Our Neoliberal Nightmare: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Why the Wealthy Win Every Time

[Ferd Berfel]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by tammywammy (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Here is the cold slap of reality.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36376-our-neoliberal-nightmare-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-and-why-the-wealthy-win-every-time#14656518660361&action=collapse_widget&id=0&data=

Can we still rely on conventional distinctions like liberal versus conservative, or Democrat versus Republican, to understand what is going on in this election? We need to understand the framework of neoliberalism, rather than the distraction of personalities, to grasp what would be good or bad for the US public under each candidate.

Over the last fifteen years, editors often asked me not to mention the word "neoliberalism," because I was told readers wouldn't comprehend the "jargon." This has begun to change recently, as the terminology has come into wider usage, though it remains shrouded in great mystery.

People throw the term around loosely, as they do with "fascism," with the same confounding results. Imagine living under fascism or communism, or earlier, classical liberalism, and not being allowed to acknowledge that particular frame of reference to understand economic and social issues. Imagine living under Stalin and never using the communist framework but focusing only on personality clashes between his lieutenants, or likewise for Hitler or Mussolini or Mao or Franco and their ideological systems! But this curious silence, this looking away from ideology, is exactly what has been happening for a quarter century, since neoliberalism, already under way since the early 1970s, got turbocharged by the Democratic party under the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and Bill Clinton. We live under an ideology that has not been widely named or defined!

(snip)

It cannot be emphasized enough that neoliberalism is not classical liberalism, or a return to a purer version of it, as is commonly misunderstood; it is a new thing, because the market, for one thing, is not at all free and untethered and dynamic in the sense that classical liberalism idealized it. Neoliberalism presumes a strong state, working only for the benefit of the wealthy, and as such it has little pretence to neutrality and universality, unlike the classical liberal state.

(snip)

When Hillary Clinton frequently retorts -- in response to demands for reregulation of finance, for instance -- that we have to abide by "the rule of law," this reflects a particular understanding of the law, the law as embodying the sense of the market, the law after it has undergone a revolution of reinterpretation in purely economic terms. In this revolution of the law persons have no status compared to corporations, nation-states are on their way out, and everything in turn dissolves before the abstraction called the market.

(snip)

Neoliberalism expects -- and education at every level has been redesigned to promote this -- that economic decision-making will be applied to all areas of life (parenthood, intimacy, sexuality, and identity in any of its forms), and that those who do not do so will be subject to discipline. Everyone must invest in their own future, and not pose a burden to the state or anyone else, otherwise they will be refused recognition as human beings.

(snip)

Neoliberalism will continue to perpetuate reduced opportunity, because one of its characteristics -- as in any system that wants to thrive on the world stage -- is to constantly refine the field upon which the human subject can operate.

(snip)

(Thus, also, Hillary Clinton's animus against free college education; that form of expansion of opportunity, which was a reality from the 1950s to the 1980s, cannot be allowed to return, human beings are supposed to invest in their own future earnings potential, they are not entitled to a transcendent experience without barriers manifesting in discipline and self-correction. Education, like everything else, including one's own health, becomes an expensive consumer good, not a right, no longer an experience that might lead to a consciousness beyond the market but something that should be fully encapsulated by the market. If one is a capable market player, education as we have classically understood it becomes redundant.
(snip)


What, indeed, does happen beyond Sanders, because as we have seen Hillary Clinton is one of the founders of neoliberal globalization, one of its central historical figures (having accelerated the warehousing of the poor, the attack on trade unions, and the end of welfare and of regulatory prowess), while Trump is an authoritarian figure whose conceptions of the state and of human beings within the state are inconsistent with the surface frictionlessness neoliberalism desires? To go back to Hillary Clinton's opening campaign commercial, to what extent will Americans continue to believe that the self must be entrepreneurially leveraged toward maximum market gains, molded into mobile human capital ever ready to serve the highest bidder?

