Further, here are notable historical examples that demonstrate how elites have benefited from the public’s misunderstanding of liberalism and neoliberalism:
The Reagan Era (1980s): President Ronald Reagan used the rhetoric of freedom, a core liberal value, to justify neoliberal policies such as deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and reductions in social welfare. These policies were framed as liberating the economy and individuals from government overreach, appealing to liberal ideals while advancing a neoliberal agenda that ultimately widened income inequality.
Clinton’s Welfare Reform (1996): President Bill Clinton’s welfare reform, officially the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, was presented as a liberal effort to empower individuals through work. However, the reform, which included stricter work requirements and time-limited benefits, reflected neoliberal principles of reducing government assistance. This shift was masked by the language of personal responsibility, a concept resonating with liberal values.
Financial Deregulation in the 1990s: The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, signed by President Clinton, was another example where neoliberal policies were enacted under liberal rhetoric. The act, which repealed parts of the Glass-Steagall Act and allowed commercial and investment banks to merge, was justified as modernizing the financial industry. The language used suggested increased efficiency and growth, liberal ideals, while the policy favored financial elites and laid groundwork for the 2008 financial crisis.
Global Trade Agreements: Trade agreements like NAFTA, promoted by Democratic administrations, were presented as liberal efforts towards global cooperation and prosperity. However, these agreements often prioritized corporate interests and free trade (neoliberal principles) over labor rights and environmental concerns, which are more aligned with traditional liberalism.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA): The ACA, while a significant healthcare reform, also illustrates this dynamic. It was framed as a liberal policy expanding access to healthcare (a core liberal value). However, the ACA heavily relied on market mechanisms and private insurance companies, reflecting neoliberal ideologies. This blending obscured the lack of more progressive, liberal options like universal healthcare.
Response to the Financial Crisis (2008): The bailout of banks and financial institutions after the 2008 financial crisis used liberal rhetoric of saving jobs and stabilizing the economy. However, these actions were essentially neoliberal, prioritizing the rescue of financial elites and institutions over direct assistance to affected individuals and communities.
These examples highlight the nuanced and often obscured ways in which the language and principles of liberalism have been used to facilitate and justify neoliberal policies, serving the interests of political and economic elites while often contradicting the more egalitarian and social welfare-oriented aspects of traditional liberalism.
The Democratic Party’s specific relationship with liberalism and neoliberalism has evolved significantly over time, especially in the context of globalization.
Post-World War II to 1960s: Initially, Democrats were closely aligned with New Deal liberalism, advocating for government intervention in the economy and social welfare. This period saw the expansion of social programs and a regulatory state, consistent with liberal values of equality and government responsibility for social welfare.
1970s and 1980s: During this period, the Democratic Party began shifting towards neoliberalism, influenced by global economic changes and the rise of conservative ideas. This shift was not abrupt but marked by gradual adoption of more market-friendly policies, reflecting a reorientation from traditional liberalism.
Clinton Administration (1990s): Under President Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party embraced neoliberal policies more openly. This was evident in the promotion of free trade agreements like NAFTA, welfare reform, and financial deregulation. These policies, while positioned as modernizing liberalism, actually reflected a significant move towards neoliberal principles, emphasizing market solutions and reduced government intervention.
Early 21st Century: The party faced internal divisions between those favoring traditional liberal policies (like expanding social programs) and those advocating neoliberal approaches (focusing on market-based solutions). The Obama administration, for instance, navigated these divisions, particularly in healthcare reform and responses to the financial crisis.
Response to Globalization: Democrats have consistently supported globalization, but the party’s stance has been a mix of liberal and neoliberal approaches. While advocating for international trade and global economic integration (a neoliberal stance), many Democrats have also pushed for labor standards, environmental protections, and human rights (aligning more with traditional liberalism).
Recent Trends: In recent years, there’s been a resurgence of progressive liberalism within the party, challenging the neoliberal consensus. This is evident in the growing popularity of figures like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who advocate for stronger government intervention in the economy, more robust social welfare programs, and a critical stance on unregulated globalization.
