4 ms·

The NYT has a reckoning coming. They went all in on neoliberal culture war - and it worked, it gained them subscribers. People still treat them like a serious

The NYT has a reckoning coming. They went all in on neoliberal culture war - and it worked, it gained them subscribers. People still treat them like a serious institution, but if they continue down this path, that's over.

creddit 6y ago
First time I’ve seen the culture war described as “neoliberal.” It seems like everyday that word becomes less and less meaningful. There seems to be a large set of people who use it as a general descriptor of things they don’t like.
- samfar90 6y ago
  I couldn't agree more ! "Neoliberal" doesn't mean anything precise anymore, even in France where I live
- bzb6 6y ago
  To me it just sounds like “progressive”
  - optimalsolver 6y ago
    I think it means something like "Left on welfare, Right on warfare." It's well represented by the Obama administration.
    - bzb6 6y ago
      The worst of two worlds :P
- 0xfaded 6y ago
  neoliberalism has a fairly specific meaning in academic contexts. There absolutely was a "culture war", or war of ideas, that was waged to sell deregulation and privatization to the masses. Ironically, these included some fairly generous handouts, e.g. earned income credits or the welfare programs in the UK funded by the oil windfall. Ultimately, we wouldn't have ended up were we are today without a continuous campaign selling neoliberalism. It's how the Democrats became the party of wall street, and new labour in the UK is more conservative than the tories 50 years ago. Mark Blyth gives a great primer called "A brief history of how we got here and why": https://youtu.be/tJoe_daP0DE https://youtu.be/tJoe_daP0DE
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  I agree with you in the context of this thread, which exemplifies a very recent re-appropriation of the term (see below). That being said, neoliberalism is a fairly well-defined descendant from classical right-wing liberalism that arose during the 80s. It's characterized by laissez-fair market economy, less taxes for the rich, and no support for welfare programs. That it is now re-appropriated by the "alt-right" (a term coined by neo-Nazi Richard Spencer) to mean some kind of swear word against left leaning "liberals" just goes to show how uneducated and confused the US public is about politics. Over the years I've come to believe that there is a method behind this dumbing down and distortion of political views in the US, that it's the result of the two-party system that allows elites to keep voters aligned and in check, even though they'd all have reasons to vote for a third party. In a nutshell, it seems that many people in the US are unaware of the following facts: - Libertarianism in original form, propagated e.g. by the Friedmans, is a form of classical liberalism that arose against neo-Liberalism, which was too federal and corporate-friendly for them. It's a radical attempt to reform liberalism and bring it nearer to individual anarchism. (But individual anarchism was explicitly targetted against communism and classical liberalism, so in the end "anarcho-capitalism" is not a form of anarchism at all and really just liberalism.) - neo-Liberalism is a right-wing form of classical liberalism - There are many left-wing liberal traditions, but these are barely represented by the two big US parties. (Some Democrats may count as left-wing liberals but not too many of them.) - Conservatives and liberals are principally opposed to each other. That doesn't mean they cannot be somehow combined, but for a liberal the individual freedom always overrules conservative values. Especially the latter point has been distorted beyond recognition by Republicans who traditionally hold Christian-conservative values and communitarian/racist ideas about closed, homogeneous societies but felt a need to incorporate (neo-)liberal doctrines in economics. Obviously, this integration can only work to some extent before the views become plain incoherent. Liberalism does not allow the restriction or suppression of anyone's freedoms, let alone those of minorities. Basically, parties in the US just grab whatever elements they need from political traditions and ignore the rest.
  - creddit 6y ago
    > That being said, neoliberalism is a fairly well-defined descendant from classical right-wing liberalism that arose during the 80s. It's characterized by laissez-fair market economy, less taxes for the rich, and no support for welfare programs. And yet, your characterization doesn't gel very well with self-identified neoliberals! https://i.redd.it/ydvihji477a31.png https://i.redd.it/ydvihji477a31.png
- the_only_law 6y ago
  Unfortunately having discussions about such ideologies that get ambiguated into uselessness often become often impossible to discuss even from a purely historical / intellectual standpoint.
TedShiller 6y ago
It’s already over

creddit 6y ago

First time I’ve seen the culture war described as “neoliberal.” It seems like everyday that word becomes less and less meaningful. There seems to be a large set of people who use it as a general descriptor of things they don’t like.