[RKP5637]

1. Neoliberalism AKA Money wins, Most humans lose. n/t

[Ferd Berfel]

2. This is why

nothing will get better (for most of us) under another CLinton reign

[RKP5637]

3. Often I wonder if humans will even be needed/wanted in the 21st century. ... seems to most

of the capitalistic regimes humans are in the way, as it's always money and profits first, humans last. Money needs to be removed from the political system, but we will never see that under a Clinton reign/regime. It will continue as the SOS.

[dinkytron]

21. The game is over before it starts.

[840high]

53. .+1

[lewebley3]

8. Hillary is not a neocon: She is a Democrat and a team player for America

[JaneQPublic]

11. It does seem odd how Hillary is accused of being both a neoliberal and a neoconservative. (nt)

[arendt]

15. Not odd at all: loves neocon wars, supports Wall St.

She is the perfect unity candidate for all that is screwing America over.

[newthinking]

18. Because Neocons and Neoliberals have united in war policy

[RKP5637]

12. I surely hope so! I liked Bernie, but I'm glad we have Hillary now to defeat Trump. n/t

[tecelote]

26. Show me one time she said no to aggressive tactics?

Hillary can rival any Republican in her use of the military to solve other nations problems.

[pangaia]

35. RKP did not say she is a neocon. RKP said she is a neoliberal..

[oberliner]

4. From the author of: Hillarybots, You Blew It! Thanks for Another Decade of War, Misery, and Scandal

We don't need this crap here.

[lewebley3]

9. Hilllary is for peace and worked for peace under the Clinton and Obama ADm

[arendt]

16. Hillary PROACTIVELY destroyed Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Honduras

She worked for war. She loves war and appoints neocons like Nuland.

Peace? You must be joking.

[oberliner]

42. That is preposterous

It's one thing to say that Hillary is not a peacenik, but it's another to say that she "proactively destroyed" four countries, when that is simply not true.

[arendt]

49. You have no facts to support YOUR preposterous claim

This is the last time I will do your homework for you. You are completely ignorant of the facts. Try reading these:

1) Hillary badgered Obama to go into Libya, against his better judgment. story here
2) Hillary did nothing to resist the coup in Honduras when the rest of Latin America screamed bloody murder. story here
3) Clinton appointed Uber-neocon Victoria Nuland (wife of PNAC founder, Philip Kagan) to be her representative in Ukraine. Nuland was up to her eyeballs in the coup story here
4) Clinton supported attacking Syria from day one. She used Israeli and Saudi pressure to try to force Obama into arming the rebels, then complained when he didn't story here

And just to tie it all together with a bow:

HRC's SIX foreign policy catastrophes

[newthinking]

20. absurd.

Agree with her work or not there is no way to call her a peace candidate.

[Phlem]

23. Save it. It's what they do. Say absurd things to try and get a

hide. I've been privy to a bevy of idiotic comments all usually for he sole purpose of eliciting a hide. This one is particularly good at it.



this will get a hide in 3....2....1

[arendt]

50. Good to know. n/t

[notadmblnd]

34. hehehe

Clueless is not just a movie.

[Phlem]

39. !

[Ned_Devine]

37. Why not? If history is precedent, as liberals we should be able to discuss these things

I'm probably barking up the wrong tree with you

[oberliner]

41. We can discuss these things without pejorative terms like "Hillarybots"

I definitely support intelligent and mutually respectful discussion.

That article and that headline are not that.

[Ned_Devine]

43. Yeah, I agree. Name calling is unnecessary

[charlyvi]

5. You are violating TOS

Don't willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights.

To simplify compliance and enforcement of copyrights here on Democratic Underground, we ask that excerpts from other sources posted on Democratic Underground be limited to a maximum of four paragraphs, and we ask that the source of the content be clearly identified. Those who make a good-faith effort to respect the rights of copyright holders are unlikely to have any problems. But individuals who willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights risk being in violation of our Terms of Service.

[redstateblues]

6. Yawn-another BSS equivocating Trump and Hillary

Building straw men everyday is exhausting

[Octafish]

7. Neoliberals aren't Liberals.

They're something sinister.

Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems

Financial meltdown, environmental disaster and even the rise of Donald Trump – neoliberalism has played its part in them all. Why has the left failed to come up with an alternative?

by George Monbiot
The Guardian, April 15, 2016

EXCERPT...

The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the gradual development of Britain’s welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.

In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control. Like Mises’s book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.

With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters of the Universe as “a kind of neoliberal international”: a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement’s rich backers funded a series of thinktanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and Virginia.

As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek’s view that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way – among American apostles such as Milton Friedman – to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.

Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name. In 1951, Friedman was happy to describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that, the term began to disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.

CONTINUED...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

Thank you for a very important OP, Ferd Berfel! Thanks to Corporate McPravda doing its thing, We the People will feel the impact of austerity in the wealthiest times in human history and yet have no clue "Why?"

[arendt]

17. Here is another good discussion of the insidiousness of neoliberalism

The Thirteen Commandments of Neoliberalism

It is a condensation of one section of a very difficult and unwieldy book:

"Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste - How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown", by Philip Mirowski

[Octafish]

29. Thank you! Awesome pub, that.

Where thinking they can redefine reality may come from:

Jorge Luis Borges' "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" calls such orders into being...

Heh. Mirrors!

PS: Great read that article, arendt. As long as the wealth goes from those who create to those who can best uh use it, we fortunate few may continue to rent a cot in the company flop house.

Going by the drum up for war with that new Hitler of the Russias, I feel that those with the means will turn the free water hose off soon.

[Octafish]

45. Mirowski's article in 'The Utopian' is a must-read!

Every word, Washington Generals fans.

(9) THOU SHALT KNOW THAT INEQUALITY IS NATURAL

Neoliberals regard inequality of economic resources and political rights not as an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism, but a necessary functional characteristic of their ideal market system. Inequality is not only the natural state of market economies from a neoliberal perspective, but it is actually one of its strongest motor forces for progress. Hence the rich are not parasites, but a boon to mankind. People should be encouraged to envy and emulate the rich. Demands for equality are merely the sour grapes of the losers, or if they are more generous, the atavistic holdovers of old images of justice that must be extirpated from the modern mind-set. As Hayek wrote, “The market order does not bring about any close correspondence between subjective merit or individual needs and rewards.” Indeed, this lack of correlation between reward and effort is one of the major inciters of (misguided) demands for justice on the part of the hoi polloi, and the failure of democratic systems to embrace the neoliberal state, as discussed in Commandment 5, above. “Social justice” is blind, because it remains forever cut off from the Wisdom of the Market. Thus, the vast worldwide trend toward concentration of income and wealth since the 1990s is the playing out of a neoliberal script to produce a more efficient and vibrant capitalism.

Here again we touch upon the recent crisis. This particular neoliberal precept dictates that the widely noted exacerbation of income inequality in the United States since 1980 cannot possibly have played a role in precipitating the crisis in any way. Indeed, attempts by the state to offset or ameliorate the trend toward inequality of wealth — especially through attempts to expand home ownership and consumer credit—become themselves, for neoliberals, major root causes of the crisis. This then gets translated into the preferred neoliberal story of the crisis, which attributes culpability to the Democrats by lodging blame for the housing bubble via securitization with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

CONTINUED...

http://www.the-utopian.org/post/53360513384/the-thirteen-commandments-of-neoliberalism

Rasta.

[arendt]

46. Yes. It is a readable version of the argument in his book.

I came across the Utopian article while looking for reviews of the book. Mirowski assumes not only knowledge of what obscure economist makes what contorted argument, but also a knowledge of the exotic words and metaphors he uses in his mockery.

Still, his "More Heat than Light" is a marvelous deconstruction of neoclassical economics as nothing more than warmed over 19th century physics, which he refers to as "The Laplacian Dream". (You can find a lengthy review here.) It was because of MHTL that I picked up the newer book; and because of MHTL that I plodded my way through the recherche screed that is the first chapter.

