Please help me out. The term-du-jour now seems to "neoliberal"

[Stinky The Clown]

I know what it means.

How did it get catapulted to the fore right now?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

1. It's become a replacement for the word "establishment"

amongst the so-called "progressives" who support Brexit.

[Hortensis]

61. Neoliberalism was an anti-mercantilist

ideology a few centuries ago in which people believe they should have the right to trade independently of the wishes and interests of kings and kingdoms. The more comparable ideology today would be hard-right-wing laissez-faire capitalism.

Why is it being used? ANTI-LIBERAL, ANTI-DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA. It combines the word "liberal" with the viciously greedy right-wing economic ideology that people across the spectrum finally recognize for what it is and hate.

This is a classic right-wing attempt to use people's ignorance to shift blame for Republican betrayals of the electorate to the Democrats.

[George Eliot]

72. Asked an OP earlier what he meant by "neoliberal" cuz didn't makes sense

to me. It describes someone who is in favor of moving capital from public to private. That is what DLC encouraged so I'm guessing the term is correctly used when referencing the move to the right in the early nineties.

Do you disagree? Frankly, I favor private-to-public in the form of higher taxes on the one percent.

[Hortensis]

79. Today's neoliberalism equates to EXTREMIST CONSERVATISM

Last edited Sun Jun 26, 2016, 06:17 AM - Edit history (1)

It is the antithesis of modern liberalism. I am a lifelong liberal and I loathe and fear proponents of neoliberalism.

Although neoliberalism has taken good hold in the GOP, largely displacing traditional conservatism, keep moving right, especially the ultraconservative super-rich, because they are the ones who moved neoliberalism from arcane fringe extremism to mainstream university teaching and the halls of Congress.

Neoliberalism embodies everything people are so rightly coming to fear from right-wing economics, and the word itself is being used by right-wing propagandists and by some here on DU to confuse people and falsely suggest that its exploitive, predatory, antidemocratic ideology is the Democratic Party's.

Here, check this out from Dissent Magazine. Your public-to-private is in the second paragraph.

Shenk: Discussions about neoliberalism often treat it as an economic doctrine, which also means that they concentrate on its economic ramifications. You shift the focus to politics, where, you argue, neoliberalism has “inaugurate[d] democracy’s conceptual unmooring and substantive disembowelment.” Why does neoliberalism pose such a threat to democracy?

Brown: The most common criticisms of neoliberalism, regarded solely as economic policy rather than as the broader phenomenon of a governing rationality, are that it generates and legitimates extreme inequalities of wealth and life conditions; that it leads to increasingly precarious and disposable populations; that it produces an unprecedented intimacy between capital (especially finance capital) and states, and thus permits domination of political life by capital; that it generates crass and even unethical commercialization of things rightly protected from markets, for example, babies, human organs, or endangered species or wilderness; that it privatizes public goods and thus eliminates shared and egalitarian access to them; and that it subjects states, societies, and individuals to the volatility and havoc of unregulated financial markets.

Each of these is an important and objectionable effect of neoliberal economic policy. But neoliberalism also does profound damage to democratic practices, cultures, institutions, and imaginaries. Here’s where thinking about neoliberalism as a governing rationality is important: this rationality switches the meaning of democratic values from a political to an economic register. Liberty is disconnected from either political participation or existential freedom, and is reduced to market freedom unimpeded by regulation or any other form of government restriction. Equality as a matter of legal standing and of participation in shared rule is replaced with the idea of an equal right to compete in a world where there are always winners and losers.

The promise of democracy depends upon concrete institutions and practices, but also on an understanding of democracy as the specifically political reach by the people to hold and direct powers that otherwise dominate us. Once the economization of democracy’s terms and elements is enacted in law, culture, and society, popular sovereignty becomes flatly incoherent. In markets, the good is generated by individual activity, not by shared political deliberation and rule. And, where there are only individual capitals and marketplaces, the demos, the people, do not exist.

The article twists a little deep as it unwinds its evolution for scholars. But today's Democratic Party stands for everything neoliberalism is trying to destroy. And, yes, it also is influenced by neoliberals, which have infiltrated all areas of government to some degree, but unlike the GOP it has not fallen to them.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. ... that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." - Abraham Lincoln

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” - Abraham Lincoln

Btw, as he so clearly evidences, Lincoln's brand-new Republican Party and its leaders bore absolutely no resemblance to today's.