The Democratic Party’s relationship with liberalism and neoliberalism is complex and has evolved in response to changing economic, social, and political contexts. This evolution reflects the party’s attempts to balance traditional liberal values with the realities of a globalized economy, often resulting in policies that blend elements of both ideologies.
Economic and political elites have derived several benefits from the public’s misunderstanding of the shift from liberalism to neoliberalism:
Legitimizing Economic Policies: Neoliberal policies such as deregulation, privatization, and austerity measures have often been presented under the banner of liberalism’s socially egalitarian principles. This has been a strategy to gain public acceptance or mitigate resistance, as these policies are portrayed as necessary for progress and equality, even when they may lead to increased inequality and reduced social welfare.
Consolidation of Power and Wealth: By framing neoliberal reforms as liberal, elites have been able to pursue agendas that consolidate their wealth and power. For example, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of industries have often been justified as promoting growth and benefiting everyone, despite primarily advantaging the upper economic echelons.
Reducing Public Scrutiny: The complexity and often technical nature of neoliberal policies can be obscured by liberal rhetoric. This rhetoric emphasizes rights, freedoms, and equality, diverting attention from the specifics of policy changes that might be more contentious or unpopular.
Shifting Blame for Negative Outcomes: When neoliberal policies result in negative outcomes like increased inequality or economic instability, political and economic elites can deflect criticism by pointing to external factors or the purported inevitability of market dynamics, rather than acknowledging the role of their policies.
Manipulating Public Opinion: The ambiguity and overlap in the use of terms like “liberal” and “neoliberal” allow elites to manipulate public opinion. They can align themselves with popular liberal values when convenient and then pivot to neoliberal policies without clear public understanding or accountability.
Undermining Progressive Movements: By co-opting the language of liberalism, elites can undermine progressive movements that seek to address the inequalities exacerbated by neoliberal policies. This is done by presenting these movements as radical or unrealistic, while positioning neoliberalism as a moderate and pragmatic continuation of liberal values.
The use of socially egalitarian principles of liberalism to mask the harsher economic realities of neoliberalism is a complex and multifaceted strategy. It involves rhetoric, policy framing, and the manipulation of public discourse to maintain a status quo that benefits the elite at the expense of broader social and economic equality.
How long have you had your manifesto saved and ready to spam out? This is called a gish-gallop. Drown your debate in such an overwhelming amount of verbosity and sidetrack that identifying any track to engage leaves a dozen others open with the assumption being the point was conceded.
As the other poster said, you seem really, really hung up on semantics. In regard to your comment about millennials and Gen Z rising up against social reform programs due to their cost and the “global financial ruling class” (your dog whistles are getting kind of loud here), you’re as out of touch as I suspect.
Yes, there is a loud, noisy populist outrage right now, and it will temporarily drag the country and world backwards, as populist outrage has over the course of history, even in this country. There’s a reason our framers created a representative republic and not a true democracy - because the original intent of the representatives was that the populous was supposed to elect the wise and solemn. Governing by populist demand leads to marginalization, internment camps, mass extrajudicial executions, and genocide.
ALL your arguing over semantics seems to be just a new gish-gallop attempt that boils down to “both sides are the same” and “globalism is the cause of all the country’s problems”. You sound like a Russian troll.
Actually it’s from chat gpt in response to a basic prompt asking it to summarize neoliberalism and explain how it has been used to deceive and harm the American public. Aka, political science 101 stuff. This is common knowledge, so I didn’t think I needed to write it myself, just as I wouldn’t need to write out other obvious and basic historical facts such as what the first president did or how the American government surveilled Martin Luther King and Malcolm X during Cointelpro. Such things are common knowledge and are useful uses of AI.
In response to your allegation of dog whistling, Jewish people have been used as a scapegoat throughout history, and neoliberalism again continues this evil trend by alleging that any criticism of global capital is actually a critique of Jewish people. You have used this hateful insinuation yourself, and your doing so spreads the American political establishments antisemitism. Our oligarchs are not Jewish. But our oligarchs are responsible for engaging in regulatory capture on a global level, and for buying our formerly strong social democratic institutions and using them for self-enrichment. This began with Nixon, escalated with Reagan and Clinton, and has cemented itself since then.
