By Mark Taliano
Words impact people and help to win elections. The word “conservative”, for example, denotes “conservation”, and evokes images of environmental conservation, economic, prudence and so on. 
This word does not, however, describe our current federal regime, as it dismantles environmental protections, deregulates markets, subsidizes transnational corporations, bails out banks, and weakens the public sector at every turn. The word that does, however, describe our current federal regime, is “neoliberal”. Beneath the surface, the Harper regime, with its Reform party roots, is actually a “neoliberal” government.
Not surprisingly, the term “neoliberal” is rarely used in the corporate media, just as the phrase “human-caused climate change” is rarely found in corporate media.
The big question is why? And the answer is fairly straightforward. Huge corporate entities make the rules and frame the discussions.
Neo-liberalism is an economic theory that benefits about 20 per cent of the population, while it is a disservice to the rest. It is also the economic theory that created the catastrophic crash of the financial markets in 2008, as well as the economic devastation elsewhere in the world.
Hallmarks of this theory include privatization, deregulation, the rolling back of the public sphere, and the enrichment of the 1%.
It preaches a “laissez-faire” market approach, but it relies for its success on huge public subsidies and bailouts. It creates a casino, boom/bust economy that is insured by unwitting public citizens.
It plays havoc with environmental stewardship (gutting environmental regulations); it
plays havoc with financial markets (unregulated financial transactions ( i.e hedge funds/derivatives); and it plays havoc with solidarity movements such as unions. Most insidious of all, though, it becomes stronger where democracy is weak or non-existent. Democracy and neoliberalism move in opposite directions.
Chinais a flourishing capitalist, “neoliberal” country, but when democracy tried to break out atTiananmen Square, the students and their democratic ideals were wiped out …. literally. The bodies were burned, and nowChinais a strong capitalist, but aggressively anti-democratic country.
Russia, too, is now a capitalist country with a “neoliberal” economy, but its democracy is very weak.
So, the unseen, un-named influence in the Harper regime, and to a slightly lesser extent, the McGuinty government, is neoliberalism.
In some respects, apart from the lack of respect that it demonstrates to working people, neoliberalism is also evil.
The military-industrial complex grows by creating fear and by waging war. So, in 2003 when the U.S and the U.K unleashed weapons of mass destruction onIraq(a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, terrorism, or the alleged weapons of mass destruction), the corporate media barely mentioned the thousands (over 100,000) of American anti-war protestors in the streets. Not surprisingly, CBS was owned by Westinghouse, and NBC by General Electric, two major weapons manufacturers, when the Iraq War started.
According to Iraq Body Count, from 106, 695 – 116,548 (likely more) innocent, non-combatants have lost their lives so far since the criminal invasion ofIraq.
The military industrial complex also affectsCanada. Lockheed Martin, the sole source provider of the F-35’s will likely cost Canadians billions more than expected. This, at a time when public services such as health care are under-funded and dysfunctional.
Even as neoliberalism fosters these maladjusted priorities, it is still a winning formula for the exploiters though: they use public money to undermine the public sphere, so the largely unaccountable transnational corporations can profit. This insinuation of the private sphere into what has traditionally been the public sphere is happening at an alarming rate now, and it will continue to drive up prices for ordinary citizens, especially in the realm of health care.
Canadacurrently has record levels of economic disparities, record levels of planned environmental devastation, and record levels of democratic deficits: all hallmarks of neo-liberalism.
Yet even as this exploitative system crashes economically, and forces “austerity” on the 99%, it is still fairly intact ideologically. It is still wearing the mask of “conservatism”, and it is still a taboo topic for the corporate media.
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
Mark Taliano is a Niagara native and frequent contributor of political essays and commentary to Niagara At Large.
(Niagara At Large invites you to share your views on this post below. We also welcome others to contribute commentary to this site if they have a commentary on the good, bad and ugly of our times that is dying to get out.)
Niagara At Large 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B-CEdMmwJ4
Powerful video.
LikeLike
I’m truly impressed with Mark Taliano’s insights. And I thoroughly enjoy what he writes. He’s often quite brilliant. Certainly, his seeing behind the ‘conservative’ label as mis-used by Prime Minister Harper (reformers et al?) is observation at its creative best. Mark nicely shows us that the once useful word ‘conservative’ has been high-jacked and perverted by our very own Harpo-con.
But Mark, you should be careful that you don’t do the same by turning the useful adjective ‘liberal’ (or neo-liberal) into a noun that also becomes a useless label.