[swhisper1]

2. she won the primary

[Scootaloo]

3. What do you mean "catapulted to the fore"?

You know what it means, so clearly you've seen it in use often enough to understand it. What's got you certain that it's a "just now" thing?

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Nice try

Next.

[Scootaloo]

9. I'm sorry, what?

I'm trying to figure out why you think it's just now a "thing"?

[Hekate]

73. Because it is.

[Scootaloo]

76. Maybe it's just that some of you are just now noticing other people talking about it?

'Cause it's been an ongoing discussion in the Left for, uh, decades.

[NuclearDem]

4. "Fascist" became old and overused.

Some people needed a new, equally-vague epithet to spook people and disguise their complete lack of cohesive arguments.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. ^^^YES^^^

Hahahahaha!

Spot on. Exactly what I thought. And probably coming form exactly *where* I thought, too.

[BeyondGeography]

31. Corporatist, establishment...there had to be a third way

[quickesst]

60. Ding ding ding...

We have a winner!!!

[auntpurl]

62. And there it is.

Mic drop.

[sufrommich]

5. It's code for "The Unpure". nt

[shenmue]

21. Exactly

[brush]

66. Many people use it as a derogatory diss du jour to describe a pol without knowing what it really

means. Neo-liberalism is an ideology.

* It rejects the conventional liberal idea that the free market is natural. This means that states working multilaterally have to work towards ensuring the best conditions for market to function.

* Linked to this, neo-liberals have no qualms with enforcing the market through legislation.

* The state must not interfere with the running of the market full stop. If the market is in trouble, the state can help encourage it to develop in a certain way, but it must not actively intervene (e.g. no state-owned assets).

* Although it is optimal for the state not to interfere in the market, it has a certain reponsibility to the people which means it must interfere by way of minimal taxes and bureaucracy to facilitate smooth running. In theory, given the right conditions, there is absolutely no need for welfare whatsoever.

* Only economic liberty is necessary for the people. Political repression is fine so long as people can participate in the economy freely.

Neo-liberalism itself is quite a broad term, but it must be differentiated from ordinary liberalism. Liberalism (e.g. Mill, Bentham, Rawls) is essentially the philosophical belief that one has the right to liberty, i.e. independent action according to one's own opinions, desires, etc. However this is within the bounds of 'legitimate' legal restrictions and providing that no-one else is harmed in the process. It's very much linked to utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest number).

NEO-liberalism (see Hayek, Fiedman, Nozick) is a strand of liberalism that came about largely out of neoclassical economic theory, and contains most of the principles of conventional liberalism but adds more. There are a few extra bits:

* Whereas liberalism is a philosophical system, neo-liberalism is an ideology.

* It rejects the conventional liberal idea that the free market is natural. This means that states working multilaterally have to work towards ensuring the best conditions for market to function.

* Linked to this, neo-liberals have no qualms with enforcing the market through legislation.

* The state must not interfere with the running of the market full stop. If the market is in trouble, the state can help encourage it to develop in a certain way, but it must not actively intervene (e.g. no state-owned assets).

* Although it is optimal for the state not to interfere in the market, it has a certain reponsibility to the people which means it must interfere by way of minimal taxes and bureaucracy to facilitate smooth running. In theory, given the right conditions, there is absolutely no need for welfare whatsoever.

* Only economic liberty is necessary for the people. Political repression is fine so long as people can participate in the economy freely.

* The state is not the sovereign political unit in global politics. Economic actors understand things best, so states and economic institutions and companies ought to work together in a kind of corporatist framework.

* The workers needn't be consulted because it is in the interests of business to keep them well and happy ( eek )

NB The third way isn't technically neoliberal. It is a hybrid of social democracy and neoliberalism. It believes in utilising the free market in the interests of egalitarianism, but with minimal interference.

Neoconservatism could be seen as a subsection within the neoliberal camp. It shares the principles of neoliberalism, but also adds moral, largely Christian, norms. These are generally around the atomic family and the notion of 'family values', as you can see in the US. It varies in extent, but generally neoconservatives disagree that the state shouldn't interfere with social issues. Usually they believe the state has a responsibility for upholding the social and moral fabric of the nation.

The term neoconservative seems to the most rabidly pro-war, pro-empire members of the Bush administration. People like Rumsfeld, Perle and Wolfowitz. I think they're more in alliance with the Christian right than payed-up members of it.

Probably the definitive source of neoconservative thought is the Project for the New American Century.