We do not live in a democracy or a republic - we live in a dictatorship of the billionaire class, and we did not used to. There are still free Western countries, such as Denmark and Norway and Sweden and in some respects Germany. But America is not free, and won’t be so long as oligarchs control our country.
Others will. Neoliberalism was an unknown term 15 years ago amongst the public. Today, people are waking up and are opposing it via progressive populism especially Gen Z and millenials. Hopefully this change can occur before neoliberals and finance capitalism finishes destroying the planet and impoverishing the working class and eroding our democracy
IMO conflating Democrats with “liberals” was one of the greatest strokes of propaganda the rightwing has pulled off in the last few decades.
Bush/Cheney familiarized us all with “neoconservative” in 2000 which it turns out were just new, aggressive conservatives. So it stands to reason that for many in the U.S. “neoliberal = new aggressive liberals” even though neoliberalism is the de facto platform of both major parties.
Why is “the ruling class” in quotes? How can you deny the utter control of American oligarchs over our society? Do you deny that billionaires have seized control of this country, with assistance at times from foreign adversarial governments?
Regardless, the confusion around the terms “liberal” and “neoliberal” in the American political lexicon can be traced through several key historical and ideological shifts.
Initially, “liberalism” in the U.S. was closely aligned with classical liberalism, a philosophy advocating for limited government, free markets, and individual liberties. This form of liberalism shares more in common with what many would consider right-wing or libertarian ideologies today.
However, during the 20th century, especially under the influence of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal policies, liberalism in the U.S. began to take on a different meaning. It became associated with a more interventionist government that sought to address economic inequality and provide a social safety net. This shift was in response to the Great Depression and was aimed at stabilizing and reforming the economy. FDR’s approach was characterized by large-scale government programs and regulations, which were quite different from the laissez-faire attitude of classical liberalism.
This transformation of liberalism in the American context led to a situation where the term came to be associated with the left-leaning politics of the Democratic Party, especially those advocating for social justice, environmental protection, and government intervention in the economy to promote equality and public welfare.
“Neoliberalism,” on the other hand, emerged as a distinct term in the latter half of the 20th century. It marked a return to some of the core principles of classical liberalism, particularly the emphasis on free markets, deregulation, privatization, and a reduction in government spending on social services. Notably, neoliberalism became prominent in the 1980s under the leadership of figures like Ronald Reagan in the U.S. and Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. Despite its “liberal” nomenclature, neoliberalism is generally considered right-wing, especially in its economic policies.
The public’s confusion likely stems from these historical shifts. The term “liberal” has been used to describe both left-wing social democracy (as in the New Deal) and right-wing economic policies (as in neoliberalism). This duality reflects the changing political landscape in the U.S., where terms evolve and take on new meanings based on prevailing political and economic ideologies.
The media and political discourse have played significant roles in shaping public perception of these terms. For instance, conservative media often uses “liberal” to describe left-wing politics, further entrenching this redefined meaning in the public consciousness. Similarly, neoliberal policies, while economically right-wing, have often been implemented by politicians who are liberal in their social policies, adding to the confusion.
In summary, the American public’s misunderstanding of “liberal” and “neoliberal” as right-wing ideologies is rooted in the historical evolution of these terms, influenced by major political figures and movements, and shaped by media representation and public discourse.
Further, the media and political discourse have played crucial roles in shaping public perception of the terms “liberal” and “neoliberal” in American politics.
Media Framing and Representation:
Liberalism: Since the mid-20th century, media outlets have often framed “liberalism” in the context of social justice movements and Democratic Party policies. This portrayal has reinforced the association of liberalism with left-wing politics, particularly in areas of social welfare, environmentalism, and government intervention in the economy.
Neoliberalism: Neoliberalism, despite its economic conservatism, has not always been clearly differentiated in public discourse. Media often focuses on its social liberalism aspects, such as progressive stances on social issues, while the economic policies of deregulation and market freedom receive less attention. This can lead to a conflation of neoliberalism with general liberalism in public perception.