LikeLike
For some time, I’ve been intending to praise, not butter-up, Mark Taliano. Most people, according to the great philosopher-poet Goethe, “see only what they know.” That is, they understand (and hence see) only what they’re taught to know. Mark is one of the very few intelligently creative thinkers that see first what others don’t yet know. And he is able to put it into clear written words. My only concern is that he doesn’t extrapolate his observations on conservatism by doing a pseudo-job on liberalism.
LikeLike
… and a pseudo job on socialism.
… and any other “-isms”.
LikeLike
Mark, there’s a lot to digest here, but it was very thought provoking. I remember listening to Ron Paul during the Republican primaries explain how the Republican party wasn’t conservative anymore. After listening to him for five minutes he was pretty convincing.
LikeLike
“Capitalism” apparently, doesn’t exist anywhere in the world.
We do have “Monopoly Capitalism” and “Crony Capitalism” where the best way to compete is to buy up/off your competitors.
And the Chinese & other dictatorships have “State Capitalism”, where government institutions own the big companies, which is another way to limit competition.
In very few countries are little guys supported so that their enterprises survive very long or past the death of the founders. The inheritors of the estate don’t want the business, and so sell it to a larger company to get the cash value (and to pay the capital gains taxes!).
What Mark has been describing, is what has gone on in larger-than-traditional tribal societies for centuries/millennia: competition for status/hierarchy, which occurs in all mammalian species. The rulers try to lord it over the ruled. We’re lucky to be living a constitutional monarchy that remembers the many long battles, and in a Parliamentary democracy where we get to elect our monarchs (the Prime Minister now has some of the powers of the Kings of old) every 4-5 years. And yes, we need to review what those rulers do when in power.
“Neo-Liberalism” sounds like another one of these fancy floating terms invented by a Poli-Sci prof in order to flog a new ‘publish-or-perish’ book. Whatever it’s called, whoever’s in power seems to try to benefit their own electorate. Monopoly Capitalism, State Capitalism, Big Unionism are all methods of having a few people control the rest of us. Our job and Privilege is to watch and question them.
The thing that saved Canada from the Crash of 2008, is that we didn’t follow the rest of the world’s greedy, gamblers who convinced Reagan in 1981 to begin de-regulating and removing the rules that were estabished after the Crash of 1929 to control and protect the 4 pillars of the finance industry: banks, stocks, bonds, insurance. Thank goodness Canadians are basically carefully conservative.
However, we Always need to question our governments, no matter who’s in power. We Are “over-regulated and under-governed”, but we need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater when improving/reducing regulations.
Unfortunately, as Mark points out, the Free Marketers want bailouts when they’re going down the tubes, and still don’t want to be properly regulated…. It looks as if the world is having major problems in restoring the wise financial controls that followed the Crash of 1929. Again, thank goodness Flaherty isn’t following the Europeans.
Almost forgot: Life and societies happen in Cohorts, and most people don’t study history. Therefore, current generations are both unlikely to learn the hard-won lessons of their ancestors and doomed to repeat them. -sigh-
LikeLike
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/21/no_nato_no_war_us_veterans#.T7qHDYFcZZA.twitter
Democracy Now, with Amy Goodman
LikeLike
I appreciate everyone’s intelligent comments, positve and negative, and I don’t pretend to know it all. Here are some further comments/clarifications:
First, “neo-liberalism ” is not a term that I invented. Republicans in the U.S would be more like “neoconservatives”, a key difference being that they also wrap themselves in fundamentalist type religion to garner votes, and then follow the extreme capitalist path.
Second, if we look at the current Liberal party in Ontario or Quebec, they are basically following this same “neoliberal/extreme capitalist” economic theory (though they aren’t as extreme as the federal “conservatives”.)
Pulitzer prize winning author Chris Hedge’s, Death Of The Liberal Class is an excellent read.
Finally, a word on “words”, and this ties in with Dr. Hogg’s comments. I’m not a fan of the term “neoliberal” because it is too closely associated with the Liberal party, when, in different degrees, it is an economic theory that relates to numerous political parties, but I guess we’re stuck with the term for now.
Regardless, if we use a religious framework, this unravelling economic theory which is “behind the scenes” and protected by corporate media and many politicians (some of whom I’m sure don’t know the theory by name) is at least enabling, but also creating “evil” in this world. The protestors in Quebec are combatting more than just tuition fee increases. They are also protesting the dehumanization of our current economic regime.
