Neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism

 

                The term ‘neo’ is widely used within political discourse to signify a new trend. As such, neo-liberalism (Nozick, 1974) marks a modified version of liberal thought whereas neo-conservatism (Fukuyama, 2006; Huntingdon, 2002) reflects a modern take on conservative values. The distinction between the two is an important one to make. Although a slight over-simplification, the dividing line gravitates towards the proper role of the state. Both neo-liberals and neo-conservatives are more likely to be found within the GOP than the Democrats. Third parties might also be considered (such as the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party), alongside pressure groups such as Americans for Tax Reform and Club for Growth.

 

                Neo-liberalism seeks to update the core elements of classical liberal thought. By the 50s and 60s, classical liberalism had been eclipsed by the hegemony of social liberalism within the states. Neo-liberalism thereby sought to recognize the changing parameters of ideological debate whilst seeking to modify the central elements of classical liberalism. By the 1980s, neo-liberalism had gained prominence within the Reagan administration (Mervin, 1990). Both Reagan and Bush senior sought to reduce the level of state interference within the economy. After an era of Republican hegemony in the White House, new Democrats broadly continued the neo-liberal economic package of de-regulation and privatization. In the contemporary era, neo-liberalism can be located amongst libertarian figures within the GOP. Those figures aligned to the Tea Party movement seek to keep the neo-liberal spirit alive at a time of rising government debt.

 

                Neo-conservatives focus less on economic policy and more on foreign policy. Whereas a neo-liberal seeks to reduce the role of the state within the economy, neo-conservatives seek to mobilize the state in order to make the world safe for democracy. Neo-conservatives believe that America must use its considerable military arsenal in order to combat the threat of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. The influence of neo-conservatism reached a peak during the noughties under a Republican administration. So whereas a neo-liberal could be depicted as a fiscal hawk, a neo-conservative favors a hawkish stance on foreign affairs.

 

                Both neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism have to some extent been tainted by policy failures. In the case of neo-liberalism, the credit crunch is associated in the popular mindset with de-regulation of the financial services industry (Soros, 2008; Tett, 2010). Although America is fundamentally a capitalist country, it may take some time before voters are once again prepared to support an unregulated marketplace in the context of financial institutions. Similarly, neo-conservatism has become tainted by association with the costly quagmire of Iraq and Afghanistan (Woodward, 2003 and 2008). Moreover, the Obama administration has achieved some degree of success in terms of portraying their Republican opponents as apologists for the discredited policies of the past.

 

                For neo-conservatives, the size of the government is clearly of some importance. However, of greater significance to them is the moral character of the American people. Neo-cons are opposed to government schemes that undermine personal responsibility and civic action, but they do actively support programs that might reinforce such values. Neo-cons also recognize that everyone at times may need a helping hand, although they are certainly opposed to an ever-expanding government that shields people from accepting responsibility for their actions. Unlike elements of the religious right, they seek to avoid an explicit reference to religion in terms of their ideological worldview. Unlike certain strands of conservatism, neo-cons also place a greater emphasis upon empirical research.