Political Rhetoric and Strategy:
Conservative Use of “Liberal”: Conservative politicians and commentators have frequently used “liberal” as a pejorative term to describe their opponents on the left, regardless of those opponents’ actual positions on economic policy. This has contributed to the broad and sometimes misleading application of the term in American political discourse.
Neoliberal Policies: Politicians from both major parties have implemented neoliberal policies, especially from the 1980s onwards. However, these policies are often not labeled as “neoliberal” by the politicians themselves, leading to a lack of clear public understanding of what neoliberalism represents.
Shifts in Public Understanding:
Liberal as Progressive: Over time, the public has increasingly associated “liberal” with progressive or left-wing social policies, diverging from its original association with economic liberalism. This shift is partly due to the media’s focus on social and cultural issues when covering liberal politics.
Neoliberalism’s Complexity: Neoliberalism’s blend of economic conservatism with social liberalism has made it a complex ideology for the public to understand, especially when media coverage does not always distinguish between economic and social liberalism.
Role of Education and Political Awareness:
Understanding Ideologies: Public education and political awareness play significant roles in understanding political ideologies. The complexity of terms like “liberal” and “neoliberal” often requires a nuanced understanding that may not be provided by mainstream media or general political discourse.
Academic Discourse: In academic settings, these terms are often discussed with more precision and historical context, but this level of analysis may not penetrate popular media or public discourse.
In summary, media representation and political rhetoric have significantly influenced the American public’s understanding of “liberal” and “neoliberal.” These terms have been shaped, redefined, and sometimes conflated in public discourse, reflecting broader changes in political ideologies, media practices, and public awareness.
American economic and political elites have benefited from and contributed to the confusion surrounding “liberal” and “neoliberal” in several ways:
Blurring Economic Policies:
Concealing Unpopular Policies: By conflating neoliberal policies with broader liberal values, elites can mask the less popular aspects of neoliberalism, such as deregulation and reduced social spending, under the more generally acceptable banner of progressivism.
Reducing Scrutiny: This confusion allows for the implementation of economically conservative policies with less public scrutiny, as they can be presented as part of a broader, socially liberal agenda.
Political Maneuvering:
Election Strategies: Politicians can appeal to a wider base by blending liberal social policies with neoliberal economic policies. This strategy allows them to attract progressive voters with social stances while maintaining economic policies favorable to business interests and wealthy constituents.
Shifting Blame: When economic policies under neoliberalism lead to unfavorable outcomes, such as increased inequality, politicians can shift blame onto liberal ideologies in general, obscuring the specific impacts of neoliberal policies.
Media Influence:
Controlling Narrative: Elites often have significant influence over media narratives. By promoting a conflation of liberalism and neoliberalism in media discourse, they can shape public perception to align with their interests.
Oversimplification for Public Consumption: Complex economic policies are often simplified in media coverage, leading to a loss of nuance in the public’s understanding of different political and economic ideologies.
Economic Benefits:
Market Deregulation: Neoliberal policies often involve deregulation and tax cuts, which can significantly benefit large corporations and wealthy individuals.
Social Policies as Distraction: By focusing public attention on progressive social policies, economic elites can divert attention from economic policies that might be less popular or scrutinized.
Maintaining Status Quo:
Preventing Radical Changes: The confusion helps maintain the status quo by preventing a clear public demand for more radical economic reforms, which might arise from a clearer understanding of the distinctions between liberal and neoliberal policies.
Aligning with Centrist Politics: This ambiguity aligns well with centrist politics, allowing elites to support policies that maintain their economic interests while appearing socially progressive.
In summary, American economic and political elites have both benefited from and encouraged the confusion between liberalism and neoliberalism. This confusion aids in implementing and maintaining policies that serve their interests, while simultaneously appealing to broader public values of progressivism and social justice
Which members of “the ruling class” dictated what it meant, when did they dictate it and how did they achieve it?
Further, here are notable historical examples that demonstrate how elites have benefited from the public’s misunderstanding of liberalism and neoliberalism:
The Reagan Era (1980s): President Ronald Reagan used the rhetoric of freedom, a core liberal value, to justify neoliberal policies such as deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and reductions in social welfare. These policies were framed as liberating the economy and individuals from government overreach, appealing to liberal ideals while advancing a neoliberal agenda that ultimately widened income inequality.
