Everyone Hates Neoliberals, So We Talked to Some

[comradebillyboy]

"I asked neoliberals about their political ideology and the tremendous backlash it's received from all over the place lately—especially since Trump won.

If I've learned anything from having my eyes glued to politics Twitter and the punditry it inevitably spawns for 12 hours a day, it's that I am ruining my life and desperately need help. But more to the point, I've also learned that in leftist circles, getting deemed a neoliberal hack is the kiss of death.

The label of "neoliberal shill" is often lobbed at mainstream Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, along with French president Emmanuel Macron and Canadian heartthrob Justin Trudeau. But it also gets chucked at pundits like New York's Jonathan Chait, Vox founders Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias, and the New York Times's Thomas Friedman, as well as celebrity activists like brand-loving Black Lives Matter advocate and education reformer DeRay McKesson."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xab5b/everyone-hates-neoliberals-so-we-talked-to-some

[NCTraveler]

1. The term "neoliberal" has been basterdized to the point of no return.

These days it has become as weak as throwing around "nazi" on a discussion board.

[LisaM]

2. If you use the term "neoliberal", IMO you've lost the argument.

It's about the most meaningless term I've ever heard in my life.

[socialist_n_TN]

3. I disagree. It means a LOT, but it can be summed up..........

in shorthand for Americans. "Neo-liberal" is what the rest of the world calls the global capitalism of Thatcher/Reagan. So if you're an American and don't want to bother with knowing what the rest of the world is saying, you can just call it "trickle down".

[LWolf]

8. Yes.

The brand-new DU disdain for the term "neo-liberal" is an establishment backlash against loss and potential change and more loss. It's real. It's been real. That's what the vast majority of DU used to rant about when they were ranting about the DLC, about PNAC, etc. These days, anything that makes the establishment look weak is attacked and ridiculed, because truth hurts.

Just my view.

[emulatorloo]

10. Folks used the term "neo-liberal" on DU'ers who are adamantly against trickle-down and privatization

Last edited Thu Jul 20, 2017, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)

That's why there is backlash here. The term was used to smear people who don't have a neo-liberal bone in their body.

Basically the term was essentially stripped of meaning in 2016.

"establishment backlash"

IMHO the term "establishment" was stripped of meaning in 2016 as well.

A women's health organization that's under constant attack by Republicans was called "establishment."

A predatory racist capitalist with a long history of cheating workers was called "anti-Establishment."

[LWolf]

12. The manipulating

of terms, the evolution of labels, is on-going. Language evolves, and sometimes specific labels evolve more quickly because they make good propaganda fodder.

I'm not completely sure what your first sentence about trickle-down and privatization is saying; are you saying folks used to call people "neo-liberal" who were against "trickle-down" and privatization? Because that's simply not accurate. "neo" meaning new, "neo-liberal" is a term tied to economic liberalism: unregulated capitalism. You know. The very policies the progressive era battled against. Neoliberalism embraces privatization and unregulated commerce.

I call the Democratic establishment neoliberal because they've been the party power holders since the 90s. The Clintons, the DLC, ushered neoliberalism into the party. I'm sure it started earlier than that, but that's when it went mainstream. That's when it became fashionable to divorce social and economic justice; to claim to be "socially liberal" and economically conservative," the latter ironically pointing out that the new political fashion trend didn't understand liberalism or conservativism when it comes to economics. The establishment is whatever group is holding power. But you are certainly correct that terms are regularly stripped of meaning.

Backlash here has much more to do with defending the losses of '16 by deflecting blame than it does the evolution of terms.

Chomsky, once a darling on DU, does a good job with neoliberalism; of course, now that he isn't toeing the approved line, he's not so much a darling here.

So there’s the two existential threats that we’ve created—which might in the case of nuclear war maybe wipe us out; in the case of environmental catastrophe, create a severe impact—and then some.