Scary stuff...

None of that really discribes Clinton. Neoliberal is a throw away diss often used without know its real meaning.

[Warpy]

7. Because those ideas have been put into place worldwide, some places more, some places less

but everybody who works for a living is experiencing the fallout from "free" trade, deregulation, privatization of the commons, and the other wonderful policies that look so good on paper to some economists but have been so disastrous for the majority of us when put into practice.

This is what people worldwide are beginning to rebel against.

[Purveyor]

28. ^^^this^^^ eom

[OrwellwasRight]

33. +1000

[alarimer]

49. And it is clear also who objects to the term.

Establishment figures who put those same policies in place (and their supporters).

And it really is about those policies that have damaged lives. Or should be at least. But "latte liberals" do not care at all about those left behind. I really think they are happy to write off Trump voters, say, as nothing more than racists. When the truth is far more complex than that.

[laundry_queen]

57. Exactly. nt

[Hekate]

75. I've only ever seen it here, and only recently

[ctaylors6]

69. the complexity explained a little here...

" The reason people are resistant to [the free-trade] argument is because global elites have been inattentive to the issues of wages, incomes, and opportunity for ordinary people. If you’re selling globalization and saying it’s great, even though each year, not just in the United States but across the advanced economy, you’re seeing more and more of a winner-take-all economy, where not just the top 1 percent, but the top 0.01 percent, are getting a larger and larger share, then, yes, it’s going to be pretty hard to make the argument that “Don’t worry, this is great for you.”

The issue is not resentment or class warfare or that somehow we want to level everybody down rather than lift everybody up. The issue is that, if in fact automation and globalization do have a tendency to create vast wealth and opportunity for a very small, highly skilled set of people and have a tendency to create a larger and larger group of folks who feel redundant in the economy, and if you don’t pay attention to that, then people will rightly resist. They will understandably say, “I am not getting a good deal here.”

[840high]

70. Spot on.

[CrowCityDem]

8. It's a way to divide us, which is precisely antithetical to what being progressive is about.

[OrwellwasRight]

34. That's not correct.

Last edited Sat Jun 25, 2016, 07:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Progressivism and neoliberalism are not compatible. They are alternative economic ideologies. Progressivism is about raising wages, investing in education and infrastructure, strong and wide safety nets, social insurance and social solutions. Progressivism is essentially the New Deal. It is Keynesianism.

Neoliberalism is about lowering taxes, deregulating, introducing "labor market flexibilities" that make it easier to fire people in Europe and bust unions in the US, "free trade," gutting and privatizing the public sector, and taking away the social safety net. Neoliberalism is essentially the George W. Bush economy. It is the Washington Consensus. It is Milton Friedman. It is "you're on your own."

http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/econ101/neoliberalismdefined

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

[libdem4life]

37. Thank you for the info. I'll read the links. It kind of came up on us

like Progressive did for me, an old-time, bleeding heart liberal. LOL

[CrowCityDem]

38. The Clinton platform is not, by those words, neoliberal.

[OrwellwasRight]

45. Did i say it was?

I don't recall saying that.

In any case, however, you may want to note that the failure to oppose the TPP certainly is going to be interpreted as neoliberal by TPP opponents.

[CrowCityDem]

50. You, no. But many here have.

Talking about the TPP, few will notice that the failure to oppose was also not an endorsement.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

78. even a dumb dog will

finally drop the bone and move on

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. Quite. n/t

[laundry_queen]

58. Good post. nt

[OrwellwasRight]

68. Thank you!

[George Eliot]

74. it's moving public $$ to private: think Soc Sec, charter schools, pensions

to name but a few.

[MohRokTah]

10. Anybody who uses that term against a fellow DUer is engaging in a personal attack.

It's just the new insult du jour.

I am a Liberal.

End.

Full Stop.

[JonLeibowitz]

29. Only if you view neoliberalism as a bad thing

I'm not sure you want to view it that way.

During the 1990s, the Clinton Administration also embraced neoliberalism by supporting the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, continuing the deregulation of the financial sector through passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, and implementing cuts to the welfare state through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.[58][59][60] The neoliberalism of the Clinton Administration differs from that of Reagan as the former purged it of neoconservative positions on militarism, family values, opposition to multiculturalism and neglect of ecological issues.[55]:50-1

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

[Ilsa]

36. oh yeah. Repealing Glass-Steagall turned out

just great, huh? And the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act isn't popular here with everyone.