Clinton’s Welfare Reform (1996): President Bill Clinton’s welfare reform, officially the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, was presented as a liberal effort to empower individuals through work. However, the reform, which included stricter work requirements and time-limited benefits, reflected neoliberal principles of reducing government assistance. This shift was masked by the language of personal responsibility, a concept resonating with liberal values.
Financial Deregulation in the 1990s: The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, signed by President Clinton, was another example where neoliberal policies were enacted under liberal rhetoric. The act, which repealed parts of the Glass-Steagall Act and allowed commercial and investment banks to merge, was justified as modernizing the financial industry. The language used suggested increased efficiency and growth, liberal ideals, while the policy favored financial elites and laid groundwork for the 2008 financial crisis.
Global Trade Agreements: Trade agreements like NAFTA, promoted by Democratic administrations, were presented as liberal efforts towards global cooperation and prosperity. However, these agreements often prioritized corporate interests and free trade (neoliberal principles) over labor rights and environmental concerns, which are more aligned with traditional liberalism.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA): The ACA, while a significant healthcare reform, also illustrates this dynamic. It was framed as a liberal policy expanding access to healthcare (a core liberal value). However, the ACA heavily relied on market mechanisms and private insurance companies, reflecting neoliberal ideologies. This blending obscured the lack of more progressive, liberal options like universal healthcare.
Response to the Financial Crisis (2008): The bailout of banks and financial institutions after the 2008 financial crisis used liberal rhetoric of saving jobs and stabilizing the economy. However, these actions were essentially neoliberal, prioritizing the rescue of financial elites and institutions over direct assistance to affected individuals and communities.
These examples highlight the nuanced and often obscured ways in which the language and principles of liberalism have been used to facilitate and justify neoliberal policies, serving the interests of political and economic elites while often contradicting the more egalitarian and social welfare-oriented aspects of traditional liberalism.
The Democratic Party’s specific relationship with liberalism and neoliberalism has evolved significantly over time, especially in the context of globalization.
Post-World War II to 1960s: Initially, Democrats were closely aligned with New Deal liberalism, advocating for government intervention in the economy and social welfare. This period saw the expansion of social programs and a regulatory state, consistent with liberal values of equality and government responsibility for social welfare.
1970s and 1980s: During this period, the Democratic Party began shifting towards neoliberalism, influenced by global economic changes and the rise of conservative ideas. This shift was not abrupt but marked by gradual adoption of more market-friendly policies, reflecting a reorientation from traditional liberalism.
Clinton Administration (1990s): Under President Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party embraced neoliberal policies more openly. This was evident in the promotion of free trade agreements like NAFTA, welfare reform, and financial deregulation. These policies, while positioned as modernizing liberalism, actually reflected a significant move towards neoliberal principles, emphasizing market solutions and reduced government intervention.
Early 21st Century: The party faced internal divisions between those favoring traditional liberal policies (like expanding social programs) and those advocating neoliberal approaches (focusing on market-based solutions). The Obama administration, for instance, navigated these divisions, particularly in healthcare reform and responses to the financial crisis.
Response to Globalization: Democrats have consistently supported globalization, but the party’s stance has been a mix of liberal and neoliberal approaches. While advocating for international trade and global economic integration (a neoliberal stance), many Democrats have also pushed for labor standards, environmental protections, and human rights (aligning more with traditional liberalism).
Recent Trends: In recent years, there’s been a resurgence of progressive liberalism within the party, challenging the neoliberal consensus. This is evident in the growing popularity of figures like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who advocate for stronger government intervention in the economy, more robust social welfare programs, and a critical stance on unregulated globalization.
The Democratic Party’s relationship with liberalism and neoliberalism is complex and has evolved in response to changing economic, social, and political contexts. This evolution reflects the party’s attempts to balance traditional liberal values with the realities of a globalized economy, often resulting in policies that blend elements of both ideologies.