A third thing happened. Beginning around the ’70s, human intelligence dedicated itself to eliminating, or at least weakening, the main barrier against these threats. It’s called neoliberalism. There was a transition at that time from the period of what some people call “regimented capitalism,” the ’50s and ’60s, the great growth period, egalitarian growth, a lot of advances in social justice and so on—

CL: Social democracy…

NC: Social democracy, yeah. That’s sometimes called “the golden age of modern capitalism.” That changed in the ’70s with the onset of the neoliberal era that we’ve been living in since. And if you ask yourself what this era is, its crucial principle is undermining mechanisms of social solidarity and mutual support and popular engagement in determining policy.

It’s not called that. What it’s called is “freedom,” but “freedom” means a subordination to the decisions of concentrated, unaccountable, private power. That’s what it means. The institutions of governance—or other kinds of association that could allow people to participate in decision making—those are systematically weakened. Margaret Thatcher said it rather nicely in her aphorism about “there is no society, only individuals.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/

Neoliberalism is real, it has a stranglehold on the Democratic Party, and this is the best opportunity to leave it behind that we've had in decades. It would require, though, being accountable, and moving on would change the party power structure. Nobody gives up power willingly.

[Adrahil]

13. I've beem called neoliberal...

And I oppose supply-side economics, a it's an absolute fraud. I'm a classic Keynesian. That means I do support market economies, but I see a strong role for the government in economic and monetary policy.

[emulatorloo]

14. No I am saying progressives and left-liberals at DU were called 'neo-liberals'

Last edited Thu Jul 20, 2017, 07:56 PM - Edit history (5)

"I'm not completely sure what your first sentence about trickle-down and privatization is saying; are you saying folks used to call people "neo-liberal" who were against "trickle-down" and privatization? "

I said nothing of the sort. However I can see the source of confusion. When I quickly typed the heading I used the word "to" rather than "the". Have just corrected that.

But to clarify anyway:

I said that DU-ers who are totally against trickle down/privatization/Reaganism were called "neo-liberals" by people who had zero knowledge of what the term means.

Adrahil explained the situation perfectly. He's not a neo-liberal. He was called a neo-liberal.

Those quick to call others 'neo-liberal' didn't have a fucking clue. They basically hurled it as an insult at people they didn't like.

That's why there is a backlash against the term at DU.

Your theory was "The brand-new DU disdain for the term "neo-liberal" is an establishment backlash"

That imho is totally off the mark.

As is "Backlash here has much more to do with defending the losses of '16 by deflecting blame than it does the evolution of terms."

Backlash here is because the way the term was misused and abused on this forum during 2016.

DU's 'disdain' is because people who name-called others on the site 'neo-liberal' as an insult had zero idea what the term meant.

For those reasons the term 'neo-liberal' was drained of meaning in 2016 here and in the bowels of Reddit. It became just a meaningless ignorant insult

[LWolf]

37. Thanks.

That makes more sense.

I don't think I was off the mark, though. You see, the current round of neoliberalism was ushered into the Democratic Party by Clinton and the DLC. It used to be fashionable here to criticize the DLC, but NOT the Clintons. In '08, DU stopped being "underground," and stopped describing itself as "left-wing," (used to be in the "about DU" text), and the newer members flooding in were more "centrist," and proud of it. I put that in quotes because it's a code word for neoliberalism. I don't know that many even knew that; they bought into the "pragmatic" characterization and other propaganda that surrounded it. The left, here, was thrown under the bus. And just like the DLC, which, yes, I know is defunct, replaced by the "New Democrats" and the "Third Way," which are both simply a continuation...anyway, just like the DLC appropriated terms like "liberal" and "progressive," the term "left" on DU began to evolve into something else.

There was a time, while we were being thrown under the bus by "centrist" DUers, that we were actually referred to as the "loony left." Just Like right wingers did. Then the "centrists" slowly began to adopt it for themselves, even if it wasn't really accurate. You see, that divorce between economic justice and social justice was in play.

