Fun fact: in 1980 most news stations used blue for Reagan and red for Carter, although some reversed that. Prior to 2000 red and blue would be used for the parties basically at random, although frequently alternated to avoid consistently assigning red to any specific party (because of the implications of a party being associated with "red" during the Cold War). It only became entrenched like it is because a clip of a news caster talking about "red states" (in reference to states on a map that were literally colored red because they'd arbitrarily rotated to Bush=red and Gore=blue that time around) went viral and so standardized the discourse around "red states" and "blue states," which is the dumbest possible reason so of course it's what happened.
Yes. I knew offhand that the colors used for parties were basically random, although I'd also heard an apparently false claim that there was a bias towards using one color for incumbent parties and another for challengers. I did, however, look it up to see what colors were used for Reagan. Apparently NBC was consistent in using blue for Republicans and red for Democrats, intentionally adopting the UK's convention of blue Tories and red Labour, but there was no clear standard for anyone else until the 2000 election, when it stuck because of how long the process was dragged out on account of electoral rigging and the judicial coup.
I suppose the bit about the influence of a particular news commentary clip may not be 100% correct, but that was a part of the broader discourse that cemented the color associations in the public conscience.
absolutely a regular user just huffing their farts about how "inclusive and civil" they think r neoliberal is.
preaching to the choir here but, the reason why r/neoliberal is so confusing a sub is because neoliberalism isn't an ideology. I'm not saying Neoliberalism doesn't exist but that its just plain old stale liberalism. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can educate me but as far as I know none of these people they idolize: Reagan, Biden, Friedman, Pelosi, Hayek, George, ever specifically refer to themselves as Neoliberal. The only unifying factor among all these losers that refer to themselves specifically as Neoliberal is that someone with a rose emoji told them to fuck off and probably called them one. So they are basically all just too online liberals whose only unifying factor is their hate for the left and socialism. I make it a point to specifically tag anyone who uses that sub and never engage with them, they are always online and always cringe.
It's a sub for losers who got owned by socialists online. That's why it's always cringe. It is a reaction to the heightened contradictions and the status quo's inability to reconcile them. It's cogitative dissonance, the sub.
Neoliberalism is an actual ideology/political project that is distinct from classical liberalism. If I remember right Friedman, Hayek and the other members of the Mont Pelerin society called themseves Neoliberals in their early days, until they realized they could be more effective in spreading their ideas if they masked them as regular economics instead of labelling them as a new political ideology.
If you want to know more I'd recommend checking out the work of Phillip Mirowski, who is a historian that specializes in neoliberalism and the history of economics.