Economic and political elites have derived several benefits from the public’s misunderstanding of the shift from liberalism to neoliberalism:
Legitimizing Economic Policies: Neoliberal policies such as deregulation, privatization, and austerity measures have often been presented under the banner of liberalism’s socially egalitarian principles. This has been a strategy to gain public acceptance or mitigate resistance, as these policies are portrayed as necessary for progress and equality, even when they may lead to increased inequality and reduced social welfare.
Consolidation of Power and Wealth: By framing neoliberal reforms as liberal, elites have been able to pursue agendas that consolidate their wealth and power. For example, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of industries have often been justified as promoting growth and benefiting everyone, despite primarily advantaging the upper economic echelons.
Reducing Public Scrutiny: The complexity and often technical nature of neoliberal policies can be obscured by liberal rhetoric. This rhetoric emphasizes rights, freedoms, and equality, diverting attention from the specifics of policy changes that might be more contentious or unpopular.
Shifting Blame for Negative Outcomes: When neoliberal policies result in negative outcomes like increased inequality or economic instability, political and economic elites can deflect criticism by pointing to external factors or the purported inevitability of market dynamics, rather than acknowledging the role of their policies.
Manipulating Public Opinion: The ambiguity and overlap in the use of terms like “liberal” and “neoliberal” allow elites to manipulate public opinion. They can align themselves with popular liberal values when convenient and then pivot to neoliberal policies without clear public understanding or accountability.
Undermining Progressive Movements: By co-opting the language of liberalism, elites can undermine progressive movements that seek to address the inequalities exacerbated by neoliberal policies. This is done by presenting these movements as radical or unrealistic, while positioning neoliberalism as a moderate and pragmatic continuation of liberal values.
The use of socially egalitarian principles of liberalism to mask the harsher economic realities of neoliberalism is a complex and multifaceted strategy. It involves rhetoric, policy framing, and the manipulation of public discourse to maintain a status quo that benefits the elite at the expense of broader social and economic equality.
How long have you had your manifesto saved and ready to spam out? This is called a gish-gallop. Drown your debate in such an overwhelming amount of verbosity and sidetrack that identifying any track to engage leaves a dozen others open with the assumption being the point was conceded.
As the other poster said, you seem really, really hung up on semantics. In regard to your comment about millennials and Gen Z rising up against social reform programs due to their cost and the “global financial ruling class” (your dog whistles are getting kind of loud here), you’re as out of touch as I suspect.
Yes, there is a loud, noisy populist outrage right now, and it will temporarily drag the country and world backwards, as populist outrage has over the course of history, even in this country. There’s a reason our framers created a representative republic and not a true democracy - because the original intent of the representatives was that the populous was supposed to elect the wise and solemn. Governing by populist demand leads to marginalization, internment camps, mass extrajudicial executions, and genocide.
ALL your arguing over semantics seems to be just a new gish-gallop attempt that boils down to “both sides are the same” and “globalism is the cause of all the country’s problems”. You sound like a Russian troll.
Actually it’s from chat gpt in response to a basic prompt asking it to summarize neoliberalism and explain how it has been used to deceive and harm the American public. Aka, political science 101 stuff. This is common knowledge, so I didn’t think I needed to write it myself, just as I wouldn’t need to write out other obvious and basic historical facts such as what the first president did or how the American government surveilled Martin Luther King and Malcolm X during Cointelpro. Such things are common knowledge and are useful uses of AI.
In response to your allegation of dog whistling, Jewish people have been used as a scapegoat throughout history, and neoliberalism again continues this evil trend by alleging that any criticism of global capital is actually a critique of Jewish people. You have used this hateful insinuation yourself, and your doing so spreads the American political establishments antisemitism. Our oligarchs are not Jewish. But our oligarchs are responsible for engaging in regulatory capture on a global level, and for buying our formerly strong social democratic institutions and using them for self-enrichment. This began with Nixon, escalated with Reagan and Clinton, and has cemented itself since then.
We do not live in a democracy or a republic - we live in a dictatorship of the billionaire class, and we did not used to. There are still free Western countries, such as Denmark and Norway and Sweden and in some respects Germany. But America is not free, and won’t be so long as oligarchs control our country.
Oh, so you’re not even arguing with your own knowledge. Have the life you deserve.
