"So I'm watchin' and I'm waitin'
Hopin' for the best
Even think I'll go to prayin'
Every time I hear 'em sayin'
That there's no way to delay
That trouble comin' every day
No way to delay
That trouble comin' every day"
It's not that neoliberalism is neoconservatism with a human face. It's not Obama's first term is Bush's third with a human face. That's not it at all. That's just the outward result. But the innner dynamics are quite another thing, and because those responsible are obsessed with the inner dynamics, and virtually blind to the effects, they will get quite indignant if talk about them being just a "kinder and gentler" version of the folks they just replaced.
So let's give them their due. If Bush was Hitler (conditional folks, no need to go all Godwin), then Obama is not Hitler. He's Neville Chamberlin. Which is not a whole lot of comfort, because all the rest of us are Checkoslovakia, and thanks to Obama's post-partisanWorld War approach to politics, Hitler is about to eat us for lunch.
This is the basic dilemma in a nutshell: In terms of broad philosophical traditions, conservatives are my-way-or-the-highway authoritarians who see politics and all its contents, including its compromises and negotiations as war. OTOH, liberals are non-authoritarians who see politics and all its contents, including its compromises and negotiations as an alternative to war. Because conservatives already see politics as war, they're really not all that concerned if things fall apart. As an extreme example, the South was actually rather pleased to start killing Yankees at Fort Sumter. (They later called it the "War of Northern Aggression" in the sense that "it all started when he hit me back.") So if one side doesn't care if negotiations break down--in fact, is rather eager for it, while the other side values negotiations highly, there's an inevitable, profound and pronounced bias in favor of those who value negotiation the least. Call it "extortion"; call it "blackmail"; call it whatever you like; but it's not the sort of negotiation that liberals themselves claim to believe in.
At their best, liberals--under pressure from radicals--have their own set of principles that they're willing to stand up for, and this places certain limits on what they'll give away. Indeed, at their very best, liberals believe in things like evidence, rationality, and the rule of law, which makes things very hard indeed on conservatives. Neoliberals, however, are not liberals at their best (must less very best); they are liberals hollowed out of almost everything that liberals once believed in. They are hollow men, who look on actual liberals with same sort of anger, resentment and guilty consciences that liberals have traditionally felt for radicals--abolitionists and the like. In the end--a reductio absurdum plainly evident to everyone but themselves--the only thing left that they actually believe in is compromise itself. And, of course, even that they're willing to compromise, if it comes to that.
Which is why neoliberalism looks like neoconservatism with a human face. Which is why Obama is getting ready to send more troops to Afghanistan, why getting rid of contractors like Blackwater is not even remotely only the table, why holding torturers accountable is equally unthinkable, why Social Security and Medicare spending must be slashed, why military spending must continue going up, why Wall Street must be saved, why Main Street is forgotten, why Don Siegelman is still being prosecuted, and why Karl Rove is not, and on and on and on and on.
Which is why there's no way to delay that trouble comin' every day. |