What I, and a whole nation of what passes for the actual left in the United States (which isn't really all that "left," globally speaking,) have seen out in the world is that the neo-liberal establishment, who turned their backs on the wave of energy for change, and thus, in some of our views, lost the White House by nominating a "centrist," is now working avidly to retain what power they have left, and part of that involves attacking the term "neoliberal," and especially denying it. Out there, and right here.

I know that the majority of DU these days energetically disagrees with that assessment, and that this post right here is going to be subject to many vicious attacks. That doesn't negate my, and others', view or make it any less real. From the left, in my view, there's very little resembling "left" on DU in 2017. That's why I don't spend that much time here anymore. It's increasingly irrelevant.

Again, in my view, I think our party ought to be moving left. That's not an attack. It's not against DU's TOS to say that I want the party to abandon neoliberalism and move left. And that's really what this is about. The party is divided, fractured, and the party of the future depends on which side of that divide either evolves toward the other or away from the party.

Meanwhile, I'm spending the majority of my political time and energy out with people in the real world, with activists around my state, instead of at the keyboard.

I'm sorry if people who aren't really neoliberal centrists have been called neoliberal. That doesn't detract from the reality that the party establishment IS a neoliberal establishment. It could be that those who don't like having that label flung at them might want to work harder at cleansing the party of neoliberalism from the inside out instead of building a defensive wall around it to keep potential allies on the other side.

I've got work to do, and places to go. I'll be back eventually, and if anyone has anything thoughtful, rather than hateful, to say, I'll respond.

[emulatorloo]

39. Dunno if you were here in 2016, but it was self-described 'progressives' pushing the false divide

between economic vs social justice. Argument from some was that social justice is a "distraction" from "real issues." Others argued that if we take care of economic justice, then all civil rights/social justice issues will be magically disappear. I put 'progressives' in quotes because I don't really know any progressives in real life that think that or talk like that.

People had to continuously push back on that false dichotomy

Most of those people are gone though.

I totally agree that the best use of our political time/energy is out with people and fellow activists in real life. These discussion boards are fun but in the end chatting on the internet isn't going to change the direction of our country. Best Regards and

[LWolf]

43. I've been here since '02.

And yes, I was here for the meltdown in '16. And both sides were claiming to be "progressives."

As you can probably tell, I was, and am, a strong Sanders supporter. Believe me, I, and others, have not forgotten. Nor, in many cases, forgiven. I work hard on that last part, knowing that I have to set the personal aside for the good of all.

[emulatorloo]

44. "I'm spending the majority of my political time in the real world" suggested to me you maybe

had better things to do and skipped DU during 2016.

I've been around since '03 so we're both old timers. DU back then kept me sane.

I will tell you that I personally regret hanging around DU 2016! It was poisonous and I wished I had not stayed.

Have admired Bernie for a very long time, and was very happy when he decided to run. No one explains issues like income inequality better than Bernie. Bernie was my candidate in the primary.
I may have told you I always support and donate if I can to the person with the most left leaning positions in the primary. And then support and knock doors for the nominees.

Bernie is the first candidate in a long long time that I felt so close to in terms of political ideology. That was so exciting.

"Believe me, I, and others, have not forgotten. Nor, in many cases, forgiven"

I had a serious problem with alleged Bernie supporters on DU using right-wing sources like Fox, Washington Times, and even Breitbart on occasion to smear Democrats in 2016. I had a serious problem when Republican hack Joe DiGenova was treated as a "truth Teller" and slobbered over.

I call them alleged because one doesn't support a man of integrity like Bernie by using egregious right-wing sources the man would hate and despise. A fellow DU Bernie supporter called them "Bernie Detractors" because they detracted from the message of Senator Sanders.

There was plenty of garbage on the other "side" which bothered me. But I expected integrity on our "side" that I didn't necessarily expect from them. It's more complicated probably but:

No leftist I know in real life gets in bed with right-wingers to smear Democrats. One argues policy, one argues strategy. But one never applies right-wing smears.

