Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The only group of people who described themselves as neoliberal offline were a group of left-wing foreign policy wonks centred around The New Republic who thought that Reagan was right and the left was wrong about the Soviet Union. This has nothing to do with the modern meaning.
At some point neoliberal became a hostile term used by opponents to describe the pro-free-market movement that grew up around the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics, the Mont Pelerin society, various British libertarian thinktanks etc. and would inform the Thatcher/Reagan/Pinochet governments. Because people are not careful about the precise meaning of insults, it gradually became a snarl used by lefties to mean "Someone with economic policy views to my right who I dislike" in the same way that "fascist" now means "Someone with social policy views to my right who I dislike."
As far as I am aware, and Wikipedia agrees, nobody called themselves "neoliberal" during the early 21st century period when the term entered the popular consciousness in a big way.
/r/neoliberal is an ironic reclamatory use of the term by a bunch of internet autists. A few very online public intellectuals, notably Matthew Yglesias, have joined in, but in general namefags with prestigious platforms avoid the term and call themselves things like "classical liberals", "liberaltarians", "state capacity libertarians", or outside the US just "liberals". The politics of /r/neoliberal are basically pro-establishment and pro-globohomo, but less cucked about it than pro-establishment politicians. If I had a short way of summing up /r/neoliberal's politics, it would be "Globohomo is 90% correct on social issues*. On economic issues, explicit tax-and-spend redistribution is better than left-wing regulation." For various sizes of the redistributive state, this is consistent with everything from Thatcherism to Blairism to Swedish Social Democracy - and the /r/neoliberal crowd understand this, and find all of the above sympathetic. The big areas where the consensus on the sub differs from Blair/Clinton/Macron centrist mush in practice is that they want to abolish stupid-but-popular regulations like NIMBY zoning and that they tend to favour simple-but-probably-effective policies like LVT-funded UBI over policies which are heavily wonkified to produce no sympathetic losers or unpopular winners.
It is worth noting that the platform of "Free product and labour markets, competent government, regulation for health/safety/environment issues but not to promote economic fairness, appropriate redistribution designed to minimise distortions." is not novel - from a non-American perspective it is just the same old liberal tradition going back to Adam Smith (the British and Continental European traditions did support the New Deal/Keynesian economic model when it was the current thing, but they never made it part of their identity the way the American liberal tradition did). It is American libertarianism that is weird - every society that was super-Dunbar scale and rich enough to afford it has had coercively funded poor relief, government roads etc.
* And the culture on /r/neoliberal would so own being described as globohomo
More options
Context Copy link