I'd rather be a Progressive. I think I am a Progressive.

[JonLeibowitz]

41. Exactly.

[libdem4life]

39. And here we go again...Same Play, Second Act.

[NorthCarolina]

53. I'm curious why you equate "Neoliberalism" with a "personal attack"

What aspects of neoliberalism rank it worthy of being tagged as a personal attack. I find it an odd comment because there are several prominent Neoliberal Democrats, some of whom you may have even voted for, or will likely vote for.

[Rex]

59. It is a game for a few here, they take a term they find offensive and marginalize it

or make it mean something else completely. Very few people fall for the tactic since it was also used in 2010 and people finally wised up.

Nobody thinks the term is a personal attack on another DUer...that is just the way their sick game is played.

[MFM008]

11. i dunno

I looked it up and it said Neo- Liberal = sour grapes.



enough people call us names do we have to start calling ourselves names?

[Springslips]

12. Not every one knows the meaning.

Neoliberalism isn't liberal in the modern sense, though some here are using that way, as in a new type if modern liberal, synonymous with Third Way. It really means laissez faire or trikle down, reaganomics.

In the classic sense liberal means less government control more liberty. As in liberal gun laws equal lax regulation on guns. Neo of course means new; as in a new push for laissez faire that we have been feeling since Reagan.

The terms get even more confusing when you discover that Neoconservatives are Neoliberals, but that's a discussion for another time.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Agreed. See Post 4 by NuclearDem, above.

A perfect description.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. That which the US calls 'neoconservative' most of the world calls 'neoliberal'.

George Bush and Tony Blair- A Poem
Neo-cons here
Neoliberals there
But a rose is a rose
Any old where

[Stinky The Clown]

19. I know what it means

And it isn't exactly what you say it is, but that's close enough for this game of horseshoes.

The term has been around since the 20s or 30s, maybe earlier.

My question is why, only within the last few weeks does it seem a popular term in some quarters of DU, most recently since the Brexit vote. Immediately before that, when discussing Clinton's win over Sanders. Before that, here on DU? Nearly, if ever.

It is as if it got read on some blog someplace, got misunderstood but repeated. And then echoed by one DU sect or another.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. My comment was not intended to be an exact definition of the term but a fun way to point out why

the term is more common when it's a UK or European subject context. 'Neocon' is far from unusual as a term on DU. 'Neoliberal' is a word meaning the same thing. It's the context that alters the choice of terms. That seems obvious. Hood, bonnet.

[arendt]

24. wrong. not same

A neocon is an warmonger who wants America to use its military to rule the world.

A neoliberalism is someone who be level government should be privatized, for example by "trade" treaties that let corporations sue governments.

Just because some people are for both does not make them the same.

[arendt]

30. No. Term invented by Hayek in the 40s

But he soon abandoned it.

It began to be heavily used in the 80s.

[arendt]

32. I've written diaries using and explaining the term for tears. Just because YOU just noticed the term

Does not make it new.

[Stinky The Clown]

52. Just because YOU used the term for a year is no reason I should have seen it.

I don't actually follow your posts.

As to my "just noticing" the term, that's not what I said. What I'm noticing is that it has suddenly become the popular term here on DU to signify . . . . . something.

Oftentimes the use is actually incorrect. But whatever.

Have a nice day, though.

[OrwellwasRight]

35. "DU Sect"?

I think most of us can think for ourselves.

[PufPuf23]

43. I have repeatedly used the term neo-liberal at DU in the past year and

neo-liberal has been part of my vocabulary at DU under this screen name and also by my first screen name at DU (for over a decade).

I find it bizarre that so many folks at DU say the term "neo-liberal" is meaningless or a smear and then turn around and support neo-liberal politicians and policies.





Neoliberalism from wiki:

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

Neoliberalism (or sometimes neo-liberalism) is a term which has been used since the 1950s, but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 80s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences and critics primarily in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Its advocates avoid the term "neoliberal"; they 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. 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 as one of the ultimate results

Neoliberalism and free trade from the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/oct/30/neoliberalism-approach-development-ignored-past-lessons

Neoliberalism's 'trade not aid' approach to development ignored past lessons

Neoliberal development policy was radical and abstract, but its uncompromising approach proved dangerous in the real world

• Part one: Walt Rostow and post-1945 development
• Part two: resource extraction and the legacy of colonialism

[JHB]

15. "To the fore" where? Do you mean here? Or elsewhere?

