Ask the neoliberal thread

[David_God_of_Frogs]

After a long period of wandering, I think I’ve arrived at a political philosophy that fully suits me. Neoliberalism is basically a belief in free markets, but for economic and political reasons, not moral ones or as ends in themselves.

Neoliberalism is widely considered a bad word, and it takes a lot of heat from both the left and the right for being in the center. So, after finding no such previous thread, I’ve decided to make my contribution to the GD “ask the” series.

Some myths that I’ve seen floating around the internet for starters:

Neoliberalism is not libertarianism. While they have a lot in common, neoliberalism would support the use of international agreements and cooperation in order to prevent Americans from imposing their will on foreigners, which goes against libertarian philosophy. (So maybe neoliberals are the real libertarians?)

Libertarianism is not globalization. It certainly leads to globalization, but it also leads to regionalization, its opposite.

Reagan and Thatcher are not neoliberals. Milton Freidman - still a little stretch. All these people put moral stock in the free market. It’s important to realize that neoliberals, almost by definition, are more liberal than neoconservatives.

And finallly, neoliberalism is something people actually call themselves. A lot of people seem to think the term is strictly derrogatory, but it is an actual philosophy - there is a neoliberal school of international relations, for instance. I still haven’t quite figured out who the most prominent neoliberal voices are, (Freidman seems to have inspired a lot of them, but that doesn’t mean he was one). The World Bank and IMF are the institutions most strongly associated with it, which of course explains a lot of people’s resistance to the idea.

Being a bit of a neophyte, I don’t know too much about neoliberalism’s history or individual practicitioners - there are a lot of people are wrongly painted as neoliberal. Nevertheless, I understand the arguments themselves well enough to defend them.

What say you?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@David

What say you?

How does it differ from liberalism?

[Sam_Stone]

Or from Neoconservatism? From your description, it sounds like Paul Wolfowitz is firmly in your camp.

[Dr.Love]

Ok, I’ll shoot. Would you mind expanding on the folowing things you said:

@David

Neoliberalism is not libertarianism. While they have a lot in common, neoliberalism would support the use of international agreements and cooperation in order to prevent Americans from imposing their will on foreigners, which goes against libertarian philosophy. (So maybe neoliberals are the real libertarians?)

What are “international agreements and cooperation in order to prevent Americans from imposing their will on foreigners” exactly and how does their use contadict libertarian philosophy?

Libertarianism is not globalization. It certainly leads to globalization, but it also leads to regionalization, its opposite.

What does libertarianism do that leads to regionalizaion, and how would a neoliberal address this?

Reagan and Thatcher are not neoliberals. Milton Freidman - still a little stretch. All these people put moral stock in the free market. It’s important to realize that neoliberals, almost by definition, are more liberal than neoconservatives.

Does this mean that the pro-market beliefs of the true neoliberal are more utilitarian? In what other ways do neoliberal and libertarian beliefs differ?

[Revtim]

What is the neoliberal view on social issues, such as marijuana legalization and gay marriage?

[John_Mace]

I wonder if neoliberalism is close to what Jonathan Chance likes to call “practical libertarianism”. I personally like that term as it recognizes the weakness in libertarianism-- ie, people do NOT value freedom above all else. People are torn between a desire to be free and desire for security. Libertarianism does little to assuage people’s fear of not being secure, and so even if a true Libertarian government came into being, it probably wouldn’t last past the first natural disaster or severe economic frecession.

[furt]

@David

Neoliberalism is basically a belief in free markets, but for economic and political reasons, not moral ones or as ends in themselves.

How is this different from neoconservatism?

[David_God_of_Frogs]

@Hentor the Barbarian

How does it differ from liberalism?

Well, liberalism has become a pretty specious term. In its modern usage (as opposed to 200 years ago), the main difference would be its reliance on free markets to solve problems, including social ones.

@Sam Stone

Or from Neoconservatism? From your description, it sounds like Paul Wolfowitz is firmly in your camp.