I am using my own knowledge, just using contemporary tools to shorten the drafting process.
I am very much satisfied with my life, thank you
There is not a chance in hell I’m reading your two-part novel.
Others will. Neoliberalism was an unknown term 15 years ago amongst the public. Today, people are waking up and are opposing it via progressive populism especially Gen Z and millenials. Hopefully this change can occur before neoliberals and finance capitalism finishes destroying the planet and impoverishing the working class and eroding our democracy
IMO conflating Democrats with “liberals” was one of the greatest strokes of propaganda the rightwing has pulled off in the last few decades.
Bush/Cheney familiarized us all with “neoconservative” in 2000 which it turns out were just new, aggressive conservatives. So it stands to reason that for many in the U.S. “neoliberal = new aggressive liberals” even though neoliberalism is the de facto platform of both major parties.
Why is “the ruling class” in quotes? How can you deny the utter control of American oligarchs over our society? Do you deny that billionaires have seized control of this country, with assistance at times from foreign adversarial governments?
Regardless, the confusion around the terms “liberal” and “neoliberal” in the American political lexicon can be traced through several key historical and ideological shifts.
Initially, “liberalism” in the U.S. was closely aligned with classical liberalism, a philosophy advocating for limited government, free markets, and individual liberties. This form of liberalism shares more in common with what many would consider right-wing or libertarian ideologies today.
However, during the 20th century, especially under the influence of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal policies, liberalism in the U.S. began to take on a different meaning. It became associated with a more interventionist government that sought to address economic inequality and provide a social safety net. This shift was in response to the Great Depression and was aimed at stabilizing and reforming the economy. FDR’s approach was characterized by large-scale government programs and regulations, which were quite different from the laissez-faire attitude of classical liberalism.
This transformation of liberalism in the American context led to a situation where the term came to be associated with the left-leaning politics of the Democratic Party, especially those advocating for social justice, environmental protection, and government intervention in the economy to promote equality and public welfare.
“Neoliberalism,” on the other hand, emerged as a distinct term in the latter half of the 20th century. It marked a return to some of the core principles of classical liberalism, particularly the emphasis on free markets, deregulation, privatization, and a reduction in government spending on social services. Notably, neoliberalism became prominent in the 1980s under the leadership of figures like Ronald Reagan in the U.S. and Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. Despite its “liberal” nomenclature, neoliberalism is generally considered right-wing, especially in its economic policies.
The public’s confusion likely stems from these historical shifts. The term “liberal” has been used to describe both left-wing social democracy (as in the New Deal) and right-wing economic policies (as in neoliberalism). This duality reflects the changing political landscape in the U.S., where terms evolve and take on new meanings based on prevailing political and economic ideologies.
The media and political discourse have played significant roles in shaping public perception of these terms. For instance, conservative media often uses “liberal” to describe left-wing politics, further entrenching this redefined meaning in the public consciousness. Similarly, neoliberal policies, while economically right-wing, have often been implemented by politicians who are liberal in their social policies, adding to the confusion.
In summary, the American public’s misunderstanding of “liberal” and “neoliberal” as right-wing ideologies is rooted in the historical evolution of these terms, influenced by major political figures and movements, and shaped by media representation and public discourse.
Further, the media and political discourse have played crucial roles in shaping public perception of the terms “liberal” and “neoliberal” in American politics.
Media Framing and Representation:
Political Rhetoric and Strategy:
Shifts in Public Understanding:
Role of Education and Political Awareness:
In summary, media representation and political rhetoric have significantly influenced the American public’s understanding of “liberal” and “neoliberal.” These terms have been shaped, redefined, and sometimes conflated in public discourse, reflecting broader changes in political ideologies, media practices, and public awareness.
American economic and political elites have benefited from and contributed to the confusion surrounding “liberal” and “neoliberal” in several ways:
Blurring Economic Policies:
Political Maneuvering:
Media Influence:
Economic Benefits:
Maintaining Status Quo:
In summary, American economic and political elites have both benefited from and encouraged the confusion between liberalism and neoliberalism. This confusion aids in implementing and maintaining policies that serve their interests, while simultaneously appealing to broader public values of progressivism and social justice