I still have some anger w Bernie's campaign staff. IMHO Weaver's inexperience and poor decisions had a fair amount to do with Bernie not winning the nomination. He's a great friend and supporter of Bernie but not suited or experienced enough to run A lost opportunity.

At any rate you're right. Time to forgive, or at least let go. And set the personal aside for good of all.

Take care and

[LWolf]

45. No.

I actually spent MORE time here in '16, because I was excited and energized. At least until the convention; my time spent dropped sharply when the convention was over. Still, we're moving forward. And, it being summer, I'm at home (I'm a teacher.) I'm supposed to be attacking a long list of things on my plate today; dropping in here is an avoidance tactic. I'm going to get to work before it gets any hotter.

[PufPuf23]

17. Thanks for a dose of reality. nt

[Doremus]

21. Excellent post. Thank you. nt

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

28. Good explanation.

People using the term to label people the term doesn't really describe shouldn't negate it's correct usage. But, as you say, language changes, often for shitty reasons. And maybe the term neoliberal has been ruined by misuse?

[LWolf]

38. I think the reality is that

it doesn't matter WHAT term; beyond normal evolution of language, when it comes to politics, EVERYTHING is going to be twisted and misused. So every time we give up on one term and start using another that has not yet been twisted, it won't be long before it joins the collection of words deliberately misused for the purposes of propaganda.

It's hard to use "liberal" and "progressive" because they've been misused for so long that they mean different things to different people, so that it's not clear what any individual using them might actually be saying. Neo-liberal may head in that direction; I don't think it's there yet, because it's really been ignored until power holders wanted to deflect blame for the party's political debacle of '16.

[geek tragedy]

16. then it doesn't apply to anyone to the left of Paul Ryan, and it's very puzzling why it

would be directed at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

If a term treats Thather/Reagan the same as Clinton and Obama, it really has very little meaning.

[socialist_n_TN]

19. Obama and Clinton both bought into the neo-liberal mindset.........

Were they QUITE as blatant about it as Ryan? Nope, but the place they wanted to go with the economy was the same, global corporate power and "free" competition because the "market knows best". Obama himself said he was a 1980s moderate Republican and expressed his admiration for Reagan. And Bill Clinton said that "big government was dead". Who does Clinton and Obama feel is best to make investment decisions? The investors or society at large? Those are neo-liberal positions.

One thing that Marxists and Friedmanites agree on is that capitalism is set up to work ONLY for capitalists. For Marxists it's just a fact, albeit a fact that supports the need for a change in the way society is organized. For the neo-liberals, it's an idea that will, after much disruption, benefit everybody. Or at least that's the way they sell it to the rest of us. It's only the Keynesians that think that capitalism is set up to benefit society as a whole. It's not, it never was, and it never will be. And neo-liberalism IS capitalism in it's purest form.

Capitalism can't AFFORD Keynesianism any more. Neo-liberals and Marxists know this. It's only the Keynesians that are fooling themselves.

[yallerdawg]

25. However...

the People's Republic of China and the Communist Party have allowed entrepreneurship, free markets, stock markets, private ownership, economic elitism, all the ills of capitalism!

Is this Marxist capitulation?

[socialist_n_TN]

35. The PROC is NOT a model for Marxism........

They are state capitalist and revisionist.

[yallerdawg]

36. Is there any functioning model left? Was there ever any?

And does the 20th Century failures not historically support revisionist Marxism as we see in China?

[geek tragedy]

33. Obama managed to be a Socialist Alinskyite

and global capitalist running dog at the same time.

Versatile guy.

[socialist_n_TN]

34. I've never seen a real, card-carrying, dues paying socialist..........

say anything about Obama being a socialist of ANY sort. Most don't even think of him as a social democrat. Just because critiques and analyses might come from both sides of the political spectrum, they are decidedly NOT the same.