Like I said, I don’t neccesarily have too many insightful things to say about the philosophies of specific people, but I’ll say that if Wolfowitz is neoliberal, he would have favored more UN involvement with the Iraq situation than the Bush administration as a whole. I definitely wouldn’t put it past Bush to ‘prop up’ people who agreed with him on specific issues but using different logic, and the fact that he’s at the World Bank now would make that even less surprising.

The differences between neoliberals and neoconservatives are generally more qualitative than quantitative.

@Dr. Love

What are “international agreements and cooperation in order to prevent Americans from imposing their will on foreigners” exactly and how does their use contadict libertarian philosophy?

…

Does this mean that the pro-market beliefs of the true neoliberal are more utilitarian? In what other ways do neoliberal and libertarian beliefs differ?

The differences between neoliberalism and libertarianism are subtle but important. Basically, libertarianism is more of a domestic policy philosophy. Libertarians generally object to giving power to international organizations because they can infringe on the liberties of Americans, even if they might protect other people’s liberties. One example where the two philosophies might collide would be a free trade agreement that allows Americans to engage in unsavory business practices abroad (ones that wouldn’t be allowed in the states). An international body like the WTO or such could rule that illegal, but that ruling wouldn’t be considered “free trade,” and thus be opposed by libertarians off hand.

Another example off the top of my head would be if we surreptitiously discovered Kryptonite. Libertarians would support its distribution through free markets, but if it were such a powerful substance other countries might use their power in the UN to support a more radical redistribution, deciding that whatever obstructions the US might put in their path later would be worth it. While this would go against any kind of free trade principles, the neoliberal would consider the UN to trump any power of the state or any other body beneath it, and would go along with the request.

I hope this answers your question. Neoliberals would support rationally wieghing the political and economic effects of free markets vs. other options, which is something international bodies are best equipped to do.

@Dr. Love

What does libertarianism do that leads to regionalizaion, and how would a neoliberal address this?

Free markets give people more options generally, so they can shop all over the world to find the best product, or just decide that since most things are available locally, it would probably just be cheaper to buy them there.

The neoliberal response would be “so what?”

@revtim

What is the neoliberal view on social issues, such as marijuana legalization and gay marriage?

I would think that most neoliberals would be libertarians except for situations like in the examples above. Neoliberalism is of course based on liberalism.

[David_God_of_Frogs]

@John Mace

I wonder if neoliberalism is close to what Jonathan Chance likes to call “practical libertarianism”. I personally like that term as it recognizes the weakness in libertarianism-- ie, people do NOT value freedom above all else. People are torn between a desire to be free and desire for security. Libertarianism does little to assuage people’s fear of not being secure, and so even if a true Libertarian government came into being, it probably wouldn’t last past the first natural disaster or severe economic frecession.

Philosophically, neoliberalism doesn’t assume that people value freedom above everything else. Practically, though, it’s usually the best way to attain security. Insurance policies and other financial instruments can help people deal with those kinds of crises, and a lot of times there are things even a government can’t accomplish, especially given long-term unintended effects, but there is some daylight between those two cases where it does help to have some sort of governing authority.

[Dr.Love]

Thanks David, God of Frogs, I think I understand how you’re making the distinction.

@David

Free markets give people more options generally, so they can shop all over the world to find the best product, or just decide that since most things are available locally, it would probably just be cheaper to buy them there.

The neoliberal response would be “so what?”

“So what?” sounds like a libertarian answer to me. I can’t imagine any libertarian arguing against buying local because it is cheaper, provided that the decision to only buy local isn’t made at the governmental level (as in, banning non-local goods, or something similar), but I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about. I’m not seeing how libertarians and neoliberals disagree on this issue. Perhaps you mean to refer to those who believe that buying local is more morally correct than buying from foreign sources?

[Bryan_Ekers]

So what else do tiggers not like?

[BrainGlutton]

@furt

How is this different from neoconservatism?

