Why YSK: I’ve noticed in recent years more people using “neoliberal” to mean “Democrat/Labor/Social Democrat politicians I don’t like”. This confusion arises from the different meanings “liberal” has in American politics and further muddies the waters.

Neoliberalism came to the fore during the 80’s under Reagan and Thatcher and have continued mostly uninterrupted since. Clinton, both Bushs, Obama, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Johnson, and many other world leaders and national parties support neoliberal policies, despite their nominal opposition to one another at the ballot box.

It is important that people understand how neoliberalism has reshaped the world economy in the past four decades, especially people who are too young to remember what things were like before. Deregulation and privatization were touted as cost-saving measures, but the practical effect for most people is that many aspects of our lives are now run by corporations who (by law!) put profits above all else. Neoliberalism has hollowed out national economies by allowing the offshoring of general labor jobs from developed countries.

In the 80’s and 90’s there was an “anti-globalization” movement of the left that sought to oppose these changes. The consequences they warned of have come to pass. Sadly, most organized opposition to neoliberal policies these days comes from the right. Both Trump and the Brexit campaign were premised on reinvigorating national economies. Naturally, both failed, in part because they had no cohesive plan or understanding that they were going against 40 years of precedent.

So, yes, establishment Democrats are neoliberals, but so are most Republicans.

  • The Menemen!@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s kinda sad how classical social democracy is basically dead nowadays. Here in Europe they are almost all neoliberals and some (like in Denmark) even start to mix this with right wing social policies.

    Slightly OT comment from me, so sorry.

    • RedMarsRepublic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Social democracy was a false idol anyways, nothing but socialism can work in the long term, socdem always gets repealed by the rich.

      • Spzi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        always gets repealed by the rich.

        Power, uh, finds a way. It’s true for any system, not specifically social democracy? Change my mind.

        • FunCod_64@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          They don’t tend to last very long because of US interference. But if you don’t use time as a merit but other measurable factors such education, social security or healthcare, I’d say they score at least en par if not better than SocDems.