I do appreciate this thread. It has allowed me to collect several detailed exposees/critiques of the shape-shifting monster that is neoliberalism.

[arendt]

47. Actually, that review is negative. Still, it lays out some of the arguments well...

before it objects because the reviewer thinks Mirowski "upsets academic decorum".

Well, duh, if you are going to declare the entire edifice of neoclassical economics to be crap, you are obviously going to upset people - the reviewer included.

[Todays_Illusion]

10. It can be summed up as: Every human need must provide a profit for the few. The 7 billion must be

molded into a form that allows and then perpetuates such a system.

The only liberal part is freeing the wealthy from any oversight by a government and instead using the government only as a management tool to oppress and enforce the laws that allow the dominance of the many by the fewest.

[nolabear]

13. Reality? Even the url contains the word "opinion."

[Phlem]

25. Reality is this is a discussion board. Your magic day isn't here yet.

[SharonClark]

14. More nonsense from Anis Shivani and Salon

Where's HA HA and Ben Norton?

[roguevalley]

19. how about this from CNN then

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor-rajiv-fernando/index.html

A man who is a commodity trader and who gave the Clinton Foundation 1 million dollars was posted by Mrs. Clinton " to a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB), a panel filled with top-level foreign policy advisers and security experts. Former Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart chairs the current panel, which includes retired generals, the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other high-ranking national security experts. As a member of the top-level group, Fernando was granted a Top Secret security clearance and given access to highly sensitive information.

"He was a donor, a recent donor to Hillary Clinton's campaign and also gave as much as $250,000 to his foundation," presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump said Friday. "They all looked, they said 'Where did this guy come from?' He made a contribution of $250,000 all of a sudden he's on this very important, vital board. This position dealt with tactical nuclear weapons and had Top Secret clearance and he knew nothing about it."

This board advises on nuclear weapons etc and this commodity trader donor had ZIP knowledge. Apparently he had the money and that appears to be all it takes to put idiots in highly classified positions where they can play at being important.

Tell me again how this person has the judgment to be President.

[rgbecker]

22. Worship of the MARKET is replacing Christianity in the US.

How far are we from the coordinated removal of those who refuse to participate? Monetize everything. You have no worth to society if you have no interest in accumulating and spending money. I think there are only about two dozen people in the country able to get
out from under this yoke.

[beastie boy]

24. Accusing Bill or Hillary of being neoliberal is just ridiculous.

As if they were the only ones who were in absolute control of government and judiciary.

Either one of the two is responsible for influencing more anti-neoliberal policies than all the authors of all the articles bashing them for being neoliberal.

[Phlem]

33. I know right!?

The Thirdway and Neoliberalism are 2 completely different ideals.

The Thirdway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

Yeay Wall Street!

"In politics, the Third Way is a position akin to centrism that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies."

Neoliberalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Yeay Wall Street!

"Neoliberalism (or sometimes neo-liberalism)[1] is a term which has been used since the 1950s,[2] but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 80s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences[3] and critics[4] primarily in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[5]

Its advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.

[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[7] The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 one of the ultimate results."

2 totally different things!

[beastie boy]

48. Since you mentioned Third Way and neoliberalism in the same sentence... yeah, they are different

You are forgetting that Third way emerged as the means of saving the Democratic party from complete irrelevance. It was the working class and the middle class who bought into Reagan's bullshit and turned to the right. The Democratic party followed. Third way was the means of economic expansion to pay for social reforms, just as the dictionary definition suggests. What it turned into under Bush is a whole different matter and does not reflect on the Clintons in any event.

Economic conservatism, if you are interested, is not the same as economic liberalization. On the contrary, as the definitions suggest, economic conservatism implies careful regulation of the economy through government's fiscal and monetary policies, while economic liberalism implies complete deregulation of the economy. Apples and oranges. The difference is evident if you examine two separate instances of collapse of the banking system, one under Reagan and one under Dabya, versus economic stability and prosperity under Clinton.

But it's much easier to just type "Yeay Wall Street!" rather than educate yourself on the subject, isn't it?

