and Juliet in ninth grade English class. Not one of his best works, and not a particularly interesting read either. The only reason I remember it is because I have a mind like a steel trap. Whereas with most people, ideas come and go, in my head they rattle around for a while and then start setting up subdivisions. But I digress.

The cause of this little mental meandering is the term "neocon". I've been called a neocon, usually by mentally deficient liberals who think it shows how hip and suave they are. Secretly I've always thought they don't have the slightest idea what a neocon is, they just see it in Molly Ivins columns and in blogs and toss it around to show how well read they are. As I've shadow-boxed with them over the years, I've also come to believe no one really knows the definition of neocon, and I believe that is because I don't think there really is a definition. I think it's one of the words that just kind of appeared on its own, coined by someone, released into the wilds of the internet, where it has multiplied to the point that every one uses it and just assumes they know the definition.

I've asked people on both sides of the political divide and haven't heard anything that even required much thinking to come up with. I've heard "Jews" as one definition, but that's far too simplistic. I've received plenty of examples, but nothing that even begins to show the solid thinking necessary for a definition. Then I read a book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. that shows considerable forethought and effort.

Woods' definition is roughly this: The rise of the modern conservative movement in America - which probably began with the presidential aspirations of Barry Goldwater in the 1960's. Their platform was small, limited government, lower spending, lower taxes, strong national self defense, and keeping the government the hell out of people's lives. [Editor's note: Hmm, why does that remind me of something...]

The movement's greatest accomplishment has to be eight years of Ronald Reagan, and its zenith is the 1994 take over of the House of Representatives following forty plus years of liberal-democratic control. But as anyone with even a passing interest in watching politics (beats the hell out of looking at yellow-bellied sapsuckers) can tell, we may have gotten some taxes lowered, and Reagan did slow down the growth of that great leviathan called government, but overall we do not have a smaller, more limited government, and lower spending has become an oxymoron like Congressional Ethics.

So what happened? According to Woods, once the Republicans began seizing the reigns of government, they found they liked being the head honchos. Many of them abandoned their cherished principles in favor of big fat lobbyist checks, and the ability to do pretty much whatever they want. They believed larger government is acceptable, as long as they control it. They favored increased spending, as long as they could keep the taxes low enough to not piss off their party supporters. And in general, became big government liberals in conservative clothes. It is these people Woods refers to as "neocons."

Now, "neo" is Greek for "new", so neocon would be a new type of conservative, which, ironically, is pretty much the opposite of what a conservative is.

Stick with me, we're almost there.

Obviously - at least to me - I am not, nor have I ever been a neocon of any sort. I'm convinced of that. So what am I? I've been asking myself that question for some time, not because I'm into labels, but because the world is filled with labels, and I try to find my way through them. There are many liberal goals that I find worthy and I fully support. Who doesn't want world peace, good public education, clean air and water, etc.? Where I part ways with liberals is how to achieve these goals. The liberal viewpoint is simple; raise taxes, redistribute wealth, and take away as much freedom for people to be stupid as they can to prevent simple, uneducated, unwashed masses from hurting themselves and others. In other words, business as usual since FDR's New Deal. I can plainly see that none of that really works, and in reality usually makes things worse.

So am I a "neoliberal"? I offered that proposition to my blog editor. (Yes, I have an editor, do you?) He replied that he believes I'm more of a paleoliberal, in that my beliefs fall more closely in line with old time liberalism, back when the root word was recognized as 'liberty." But that doesn't quite fit the bill either, since I do want to accomplish new things, but I want to use the lessons from the past to determine what works and what doesn't.

So, with out further ado, I offer up to you Ladies and Gentlemen, a new political movement, for which I rightly can claim the honor of naming. I present to you "neopaleoliberalism!"