I remember a few years ago, centrist dem pundits like Jonathan Chait and Joy Reid were complaining that the word “neoliberal” was losing meaning because the left was abusing it and using it too broadly as a pejorative. They lamented that Hillary Clinton and Cory Booker were being lumped in with Ronald Reagan and Paul Ryan.
I guess I do agree with them on this one, to be honest. “Neoliberal” should mean Reagan and Thatcher and Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. It should mean people who think that there are no such things as public goods or market failures, and literally every single product, good, and service in existence is better provided by private companies in a market system than by the public sector.
But in the last 7-8 years (and yeah, I do think this is largely the fault of socialist shitposters) “neoliberalism” has come to be understood as “any support for market systems at all, even only partially”. Now some non-leftists have reacted by embracing the term “neoliberal”, except most of the people doing that are really just mixed economy “good government” liberals who liked Obama and believe that markets are good for some things and public programs are good for others. Most of them probably hold LBJ and Paul Krugman in higher regard than Reagan and Hayek.
I like the view that Hayek got so owned by Keynes that the former just tried to extract vengeance and that is the main drive of him and also why he tried to influence allies more instead of changing his views.
But in the last 7-8 years (and yeah, I do think this is largely the fault of socialist shitposters) “neoliberalism” has come to be understood as “any support for market systems at all, even only partially”.
It's also literally an astroturfing campaign by a think tank to rehabilitate the image of "centre-left politics", a.k.a. something that gives the impression of being capitalism + treats for everyone, but actually has support of companies as its main priority.
If you give your Socdems the illusion that you support for example railway construction, and propagandize them with "the state is inefficient, the private sector should do it", then they'll support you if you privatize railways even if that fails to materialize even 1 Km of new lines. And if it is done after all, then you can be smug and out can convince them that the next step is to lower taxes for the rich so that they can give you treats and promise that they'll make your life better.
It's an ingenious strategy that worked because of their ideology being basically feel-good conservatism, now but better™ and as can be expected it created some incredibly smug people that find a defense for anything the government does, no matter how vile or in your face fuck you politics.
I did notice that wikipedia and some "economics" studies who are close to the Chicago econ people do not follow the sociological analysis of neoliberalism but reduce it too much and use neoliberalism for:
any economic thought and policy system in that isn't laissez faire
which is therefore some kind of ordo liberalism
Which of course is like saying Winter is when it isn't so hot that water is liquid.
Clinton's husband devastated welfare while he was in office. The Democrats don't deregulate and privatize as ruthlessly as they want to because their base will revolt and throw them out if they actually just executed their agenda. I had to double check I was on Hexbear and not :reddit-logo: because this is a a take.
Now some non-leftists have reacted by embracing the term “neoliberal”,
Who cares?
except most of the people doing that are really just mixed economy “good government” liberals
No one listens to them and they're too stupid or ideologically brain poisoned to understand the actual positions and goals of their beloved political leaders
Reagan and Hayek.
Reagan is the arch-Satan of the Left because he's so cartoonishly evil, but Neo-liberal hollowing out of society started before him, with Carter being the first president to really start implementing Neoliberal policies, and they've continued apace since him.
It should mean people who think that there are no such things as public goods or market failures, and literally every single product, good, and service in existence is better provided by private companies in a market system than by the public sector.
This describes neither Reagan nor Thatcher, and I will point you to their approach on police, the military, intelligence agencies, etc. for examples.
Lumping Buttigieg in with Reagan is ultimately pretty well-justified. The first neoliberal was Jimmy Carter and nearly 100% of prominent politicians in the US since 1980 have been very unambiguously playing for that team, whatever partisan feuding might also occur.
I remember a few years ago, centrist dem pundits like Jonathan Chait and Joy Reid were complaining that the word “neoliberal” was losing meaning because the left was abusing it and using it too broadly as a pejorative. They lamented that Hillary Clinton and Cory Booker were being lumped in with Ronald Reagan and Paul Ryan.
I guess I do agree with them on this one, to be honest. “Neoliberal” should mean Reagan and Thatcher and Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. It should mean people who think that there are no such things as public goods or market failures, and literally every single product, good, and service in existence is better provided by private companies in a market system than by the public sector.
But in the last 7-8 years (and yeah, I do think this is largely the fault of socialist shitposters) “neoliberalism” has come to be understood as “any support for market systems at all, even only partially”. Now some non-leftists have reacted by embracing the term “neoliberal”, except most of the people doing that are really just mixed economy “good government” liberals who liked Obama and believe that markets are good for some things and public programs are good for others. Most of them probably hold LBJ and Paul Krugman in higher regard than Reagan and Hayek.
deleted by creator
Man, I wish we could get back to Keynesian economics. That's how fucking bad it is :doomer:
I like the view that Hayek got so owned by Keynes that the former just tried to extract vengeance and that is the main drive of him and also why he tried to influence allies more instead of changing his views.
Not a Marxist view but fun enough for musicals.
It's also literally an astroturfing campaign by a think tank to rehabilitate the image of "centre-left politics", a.k.a. something that gives the impression of being capitalism + treats for everyone, but actually has support of companies as its main priority.
If you give your Socdems the illusion that you support for example railway construction, and propagandize them with "the state is inefficient, the private sector should do it", then they'll support you if you privatize railways even if that fails to materialize even 1 Km of new lines. And if it is done after all, then you can be smug and out can convince them that the next step is to lower taxes for the rich so that they can give you treats and promise that they'll make your life better.
It's an ingenious strategy that worked because of their ideology being basically feel-good conservatism, now but better™ and as can be expected it created some incredibly smug people that find a defense for anything the government does, no matter how vile or in your face fuck you politics.
I did notice that wikipedia and some "economics" studies who are close to the Chicago econ people do not follow the sociological analysis of neoliberalism but reduce it too much and use neoliberalism for:
any economic thought and policy system in that isn't laissez faire
which is therefore some kind of ordo liberalism
Which of course is like saying Winter is when it isn't so hot that water is liquid.
deleted by creator
Clinton's husband devastated welfare while he was in office. The Democrats don't deregulate and privatize as ruthlessly as they want to because their base will revolt and throw them out if they actually just executed their agenda. I had to double check I was on Hexbear and not :reddit-logo: because this is a a take.
Who cares?
No one listens to them and they're too stupid or ideologically brain poisoned to understand the actual positions and goals of their beloved political leaders
Reagan is the arch-Satan of the Left because he's so cartoonishly evil, but Neo-liberal hollowing out of society started before him, with Carter being the first president to really start implementing Neoliberal policies, and they've continued apace since him.
This describes neither Reagan nor Thatcher, and I will point you to their approach on police, the military, intelligence agencies, etc. for examples.
Lumping Buttigieg in with Reagan is ultimately pretty well-justified. The first neoliberal was Jimmy Carter and nearly 100% of prominent politicians in the US since 1980 have been very unambiguously playing for that team, whatever partisan feuding might also occur.