if tyou mean very slightly then yes. again all three of those tenets are aspects of fascism. Whether Neoconservatism isn't as bad, just as bad, or even worse is up for debate.
It's a cyclical system actually involving nepotism and very similar if not identical to "crony capitalism". The state props up corporations through subsidies and special favors including legislation to harm competitions and create monopolies. and in turn the corporation usually pays back in kind usually with financial gain.
It depends. There are two meanings of Nationalism htat I've generally encountered the version I'm using is more closely tied to Jingoism The support of one nation's interests to the exclusion of others. Usually involves establishign a national identity and attempting to enforce conformity with such an identity Like Neoconservative concepts of "Americanism" or the uniform monoculturalism in fascist italy.
No not necessarily. Nationalists are rarely ever Isolationists actually favoring militaristic imperialism and assimilation of different cultures and lands.
Only slightly. Paleoconservatives are more closely linked to a mix of classical liberal (free market) economics but have much of the social authoritarianism of Neoconservatism. While neoconservative social authoriatarianism is closer to nationalism Paleoconservative social policies more often favor theocratic principles (I.e. Enforcing religious idea sin to law) Usually resulring in the abridging of rights in the name of religon such ascensorship of the media and speech for anything deamed "immoral" or "sinful" treating homosexuals as immoral and reducing them to second class citizens with abridged rights. Et cetera.
No right on the money. But i'm not sure if im using paleoconservatism to mean what I think it means so I reeally wouldn't quote me on this one but my understanding is that it is indeed that specific branch of conservatism. Somebody please correct me if i'm mistaken. Like I said though Paleoconservatism also shares many tenets with classical liberalism especially in economic and government ideals. I'm just not certain if it's the branch that incorporates fundamentalism or not. Admittedly it's the branch that IK have the second least understanding of next to Neoliberalism.
Like I said i'm not exactly clear on Neoliberalism or Paleoconservatism other then the fact that they seem to share elements of classical liberalism to what extent i'm unsure.
From what you describe Paleoconservatism seems closer to classical liberalism While if i'm reading what i'm reading correctly Neoliberalism is not a whole political ideology but simply an economic ideology. At any rate I've also heard that Paleocons are closely tied to Theocons on social issues but i'm not sure.
Ah good point that's not an aspect of classical liberalism or social liberalism as far as I know. and Brian Patrick Mitchell helps to clerify the simmilarity between Paleo and Theo. I tend to use his work as well as the work of RG Price these days.
I beg your pardon. I'm not sure you know what classical liberalism is what your talking about is Social Democracy or Social Liberalism. Generally socialism is not compatible with classical liberalism actually. Being more in line with Neoliberalism and market liberalism (Which follow ideals more closely attuned to the Austrian and Chicago schools of economic theory) classical liberalism would be by modern American standards a politically syncratic ideology taking fiscal conservatism along with cultural liberalism. Something I doubt you support.
Comments
Oh, ok.
Could you tell me more about paleoconservatism? That sounds better.
Yes it was. I'm sorry I wasn't able to be more informative on Neoliberalism and Paleoconservsatism and I hope You enjoye dthe discussion.
I did, it was very interesting!