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

[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.