5 ms·

The term usually says a lot more about the person who uses it than it does the person to whom it is applied. Much like "neoconservatism" it's often shorthand fo

by krrrh 9y ago

The term usually says a lot more about the person who uses it than it does the person to whom it is applied. Much like "neoconservatism" it's often shorthand for people who I disagree with, and used sloppily without reference to the history of the few who self-identified under either term. That said, with liberalism & non-populist centrism in general on the ropes in advanced democracies, I could see the term being embraced and rehabilitated. See the already mentioned /r/neoliberalism for an example that I couldn't have imagined a few years ago. Does meme magic work on centrist compromises?

aaron-lebo 9y ago
It is neoliberalism itself that is on the ropes. Since Reagan every single administration (Bushes, Clinton, Obama) has been neoliberal in degrees. Early roots of neoliberalism were laid in the 1970s, during the Jimmy Carter administration, with deregulation of the trucking, banking, and airline industries.[76][77][78] This trend continued into the 1980s, under the Reagan Administration, which included tax cuts, increased defense spending, financial deregulation and trade deficit expansion.[79] Likewise, concepts of supply-side economics, discussed by the Democrats in the 1970s, culminated in the 1980 Joint Economic Committee report, "Plugging in the Supply Side." This was picked up and advanced by the Reagan administration, with Congress following Reagan's basic proposal and cutting federal income taxes across the board by 25% in 1981.[80] During the 1990s, the Clinton Administration also embraced neoliberalism[68] 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.[79][81][82] The neoliberalism of the Clinton Administration differs from that of Reagan, as the Clinton Administration purged neoliberalism of neoconservative positions on militarism, family values, opposition to multiculturalism and neglect of ecological issues. You couldn't get elected in this country without being a neoliberal for the last 30 years. Bill Clinton got elected precisely because he was a relatively conservative Democrat from the south. The only reason nobody wants to identify as a neoliberal is because it has the word liberal in it and people want to get elected. Saw a similar comment the other day about neoliberalism being a newfangled nonpartisan movement (not accusing you of saying that), but the populist movements are around because of its flaws.
- zanny 9y ago
  I think this brings up why the red vs blue dichotomy is woefully insufficient when discussing ideology. The "center" right now is neoliberalism, even if nobody wants to call it that, because that is the status quo. Everything people even want to discuss - from social democracy on the left to fascism on the right - fit on that linear plane, but ideologies beyond neoliberalism like anarchism, communism, or socialism don't fit because they start rejecting the premise.
wfo 9y ago
It is certainly not "shorthand for people I disagree with", nor is neoconservative. In fact neoconservative ideology is a superset of neoliberal. The word is usually used in a derogatory fashion, yes. Stalin, Steve Bannon, Marx, Sanders are all not Neoliberal. Both Clintons, Obama, Reagan, both Bushes are all neoliberal. FDR, Stalin, Marx, were not. Sanders and Steve Bannon are not. Trump is some days depending on his mood (he supports privatization and austerity, he opposes free trade deals). Nearly everyone on HN is, and the extreme type of libertarian we tend to get in tech is the perfect archetype of a neoliberal: they hold the philosophy that everything is and should be a market, all solutions are market solutions, if there's ever a problem it's because the market needs to adjust on its own (conservative neoliberals) or it needs a little help to adjust (liberal neoliberals). To not be a neoliberal is to reject the notion that some thing is or should be a market at all, or to claim that markets inevitably, necessarily collapse upon themselves and fail (which is e.g. Marx's view). To take a recent example, "health care is a universal human right and should be provided to all Americans" -- a quote often repeated from the Sanders stump -- is deeply antithetical to neoliberalism. He claims health care should not be a market. The neoliberal response is: 'that would be nice but the market does not provide for this so it cannot happen; the market is providing the best healthcare that can currently be provided given our economic situation' (Republican) or 'we will do our best to set up regulatory schemes that modify the market so it can provide more' (Democrat) You don't hear discussion of neoliberalism often for the same reason fish don't often discuss water; it's the prevailing ideology of our time so it is pervasive and "the way things are". Things which are not neoliberal are, by definition, radical and extreme. The only people who talk about it are the people like philosophers who do deep critique of society and our economic and moral system, or those who wish to set themselves apart from it like e.g. communists, nationalists, socialists.
- zanny 9y ago
  Do libertarians really glorify corporations, though? My understanding is that, especially getting towards the anarchist end of things, you really detest state intervention like that. They love their businesses, but that doesn't translate to state charters.