They have different intellectual histories – neoconservatism having evolved in part out of Trotskyist Socialism (we’ve had discussions of that in this forum), and retaining the Trotskyist vision of global revolutionary transformation, but with capitalism taking the place of socialism. But, as I understand it, the main difference is in emphasis, or in areas of concern. Neoliberalism is built around economic policy, neoconservatism around foreign and military policy. From the Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal:

Neoliberalism refers to a political-economic philosophy that has had major implications for government policies beginning in the 1970s – and increasingly prominent since 1980 – that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the economy (that complements private initiative), focusing instead on achieving progress and even social justice by encouraging free-market methods and fewer restrictions on business operations and economic development. Supporters argue that by implementing business-friendly policies, a society can assure that its businesses grow, creating jobs and other economic benefits which improve the welfare of the entire economy. This is commonly referred to as ‘trickle down economics’ or ‘Reaganomics.’ Detractors tend to think that government intervention is necessary to create an equitable society.

It can be contrasted with economic nationalism, fair trade and anti-capitalism, three different alternatives to neoliberalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States:

Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed. Most people currently described as “neoconservatives” are members of the Republican Party. The term is used more often by those who oppose “neoconservative” politics than those who subscribe to them; indeed, many to whom the label is applied reject it. The term is frequently used pejoratively, both by self-described paleoconservatives, who oppose neoconservatism from the right, and by Democratic politicians opposing neoconservatives from the left. Recently, Democratic politicians have used the term to criticize the Republican policies and leaders of the current Bush administration.

Generally neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism; more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives; civil equality for blacks and other minorities; and sympathy with a non-traditionalist agenda, being more inclined than other conservatives toward an interventionist foreign policy and a unilateralism that is sometimes at odds with traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law. They feuded with traditional right-wing Republicans, and the nativist, protectionist, isolationists once represented by ex-Republican “paleoconservative” Pat Buchanan. Still, the neoconservatives have generally allied with other conservatives electorally and in terms of which administrations they have joined. Ideological differences between paleoconservatives and neoconservatives are often ignored in alliance against those to their left.

But domestic policy does not define neoconservatism; it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, free trade, opposition to communism during the Cold War, support for beleaguered liberal democracies such as Israel and Taiwan and opposition to Middle Eastern and other states that are perceived to support terrorism. Thus, their foremost target was the traditional pragmatic approach to foreign policy often associated with Richard Nixon, i.e., pragmatic accomodation with dictators, peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control, détente and containment (rather than rollback) of the Soviet Union, and the beginning of the process that would lead to bilateral ties between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the U.S. Today, a rift still divides the neoconservatives from many members of the State Department, who favor established foreign policy conventions.

Intellectually, neoconservatives have been strongly influenced by a diverse range of thinkers, from Max Shachtman 's strongly anti-Soviet version of Trotskyism (in the area of international policy), to the libertarian-leaning Milton Friedman, to the elitist, ostensibly neo-Platonic ideas of Leo Strauss.

Another difference is that neoconservatism, as defined above, is a distinctly American school of thought, while neoliberalism can be and to some extent is international.

One thing both theories have in common, if I read the situation correctly, is that both are purely elite schools of thought, led by educated intellectuals. There is no mass base of support for either, on its own terms. The people can be talked around to supporting specific neocon or neolib policy proposals, but there is no such thing as the neoconservative vote or the neoliberal vote as such.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bryan Ekers

So what else do tiggers not like?

This is quite funny. I take back those mean things I said about you.

[BrainGlutton]

@David

Neoliberalism is not libertarianism. While they have a lot in common, neoliberalism would support the use of international agreements and cooperation in order to prevent Americans from imposing their will on foreigners, which goes against libertarian philosophy. (So maybe neoliberals are the real libertarians?)

It also goes against neoconservative philosophy, judging by the public opposition of prominent neocons to any international organization or agreement that might thwart the will of the U.S. government. This would seem to be the key point where neolibs and neocons part company – although their agendas have a great deal of common otherwise.