What’s the meaning of ‘Neoliberal’?
It’s no secret that I’m an extremely hardcore libertarian and it’s pretty obvious that I’m not a fan of the political left. Nonetheless, however, there are some leftists that are still somewhat sensible, such as Glenn Greenwald and sometimes they do have legitimate points.
But let’s be clear over something about this usage of the word ‘Neoliberal’ as sort of a substitute for the word ‘reactionary’ or the ‘it’s not real communism’ by hardcore progressives and socialists whenever they’re displeased with politicians they deem as too moderate or unsuccessful. The word ‘Neoliberal’ is pretty much meaningless nowadays thanks to conflicting definition and usage of the word by both those who use it positively (i.e. CATO Institute fellow Johan Norberg) or those who use it negatively such as the progressives, especially in the rise of Bernie Sanders.
So what’s the exact definition of the word ‘Neoliberal’?
According to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, it means people who support a global free market without government regulation and industries ran by private firms. In this sense, the word ‘Neoliberal’ pretty much overlaps with classical liberalism and libertarianism.
But the definition of private ownership of the means of production and free markets are also equally muddied. And so too is this supposed distinction between cronyism and regulating big corporations that progressives tend to make. For instance, take this op-ed for the New York Post by Paula Froelich of which she critiques the current state of the Democratic Party, both the progressives and the establishment-type such as Obama or Clinton. Like many progressives and leftists, Paula Froelich’s vision is rather typical as the battle is between the big bankers and corporations against Main Street. No doubt I, like Froelich, am against bailing out companies and corporations whenever they fail their customers. Where I and Froelich contend each other is at our view of what the enemy of our political alignment is for that I see government as a direct threat to consumers and companies, not as according to Froelich’s progressive view.
And so is Matt Taibbi’s article about the ‘Neoliberal’ Obama or former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s definition of ‘Neoliberal’ being part of the hawkish establishment alongside with the George W. Bush-era Republican movement. Setting aside the anarcho-capitalist and minarchist debate, I don’t see what’s ‘Neoliberal’ about Obama. And if according to Wikipedia who lists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek as ‘Neoliberals’ despite Mises’ and to a certain extent, Hayek’s staunch antiwar stance, I’d assume Tulsi Gabbard’s definition of ‘Neoliberalism’ as a culturally liberal version of Neoconservatism, or in other words, liberal hawks like Hillary Clinton.
Aligning the two articles by Matt Taibbi and Paula Froelich, there is certainly a common theme among the two, which is of dissatisfaction with the progressive’s agenda – at least as I’m demonstrating in the ‘political language’ that I speak for they have a different agenda than mine – of cronyism. And even speaking from the libertarian world, disagreements about the role of government, given that Johan Norberg adheres to Milton Friedman, as opposed to me, who adheres to Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard presents the question of what should the role of the government should be. Milton Friedman is no friend of the gold standard, yet the Austrian School champions the gold standard or even call for the abolishment of government (from the anarcho-capitalist side) as they view government as parasitic. Milton Friedman, in one episode of his classic ‘Free to Choose’ series called for assistance from central banks in the case of struggling banks.
If Neoliberalism supports free markets, I don’t get how Keynesians such as Obama and Biden could be considered as Neoliberals. If Neoliberalism is about more government control than what classical liberalism or libertarianism calls for, it is certainly extremely muddied as the difference between action and coercion becomes muddied and negative rights becomes muddied – i.e. expanding the role of government as the role of government in X area is legitimate – since Neoliberalism recognizes the welfare state as legitimate. But if so then Neoliberalism can’t be considered as pro-free market as the power of taxation is much more significant than those minarchists like Mises called for, of which a government confined to merely providing a military, police and courts, let alone the anarcho-capitalists. The cost of the welfare state is simply too much of a burden even if we were to cut all military spending or confiscate billionaires’ wealth. There’s a vast difference between the view of Hayek and the view of Keynes.
The word ‘Neoliberal’ is all too muddied to be clarified. It’s now merely sort of a word for mockery by progressives who deem certain politicians as too ‘moderate’ – at least what moderate constitutes in this age, I suppose.