[Phlem]

52. Excuse Me? "rather than educate yourself on the subject, isn't it? "

I've lived through NAFTA and Hillary first attempt here on DU 10+ years ago and you signed up in 2016 and know more than I do!? BTW still havn't recovered from NAFTA but I'm sure you have a reason for why it's not the Clinton's fault.

Huh, that's just fucking amazing!

"What it turned into under Bush is a whole different matter and does not reflect on the Clintons in any event."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Legislation

In the 1960s the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued aggressive interpretations of Glass–Steagall to permit national banks to engage in certain securities activities. Although most of these interpretations were overturned by court decisions, by the late 1970s bank regulators began issuing Glass–Steagall interpretations that were upheld by courts and that permitted banks and their affiliates to engage in an increasing variety and amount of securities activities. Starting in the 1960s banks and non-banks developed financial products that blurred the distinction between banking and securities products, as they increasingly competed with each other.

Separately, starting in the 1980s Congress debated bills to repeal Glass–Steagall's affiliation provisions (Sections 20 and 32). In 1999 Congress passed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act to repeal them. Eight days later, President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

Oh wait but you missed the part where the Thirdway adopts rightwing economic policies so yea, rightwing conservative economic policies = good for a Hillary supporter.

This must be your most favorite movie ever! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/

As the article says, and you've just confirmed it.

Got it.

Sell it baby!



PS. I know the difference between Liberal and Conservative in context Captain Obvious.

[Phlem]

38. What Bill and Hillary are not.

Democratic socialism:

Yeay 99%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

"Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system. The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with "socialism"; the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish it from the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.[1]"

"Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government.[1]"

[beastie boy]

54. And we all know how wonderful "democratic management of enterprises" has worked for

the people's prosperity!

This is my major critique of socialism, democratic or otherwise: democratic management of enterprises. Ruling by committee is the most ineffective, wasteful way of managing the economy. it is best left for highly educated bureaucrats free to apply their knowledge without being micromanaged. The government's role is to make sure the corporate governance complies with the nation's purpose: to protect and improve the lives of its citizens. Neoliberalism does jack shit in this respect; Third Way is all about it.

[zentrum]

27. Thank you.

[notadmblnd]

30. They demand that we worship the god Money

else we're not human.

[chknltl]

31. KnR nt

[ChiciB1]

32. Thanks For This Fred, But It DOES Seem Too Many Simply Believe

what MSM and the CORPORATISTS keep selling them. The only way they'll understand is having to LIVE under the SAME SYSTEM that's grown to what it is since back in the 80's! Understanding certain realities is a concept too many are UNWILLING to confront.

We ARE on the edge of another recession, it's being reported by "alternative media" from here in this country and other countries around the world. I even try to inform people here about ANACONDA and United Nations led effort to confront the Russians. So far, our country and Germany have been complicit in propping up 33,000 troops on the Russian border! I got attacked for even posting it here.

Anyone can Google it and find quite a few sites with a LOT OF INFORMATION... it is happening! And Hillary is much more of a hawk than MANY Repubs! These are TRUE FACTS! But, hey apparently SHE WON!

Obama who has been working so hard to get TPP passed is JUST FINE WITH THIS! Yeah, America... let's have MORE WAR!

Reality BITES!

[stupidicus]

36. well, there's nothing there that a Trump-like denial and dodge won't fix

anybody not familiar with neoliberalism and the fact that they're voting for a healthy portion of it with Clinton either fully supports what they've done and will do or are casting a vote woefully ignorant of reasons behind the intra-party warfare the dems are embroiled in.

It should be common knowledge by now, and those not in possession of it should just shut up and learn

http://www.monbiot.com/2016/04/15/the-zombie-doctrine/

[Cryptoad]

40. bernie who?

[cheapdate]

44. Another explanation is that Sanders didn't persuade quite enough people

to turn out and vote for him, whereas more people turned out and voted for Hillary Clinton.

[tammywammy]

55. Locking

You can repost in General Discussion: Primaries