A little more context would help.

[jehop61]

17. I guess

they got tired of using oligarchs

[arendt]

25. ignorance is not funny

Any rich third world asshole can be an oligarch.

To be a neoliberal, one must work at the highest levels of Western finance, e.g. Goldman Sachs, to privatize the government using both lawmaking and financial pressure, so as to drain all power from voters, while keeping a sham democracy in place.

Oligarchs are just thugs. Neoliberal are political revolutionaries.

[libdem4life]

40. Well said...especially that last paragraph.

[sarisataka]

18. Republican was taken nt

[Rex]

20. lulz

[CentralMass]

23. A related article.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

"The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

[arendt]

26. This ^^^^^

I,m on a phone. Couldn't type all this.

Thanks.

[countryjake]

27. Catapulted to where? Do you mean here, Europe, the entire globe, or on DU?

Beyond Neoliberalism Lies Opportunity for Grand Restructuring ~ by David Kotz ~ May 04, 2015

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/05/04/beyond-neoliberalism-lies-opportunity-grand-restructuring


.....

With this history in mind, what might emerge today? If history repeats itself, there may be another round of restructuring within the bounds of a capitalist system. One possible version would be a new nationalist and statist form of capitalism that brings renewed economic expansion and stability while maintaining employers' currently dominant position in the labor market, a development that would not be favorable for the majority. If the labor movement and other popular movements gain strength, the prospect of a new form of regulated capitalism based on capital-labor compromise may arise. Big business becomes willing to compromise only when threatened by a growing progressive movement.

Either of the above directions of change could lead to another long period of economic expansion which, while good for job creation, would accelerate the global climate change that is threatening the survival of civilization. Any effective form of capitalism requires, and produces, increasing production of commodities, a process that is no longer compatible with an environment of fixed resources.

Any form of restructuring takes time, and while it proceeds continuing stagnation is likely to eventually spur the growth of popular movements that question whether capitalism itself can any longer meet the needs of the majority. The endless profit drive of capitalism leads to ever increasing production of commodities regardless of human needs and regardless of the environmental consequences. The rebirth of a socialist movement would offer an alternative – a democratic participatory planned economy that could bring a period of rising human welfare for all in an environmentally sustainable manner.

No economic law dictates the outcome in a period of structural crisis of capitalism such as prevails today. While some form of restructuring is on the agenda, the direction of change – reactionary, reformist, or radical – will be determined by the struggles among various groups in the context of an ongoing economic crisis. How this plays out in the coming years will decide the economic and political future for some time to come.

I'd imagine that a number of thinking people who have lived thru these long decades of neoliberalism are also aware that our planet's changing climate and the survival of the masses of people, working people, and every other living thing on earth might just hinge on the fix that is made to this crumbling capitalism the world spins on.

You, yourself, may not have noticed it, but members of DU have been discussing it since the site's inception.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. It's a term the populist left use to conflate the establishment left and the establishment right.

I think that a very useful way to think about the Western politics of the last 8 or so years is on a 2-dimensional grid: left/right and establishment populist.

The US primaries illustrated the four quadrants beautifully: Clinton, Sanders, Rubio/Bush and Trump are classic examples of the four combinations.

8 years ago, things were roughly balanced between left and right; establishment was overwhelmingly dominant over populist.

Since then, populism has gotten a lot more competitive, but not attained parity; the left/right balance hasn't changed much, and the rise of populism has been left/right symmetrical.

In Europe, we've seen Syriza and Golden Dawn in Greece, Podemos and New Citizens in Spain, the NF in France, a far-right populist nearly winning the Austrian presidential election, the Greens rising in Germany, and here in the UK the left/populist Jeremy Corbyn has taken over the Labour party, and the right/populist UKIP has surged massively. Brexit was a little bit about left/right, but mainly the leave vote was about populist anger against the establishment.

"Neoliberal" is a word the populist left uses to try to trick people into thinking that there's no difference between the establishment left and the establishment right; it's not actually a political philosophy people subscribe to, just a crude caricature with most of the important details rubbed out and drawn in intentionally wrongly.

[nashville_brook]

51. conflate isn't the word you're looking for here.

it's what's in common in economic terms. that's not conflation --> "relating to a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism."

when Ds substitute "market solutions" such as blue-sky entrepreneurism over economic justice, they're participating in neoliberal politics. it's simply descriptive.

now, if what the word describes is problematic, my suggestion would be to address that concern to those policy-makers substituting market solutions for economic justice.

