Do not contaminate the word liberal by trying to say Bush is one

Bush is no liberal, even though the next decade will be filled with neocons saying Bush was too much of one to fulfill the neoconservative agenda. Chester of Vanity Press takes apart one of the first of many such articles, this one by Richard Cohen:

Uh-oh, he's back and he's dumber than ever.

Years ago, someone coined the term "neoliberal." I was never sure what it meant.

I know. It's really hard to find out what words mean, isn't it? In brief, "neoliberalism," a word not often used in the USA, refers to the belief that the so-called "free market" should provide the basis for absolutely everything -- that the structure of the market should dominate all other interests including the democratic rights of the people. It's only been the dominant political ideology worldwide for the past quarter century, so there's really no reason for a Washington political columnist to know anything about it, is there?

Anyhow, the most important thing to realize about "neoliberalism" is that it is the direct opposite of liberalism. Liberalism, after all, is the belief that society's structures are there to serve people; conservatism, on the other hand, is the belief that people are there to serve society's structures. So really, "neoliberalism" is just a specialized form of conservatism, which is hardly surprising given its pedigree: Thatcher ran the world's first neoliberal government, one that for some reason has been the model for all others since.

So, Richard, are we clear on this now?

I'd like to revive (and mangle) the term and apply it -- brace yourself -- to George W. Bush. He's more liberal than you might think.

Oh dear. No, Richard, no. The word "neoliberal" and the word "liberal" are different. They are in fact polar opposites of each other -- no, Richard, stop!

After all, the conventional wisdom is that Bush is the most conservative of all presidents....But consider this: An overriding principle of conservatism is to limit the role and influence of the federal government.

No it isn't. Conservatism only began to advocate for limited government in response first to the Progressives and then to the New Deal, when it became clear that the institution of government was becoming more democratic and had been harnessed to serve the people's interests. Because conservatism believes that people should serve institutions and not the other way around, conservatives began to advocate for limited government so that other institutions, such as corporations, could rule in its stead. When conservatives are actually in charge of government and can wrest it away from democratic functions, they never have any problem with expanding its power.

Chester continues to shred Cohen's thesis and leave little confetti bits all over Cohen's head. Yet this quote of Chester's:

Liberalism, after all, is the belief that society's structures are there to serve people; conservatism, on the other hand, is the belief that people are there to serve society's structures.

Makes me want to ask where Bush actually fits in all this when his belief is that people and society are there to serve him and stand around being impressed by the actions of Commander Guy and the Deciderer?