[emulatorloo]

40. He was also a Muslim who had a Crazy Christian preacher at his church!

That was my favorite.

[leftstreet]

30. +1

LOL I've actually started saying 'trickle-downers'

[LisaM]

11. Well, since I'veh heard it applied to me and to other HRC voters...

I'm going to stand by my assertion that it's a meaningless label. I'm hardly a supporter of trickle-down economics, much less Thatcher, or the whole worldview that began around 1979 when free market forces combined with right-wing religious ideology to shape the new millennium.

It may have a true definition somewhere, but it's either meaningless now or being stringently mis-applied as a label, so I still think most people who use the term are throwing in the towel as far as constructive debate is concerned.

[Doremus]

23. Not a meaningless label at all. You can pretend that it is but that's a surprising behavior

for a progressive.

[emulatorloo]

41. Meaningless in that it has been misapplied one too many times in 2016

Last edited Sat Jul 22, 2017, 03:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Yes the term neo-liberal has a meaning.

The point is the term had been misused and misapplied in political discourse in 2016 here at DU and other message boards.

Let me put it another way: If someone were to call you a neo-liberal when you clearly aren't one, is that meaningful? Of course not.

Progressives I know are interested in accuracy of language and clarity of thought.

[pirateshipdude]

26. Totally. Eom

[HughBeaumont]

4. With Thomas Friedman, it's kind of deserved.

I'm not a fan of any war supporter who cheerleads job loss from his mansion while being blanketed in kept-man net worth despite being the shining example of the very "average" he finger-wags the rest of us not to be.

[Foamfollower]

6. In my experience, people who use the term "neo-liberal" don't actually know what it means.

[emulatorloo]

9. Yep Means in favor of trickle down economics and privatization. To people who use it, means

"people I don't like"

[ismnotwasm]

7. I always think Libertarians

Each to their own though

[geek tragedy]

15. one of those words that mean whatever the person using it want it to mean, e.g. "corporatist"

To some it means people who practice Paul Ryan economics. To others it means those who practice Larry Summers economics.

To others, it means both, but these people have less than a clue.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Slapping a stupid label on everything and everyone to discredit them is the height of intellectual

laziness.

[taught_me_patience]

20. If "neoliberal" means fiscal conservative, social liberal, and pro free trade

Then I'm a neoliberal. I'm one of the more conservative members of DU and not well liked either.

[Doremus]

24. What's a "fiscal conservative" and how does it jive with Democratic principles? nt

[emulatorloo]

42. A counter to the GOP principle of running up huge deficits while cutting taxes on rich people

It's pretty obvious. Dems pay for programs by collecting tax revenues in an equitable system where rich people pay their fair share as citizens. That's the responsible way.

Republicans spend money/run up debt while cutting taxes on the wealthy. They don't pay for what they want, just put the country in more and more debt. That is irresponsible.

[Dem2]

22. When I read neoliberal definition

I just think of the old Republicans.

[Eko]

27. I find those that use the term neoliberal

are neoidiots.

[tirebiter]

29. Neolution is the real danger

And just as fictional

[betsuni]

32. Neoliberal replaced Third Way as the popular mindless go-to insult 'cause it has more syllables

Sounds more mysterious and intoolecktual, don't you know.

[LWolf]

46. Ms. Peyser put out a call to the wrong people.

If she wanted to talk to neoliberals, she should have been calling up economic think tanks, Wall Street, the heads of multinational corporations, and economists. The term itself is just now moving into more mainstream awareness, so it's not surprising that she wasn't getting a clear picture.

The term "neoliberalism" goes mainstream:

A recent text written by three important economists at the IMF, titled Neoliberalism: Oversold?, has drawn a lot of attention in the past days. Perhaps the most impressive matter that should be highlighted about the text is in its very title: the use of the word neoliberalism, so far mostly used by critics of this agenda that gained strength in the 1980s and generally associated with a sort of “conspiracy theory”. Besides that, the findings of the text should come as no big surprise to non-mainstream economists: instead of economic growth, neoliberalism has brought financial instability and increasing inequality.