samfar90 6y ago
I couldn't agree more ! "Neoliberal" doesn't mean anything precise anymore, even in France where I live
bzb6 6y ago
To me it just sounds like “progressive”
- optimalsolver 6y ago
  I think it means something like "Left on welfare, Right on warfare." It's well represented by the Obama administration.
  - bzb6 6y ago
    The worst of two worlds :P
0xfaded 6y ago
neoliberalism has a fairly specific meaning in academic contexts. There absolutely was a "culture war", or war of ideas, that was waged to sell deregulation and privatization to the masses. Ironically, these included some fairly generous handouts, e.g. earned income credits or the welfare programs in the UK funded by the oil windfall. Ultimately, we wouldn't have ended up were we are today without a continuous campaign selling neoliberalism. It's how the Democrats became the party of wall street, and new labour in the UK is more conservative than the tories 50 years ago. Mark Blyth gives a great primer called "A brief history of how we got here and why": https://youtu.be/tJoe_daP0DE https://youtu.be/tJoe_daP0DE
jonathanstrange 6y ago
I agree with you in the context of this thread, which exemplifies a very recent re-appropriation of the term (see below). That being said, neoliberalism is a fairly well-defined descendant from classical right-wing liberalism that arose during the 80s. It's characterized by laissez-fair market economy, less taxes for the rich, and no support for welfare programs. That it is now re-appropriated by the "alt-right" (a term coined by neo-Nazi Richard Spencer) to mean some kind of swear word against left leaning "liberals" just goes to show how uneducated and confused the US public is about politics. Over the years I've come to believe that there is a method behind this dumbing down and distortion of political views in the US, that it's the result of the two-party system that allows elites to keep voters aligned and in check, even though they'd all have reasons to vote for a third party. In a nutshell, it seems that many people in the US are unaware of the following facts: - Libertarianism in original form, propagated e.g. by the Friedmans, is a form of classical liberalism that arose against neo-Liberalism, which was too federal and corporate-friendly for them. It's a radical attempt to reform liberalism and bring it nearer to individual anarchism. (But individual anarchism was explicitly targetted against communism and classical liberalism, so in the end "anarcho-capitalism" is not a form of anarchism at all and really just liberalism.) - neo-Liberalism is a right-wing form of classical liberalism - There are many left-wing liberal traditions, but these are barely represented by the two big US parties. (Some Democrats may count as left-wing liberals but not too many of them.) - Conservatives and liberals are principally opposed to each other. That doesn't mean they cannot be somehow combined, but for a liberal the individual freedom always overrules conservative values. Especially the latter point has been distorted beyond recognition by Republicans who traditionally hold Christian-conservative values and communitarian/racist ideas about closed, homogeneous societies but felt a need to incorporate (neo-)liberal doctrines in economics. Obviously, this integration can only work to some extent before the views become plain incoherent. Liberalism does not allow the restriction or suppression of anyone's freedoms, let alone those of minorities. Basically, parties in the US just grab whatever elements they need from political traditions and ignore the rest.
- creddit 6y ago
  > That being said, neoliberalism is a fairly well-defined descendant from classical right-wing liberalism that arose during the 80s. It's characterized by laissez-fair market economy, less taxes for the rich, and no support for welfare programs. And yet, your characterization doesn't gel very well with self-identified neoliberals! https://i.redd.it/ydvihji477a31.png https://i.redd.it/ydvihji477a31.png
the_only_law 6y ago
Unfortunately having discussions about such ideologies that get ambiguated into uselessness often become often impossible to discuss even from a purely historical / intellectual standpoint.

TedShiller 6y ago

It’s already over