Maybe we can talk this week about liberals, neoliberals, Democrats, and the way some real or fake “leftists” promote anti-democracy right wing fascist and theocratist causes, act as their tools, useful idiots. I’ve said some already, but let’s do it in one place, shall we?
I’ll discuss the issue here from an economic perspective. Back when basically everyone in the USA supported democracy, the US Constitution, “liberalism” in the USA as far as economics basically meant the opposite of the simplistic market utopianism of “conservative” economics. Safety and health regulations, public education, New Deal policies as social security and medicare, Keynesian macroeconomics, all that sort, were “liberal.” It basically just meant supporting democratic government involving itself in the economy to reflect voters’ normative or ethical views. The opposite of traditional American progressive, democratic leftist liberalism as far as economics was “conservatism,” which argued democratic government has no business “interfering with” or “distorting” markets, the economy, and proposed democratic government should be small, weak, inactive.
Famously, in the 1980s, in response to local conditions, the traditional false, simplistic rhetoric of bad economics in the conservative style and its market utopianism became so dominant many erstwhile liberals threw in the towel to adopt conservative economics to become “neoliberals.” That Grand Coalition of economic conservatives in the Republican Party and economic “neoliberals” (conservatives) in the Democratic Party was unchallenged for years and led to the impression there was really no difference as far as economics between the two parties, it was really a “uni-party.” Recently, liberal economics has been staging a bit of comeback and the rhetoric of bad economics in the conservative style, although still dominant, may be starting to lose its potency, which has led some conservatives to see an impending crisis and driven them away from democracy toward fascism. With the movement of conservatives from promoting small, weak, inactive democratic government to promoting no democratic government at all, liberalism has come to mean not only the rejection of market utopianism, but simply the belief government should reflect the views of the voters. Thus, it now makes sense to talk about liberalism as simply the view voters in a democracy should be able to provide normative inputs on economic policy, goals, objectives, and so on, whatever they may be. And then a liberal left that adds support for “leftist” economic ideas, values, policies.
The ongoing struggle between conservatives and liberals in the USA involves some interesting issues in rhetoric or terminology. My topic today is the insistence of some “leftists” to address issues with conservative economics entirely in their adopted or reflected expression in “neoliberalism.” The reason it matters rhetorically is that the distinction between liberal and neoliberal is lost on many in the USA now (and indeed the words are used subtly differently in the UK and elsewhere), and some in the USA seem now to suppose “neoliberalism” is “liberalism.” The confusion hangs on the archaic term “classical liberalism,” which is basically now a misleading, archaic, and rather twee name for US “conservatism,” and ambiguity in the English language between “neo” or new referring to new as changed, different or new as the same but resurgent. This allows “conservatism” to fly undefined and under the radar for many, who regardless of whether they’re opposed to progressive, democratic leftist ideas or their opposite, right wing market utopianism, rush to support Republicans fighting oxymoronic (in the US) “liberalism / neoliberalism.” Some now seem to suppose this oxymoronic “liberalism / neoliberalism” dominates the Democratic Party, which leads them to support the Republican Party, regardless of whether they support or oppose the traditional conservative economics that has long been the province of Republican Party. The resulting ignorance among voters about “conservative” economics has been remarked upon by many traditional conservatives and has led to Republicans opposing democratic government not only in favor of market utopianism but also corporatist plutocratic fascism / “crony capitalism.” At a somewhat more advanced level are those who perceive differences between neoliberals and liberals, but suppose liberals rather than neoliberals have dominated the Democratic Party for years thus again confusing liberal policy with neoliberal to oppose the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. In this context, it’s easy to see how anti-liberal, anti-Democratic, ostensible “leftists” function as tools of right wing, conservative fascists and theocratists. On the one had, conservatives tout various iterations of “conservative” economic views and support Republicans in a positive sense. On the other hand, anti-liberal, anti-Democratic “leftists” ignore conservatives entirely and spend their time attacking liberals and Democrats, thus helping the Republican Party in the negative sense. It’s why one supposes conservatives are quite happy to hear people discussing “neoliberals.”
My recommendations: talk about “neoliberal” economic views as “conservative” or maybe “conservative / neoliberal,” acknowledge and support the liberal wing’s efforts to regain influence in the Democratic Party, acknowledge Republicans don’t have a liberal wing and the parties aren’t the same. If you suppose yourself a “leftist,” but you spend all day attacking liberals and Democrats, literally the only other people in our political scene who accept voters discussing leftist economic ideas, values, views, and may even sometimes endorse them, consider if it’s the best use of your time.