[auntpurl]

63. Very well said.

[libdem4life]

44. So, it appears HRC is a Neo-liberal.

What does that make Bernie? My take he is more an FDR Democrat. Also, it may give some insight into his staying through the Convention? To say our politics will not be altered by events such as this in Europe? Wouldn't count on it...yea or nay. The Remain folks were certain of winning...all the polls yada yada...but surprise.

Brexit has sucked the air out of the Media Universe, it seems. I Googled to see what Yanis Varoufakis had to say as he is as close to Center in European Politics, as I've listened and read.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/24/brexit-britain-disintegrating-eu-yanis-varoufakis

Also, the perspective on other countries in Europe is instructive, as well. This is a global phenomenon.

[TwilightZone]

47. On DU, it seems to commonly mean "anyone to the right of me"

[lapucelle]

48. Many of the people who use the term

aren't really sure what it means, and seem to be of the school of thought that says: "Neoliberal" sounds like it should mean X, therefore let's use it to mean X. There is a lot of subjectivity in exactly who falls into the neoliberal category, but it seems to be universally used as a pejorative among liberals and progressives.

I went to Wiki (like I'm sure many others did) read the article, and checked the edit history. (It was the Clinton paragraph that prompted me to check.)

There have been hundreds of edits to the article in the last six weeks, dozens in the past 24 hours. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does signal to me that the meaning of the term has shifted / is shifting, either to conform to current usage, to encompass a more nuanced point of view, or to advance a specific agenda.

If called a "neoliberal", confront the accuser. Make him define it, and work from there.
At this point, it's just fancy name calling.

[runaway hero]

54. Because a lot Hillary supporters and

Frankly a whole lot of Anti Trump, are third way, neo-liberal, keep the status quo. Neoliberalism is why Trump can even run in the first place.


And there will be another Trump very soon unless you guys change it up.

[Stinky The Clown]

55. Your logic kinda pretzeled me.

Clinton and Trump are both neoliberal and being neoliberal is why they can run?

[runaway hero]

56. Trump is populist, Hillary (to some) is neo liberal

Because Neoliberal/Neoconservative policies have not been effective, Trump has captured a huge part of the electorate, because they see him as normal like them. Just like they could drink with Bush in '99. Hillary is the status quo, third way. If you want to prevent Trump, government has to work for the people again.

[emulatorloo]

64. Seemed to appear as a smear word the last few days before GE mode kicked in.

All the sudden every other DU'er was calling other DU'ers a neo-liberal if there was an ideological disagreement.

It was if a memo went out that neither you are I got.

[Stinky The Clown]

65. That's what I'm thinking, too. Plus, there was the matter of the word's usage.

Some of it was so twisted it was funny. I tend not to involve myself in that sort of silliness, but I do read some of them. A lot of it is pretty childish.

[emulatorloo]

80. Agreed, very childish. And it was rarely used in an accurate way.

[LWolf]

67. It's the core

of what the Democratic Party has evolved to. It doesn't matter what you call it: DLC/centrist/"New Democrat/3rd Way; they are all, at their core, based on neoliberalism.

It's economic policy that destroys the 99%. Why WOULDN'T we talk about it?

The very effective strategy has been to segregate social and economic justice issues. Neoliberals happily give lip-service AND some actual support to social justice issues, gathering support along the way and distracting from what they do to the economy. They feed identity politics, so that all the focus is on achieving social justice for multiple disenfranchised groups, while yanking the rug out from underneath them economically and ensuring that there will always be an underclass to exploit.

It's not catapulted to the fore just now. It's been brewing for some time. OWS. Arab spring. Anti-austerity in Greece. And, of course, the last year having offered the Democratic Party a clear choice, with somewhere along the lines of 44% of the current count having voted to move away from neoliberalism heading into this summer's convention, it's going to be at the forefront of conversation.

[Hekate]

71. AFAICT they wore out Third Way and Turd Way as all-purpose insults and had to move on....

Recently someone tried out neo-feminist as regards Hillary, but after I asked if that was the new term for feminazi, I never saw it again here.

It's all in the tone of voice, y'see. It's how I knew Liberal was a dirty word when Newt Gingrich used it.

JURY: pretty much

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

77. A neo-liberal is a Democrat who cares about the stock market

Which according to many around here should likely be punishable by death.