This is due to two main pillars of the neoliberal agenda: capital flows liberalization and government fiscal consolidation. Freedom of the capital accounts was expected to bring about a more efficient allocation of resources in an international level. Both developed and developing countries would reap benefits from it: the former by obtaining higher returns on capital investment and the latter by receiving the necessary savings to finance capital development.

https://theminskys.org/a-sinking-ship/

Neoliberalism brings about greater income inequality.

When Oxfam’s 2016 Davos Report revealed that 62 people own half of the global wealth many were shocked by this finding and attributed it to high poverty levels in low-income countries. However, wealth inequality is also a problem in rich countries like the US. The OECD found that the wealthiest 10% of US households own 76% of the total wealth, while those at the bottom 40% of the distribution have no wealth at all. To make matters worse, the 2008 Great Recession wiped out the wealth of many American families, and they failed to regain it in the ensuing recovery. Research done by Levy Institute’s Pavlina Tcherneva found that in the aftermath of the Great Recession, real incomes of those in the bottom 90% of the US income distribution have fallen, while those in the top 10% have enjoyed all the gains of the recovery. T

These trends are the result of neoliberal “free-market” policies implemented since the 80s, which emphasized tax cuts, deregulation, and weakening of labor protections, all under the guise of increasing efficiency. Trade deals, while not the sole culprit, have played an important part in the downward pressure on wages for American workers and the loss of numerous domestic manufacturing jobs. The rise in global trade has created severe competition for many American workers, many of whom have lost their jobs or been forced to accept pay cuts. Trade agreements put in place by the US offer corporations the necessary legal protections to safely relocate their business overseas. While proponents of trade agreements continue to insist these will create new jobs for American workers, the opposite has been true. For example, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that almost 700,000 jobs have been lost as result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), despite it promising to create 200,000 new jobs for American worker.

https://theminskys.org/the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deals-and-income-inequality/

Not just here, but abroad as well.

Macron’s platform consists of neoliberal platitudes that espouse values such as tolerance and acceptance of immigrants, while advocating for austerity and dismantling of social protections under the guise of increasing efficiency and “modernizing” the French economy. Macron pledged to reduce France’s deficit below 3 percent, as mandated by the EU, while also cutting taxes. To achieve both goals, Macron would undoubtedly have to slash government spending, which would most likely have a negative impact on the economy overall.

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Considering the shortcomings of neoliberal policies imposed by the EU, perhaps Melélnchon’s “Plan A,” to push for EU-wide reform is not that “extremist” after all. Rather than crucifying him, he should have been given the chance to advocate for reform. The current direction taken by the EU is one that through austerity measures is slowly dismantling the European Social Model, which has traditionally been characterized by a strong safety net. As long as the EU imposes and encourages a platform that hurts people, far right politicians like Marine Le Pen will continue to tap into those anxieties and gain popularity. The success of the Brexit campaign should serve as impetus for the EU to reevaluate its policies.

Politicians like Macron, who chose to ignore the flaws of the eurozone and advocate for more of the same unsuccessful policies may win popularity now, but set themselves up for failure in the long run. Macron’s unconditional praise of the EU’s virtues is somewhat similar to Hillary Clinton, who under a backdrop of suffering and social crisis, responded to Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again,” by stating “America is already great!” This strategy failed and Clinton lost, with areas where jobs were under the most severe threats swinging towards Trump.

For the European project to succeed and continue bringing peace and unity to Europe, economic policy reform is necessary and austerity needs to end. Ignoring the economic struggles of the bloc and refusing to recognize the role of EU policy in exacerbating them will continue to fuel the rise of extremist right wing politicians. Calling those who advocate for socially inclusive reforms “extremists” is a strategy bound to backfire.

https://theminskys.org/denouncing-the-flaws-of-the-eu-is-not-extremist-its-necessary/