LikeLike
Mind jolting realism is not the food of choice for those enjoying the band-wagon and Mark does a remarkable job in calling a spade a spade.
Ralph Nader while speaking in front of a huge gathering of young college students was quoted as saying “It matters NOT which party once votes for they are both Corporate bastions of self indulgence for the 1%”
LikeLike
Feed the military/ industrial/ media complex, while health care circles the drain. A big thank you to Steven Harper and the 1%.
LikeLike
Dear Sir, Conservatism has nothing to do with “conservation” but it appears to serve your personal purpose of distorting Prime Minister Harper’s efforts to achieve financial stability across this nation.
“Conservatism is opposition to rapid changes, disorder and extremes in society. It began as a reaction to the Age of Enlightenment, the neglect of the poor caused by leisurely interest in science and philosophy resulting in the extremely violent French Revolution. Conservatism called for a return to faith, love, and peace. It began in 1790 with the publication of English author Edmund Burke’s book Reflections on the Revolution in France. In his book, he advocated for being satisfied and for caring government.”
May I add that this philosophy is very close to the way the Harper government goes about leading this nation. It is so unfortunate that you and others cannot accept that Mr.Harper’s brand of responsible conservatism is what has saved this country from financial ruin.
LikeLike
Gary:
An Excellent quote and definition for the origins of Conservatism.
What is your source, btw?
However, it naturally leads to the way I often sign an e-letter:
“a Conservative is, by definition, a conservationist”
By enacting careful, conservative principles in government, finance, justice, protection and ecology (as defined above), Harper IS conserving/restoring the best of the past as we move into an ever-more-uncertain future.
LikeLike
Dear sir,
Harper is contributing not only to the demise of what’s left of our democracy, but also to the dysfunctional and failing economy. The result? Middle class is disappearing, income disparities are growing rapidly etc. His environmental record is irresponsible to the extreme, as is his governing style. It is a venal, retrograde regime.
LikeLike
To Lorne White…I believe that definition came from the Oxford Dictionary of Political definitions written by Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. ISBN 0-19-280276-3. It is a wonderful book with over 1700 clearly written entries and may be available at any good quality book store.
As far as your association between conservative and conservation I would dare say that you are mostly correct although I might be inclined to used the word “preservationist” because of the Conservative inclination to maintain the status quo and reject change that is not based on solid factual evidence.
In closing I would just like to add that Conservative value’s and their preference for capitalistic aspirations sometimes does not include actual “conservation” in their pursuit of increasing revenues. Either way Stephen Harper is on the right track in this new and uncertain world in which we live.
LikeLike
To Mark Taliano…I have read a number of your articles and you are a fine writer. It is unfortunate that you don’t want to expand upon your statements about Mr.Harper and simply rehash the Liberal bashing of what many of us believe to the be the best Prime Minister in the history of this country.
Maybe you would like to expand on your statement about losing our democratic rights as I don’t see where that is happening and would enjoy reading the opinion of someone who has more information about such things that have escaped my research.
Surely you can admit that Canada was the only nation on the planet that survived the great recession of 2008 with minimal economic damage because of quick and decisive action by Mr.Harper that ensured our most vulnerable business entities received the proper amount of funding in the form of loans so that we could avoid massive layoffs and plant closures that would have resulted in total upheaval in our economic activity. Most of those loans have been repaid and we can credit the Harper/Flaherty team with saving thousands of jobs during very trying times. Most of the rest of the world is still suffering terribly because they did not react as quickly as we did.
In closing Mark, i must ask you why you believe Mr.Harper has been environmentally irresponsible even though he is the only Prime Minister to have worked hand in hand with industries that harvest products that could, but have not, done extreme damage to the environment. His desire to extract and sell bitumin products on a world scale have increased revenue’s that are contributing greatly to a reduction of our national debt without raising taxes on the hard working people in other parts of the country. He is to be commended for his efforts and should not be vilified for doing so.
I understand there are political parties that would do away with oil products but the reality is no country could survive using unproven and inefficient green technologies. We have trillions of barrels of energy stored in multiple area’s of this great nation and it is time to reap the benefits by creating partnerships that focus on environmental protection as well as the extraction and sale of those goods.
Mr.Harper is on the right track and all Canadians will someday benefit from the foundation of cooperative business practices that he is implementing.
LikeLike