4 ms·

many of today's liberals in the US are, in the parlance, neo-liberals, those who fled the obvious negative connotations of conservatism and its association with

many of today's liberals in the US are, in the parlance, neo-liberals, those who fled the obvious negative connotations of conservatism and its association with racism, sexism, etc. in the guise of conserving "values", but still sympathetic to those beliefs in private. progressives eschew that subtle hypocrisy.

zeveb 6y ago
> neo-liberals, those who fled the obvious negative connotations of conservatism and its association with racism, sexism, etc. in the guise of conserving "values", but still sympathetic to those beliefs in private. I think that's very much not what 'neo-liberal' means. I think that it means free-market liberalism — where 'liberalism' in the previous clause means 'classical liberalism,' as opposed to socialism, Communism or progressivism. Many of the neo-liberals were, as I recall, leftists (for U.S. values of, anyway) who fled not conservatism but Communism/socialism as they saw that the math simply didn't work out.
- clairity 6y ago
  yes, that's the historical context (free-marketization), but i'm referring to the more recent machinations of the last couple decades, as there aren't enough communists/socialists (in the US at least) to account for the rise of our current brand of (neo-)liberalism. that arose from nominal conservatives shifting away from unfavorable connotations. the free-marketization makes that transition easier ideologically.
  - jacobr1 6y ago
    Case in point: Southern California. This is the state were Reagan served as governor after all. Southern California used to be dependably republican, but no longer. But is this because of a fundamental shift (in population or beliefs), or just a lack of desire to be associated with the racial/social policies of the national republicans, with most non-racial views retained? I suspect the latter.
    - clairity 6y ago
      yes, exactly, folks solved their cognitive dissonance by switching parties, not wholesale changes in beliefs.

zeveb 6y ago

> neo-liberals, those who fled the obvious negative connotations of conservatism and its association with racism, sexism, etc. in the guise of conserving "values", but still sympathetic to those beliefs in private. I think that's very much not what 'neo-liberal' means. I think that it means free-market liberalism — where 'liberalism' in the previous clause means 'classical liberalism,' as opposed to socialism, Communism or progressivism. Many of the neo-liberals were, as I recall, leftists (for U.S. values of, anyway) who fled not conservatism but Communism/socialism as they saw that the math simply didn't work out.

clairity 6y ago
yes, that's the historical context (free-marketization), but i'm referring to the more recent machinations of the last couple decades, as there aren't enough communists/socialists (in the US at least) to account for the rise of our current brand of (neo-)liberalism. that arose from nominal conservatives shifting away from unfavorable connotations. the free-marketization makes that transition easier ideologically.
- jacobr1 6y ago
  Case in point: Southern California. This is the state were Reagan served as governor after all. Southern California used to be dependably republican, but no longer. But is this because of a fundamental shift (in population or beliefs), or just a lack of desire to be associated with the racial/social policies of the national republicans, with most non-racial views retained? I suspect the latter.
  - clairity 6y ago
    yes, exactly, folks solved their cognitive dissonance by switching parties, not wholesale changes in beliefs.