in a very short post, i distinguished between the reality-optional views of true believers in neo-liberalism such as ace here
from the more complicated realities that neo-liberals have advanced/are enmeshed in once they get into power.
once in power, neo-liberal politicians tend to continue talking the same way but use it largely as a screen for enacting policies that advance the interests of conservative segments of the american plutocracy.
you know, the military procurement system, the prison-industrial system, the surveillance apparatus, the instruments of state repression, war if they can get away with it. all good for conservative business.
this is intertwined with conservative political organizations which operate in a similar manner: american conservative organizations care about power and little else. the ideology of neo-liberalism is transparently a screen for them behind which the political interests (getting power, holding onto power, undermining whomever holds power that is not them) and economic interests (the patronage systems that benefit from conservative-style politics tend to support the political interests that advance those interests)
there weren't that many sentences in the post.
it's baffling that ace managed to fuck it up.
an aside:
here's a good recent book that outlines (again) the fiasco that neo-liberalism has wrought
http://www.versobooks.com/books/105-contours-of-descent
that is comprehensive enough to link, as the guardian article does above, the corrosion of political autonomy to the damage inflicted by neo-liberalism, particularly across the clinton and bush 2 periods.
of course, to acknowledge that would require some critical reflexivity.
so i expect no response that makes any sense from the reality-optional set.
plus it's a book.
gulp.