by krrrh 9y ago

aaron-lebo 9y ago

It is neoliberalism itself that is on the ropes. Since Reagan every single administration (Bushes, Clinton, Obama) has been neoliberal in degrees. Early roots of neoliberalism were laid in the 1970s, during the Jimmy Carter administration, with deregulation of the trucking, banking, and airline industries.[76][77][78] This trend continued into the 1980s, under the Reagan Administration, which included tax cuts, increased defense spending, financial deregulation and trade deficit expansion.[79] Likewise, concepts of supply-side economics, discussed by the Democrats in the 1970s, culminated in the 1980 Joint Economic Committee report, "Plugging in the Supply Side." This was picked up and advanced by the Reagan administration, with Congress following Reagan's basic proposal and cutting federal income taxes across the board by 25% in 1981.[80] During the 1990s, the Clinton Administration also embraced neoliberalism[68] 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.[79][81][82] The neoliberalism of the Clinton Administration differs from that of Reagan, as the Clinton Administration purged neoliberalism of neoconservative positions on militarism, family values, opposition to multiculturalism and neglect of ecological issues. You couldn't get elected in this country without being a neoliberal for the last 30 years. Bill Clinton got elected precisely because he was a relatively conservative Democrat from the south. The only reason nobody wants to identify as a neoliberal is because it has the word liberal in it and people want to get elected. Saw a similar comment the other day about neoliberalism being a newfangled nonpartisan movement (not accusing you of saying that), but the populist movements are around because of its flaws.

zanny 9y ago
I think this brings up why the red vs blue dichotomy is woefully insufficient when discussing ideology. The "center" right now is neoliberalism, even if nobody wants to call it that, because that is the status quo. Everything people even want to discuss - from social democracy on the left to fascism on the right - fit on that linear plane, but ideologies beyond neoliberalism like anarchism, communism, or socialism don't fit because they start rejecting the premise.

wfo 9y ago

It is certainly not "shorthand for people I disagree with", nor is neoconservative. In fact neoconservative ideology is a superset of neoliberal. The word is usually used in a derogatory fashion, yes. Stalin, Steve Bannon, Marx, Sanders are all not Neoliberal. Both Clintons, Obama, Reagan, both Bushes are all neoliberal. FDR, Stalin, Marx, were not. Sanders and Steve Bannon are not. Trump is some days depending on his mood (he supports privatization and austerity, he opposes free trade deals). Nearly everyone on HN is, and the extreme type of libertarian we tend to get in tech is the perfect archetype of a neoliberal: they hold the philosophy that everything is and should be a market, all solutions are market solutions, if there's ever a problem it's because the market needs to adjust on its own (conservative neoliberals) or it needs a little help to adjust (liberal neoliberals). To not be a neoliberal is to reject the notion that some thing is or should be a market at all, or to claim that markets inevitably, necessarily collapse upon themselves and fail (which is e.g. Marx's view). To take a recent example, "health care is a universal human right and should be provided to all Americans" -- a quote often repeated from the Sanders stump -- is deeply antithetical to neoliberalism. He claims health care should not be a market. The neoliberal response is: 'that would be nice but the market does not provide for this so it cannot happen; the market is providing the best healthcare that can currently be provided given our economic situation' (Republican) or 'we will do our best to set up regulatory schemes that modify the market so it can provide more' (Democrat) You don't hear discussion of neoliberalism often for the same reason fish don't often discuss water; it's the prevailing ideology of our time so it is pervasive and "the way things are". Things which are not neoliberal are, by definition, radical and extreme. The only people who talk about it are the people like philosophers who do deep critique of society and our economic and moral system, or those who wish to set themselves apart from it like e.g. communists, nationalists, socialists.

zanny 9y ago
Do libertarians really glorify corporations, though? My understanding is that, especially getting towards the anarchist end of things, you really detest state intervention like that. They love their businesses, but that doesn't translate to state charters.