Although this is a relevant topic, this column is a little disjointed. I suspect the term “neoliberalism” means different things to different people and is not really a coherent philosophy. The original liberalism had a fairly common meaning in different countries in the 18th century - the rise of republics as a reaction to absolute monarchs and sometimes religious dogma, and growing acceptance of science, reason and free market capitalism; later a degree of social safety net. Liberalism in the 19th century, various periods of the 20th century (different in, say, 1923, 1945, 1967 and 1985), and more recently, is not at all the same. As pointed out, in many countries these political terms differ from the American usage. “Liberal” became a toxic label in the US in certain states decades ago, was and is used pejoratively by republicans… but this was largely an American thing.
Neoliberalism? Something newer than original liberalism, over more than three centuries? That’s a long time. It has had many meanings, the column mentions a few, including that of “corporate Democrats” who currently seek a non-toxic term that includes a number of fairly different factions but identifies their tribe. This column does not do a great job of clarifying the term, in part since it means different things to different people at different times.
I don’t agree “neoliberalism” led to the rise of Trump. People voted for Trump for many reasons - his direct style and social media, the assumption he knows a lot about wealth and business strategy and could apply this to improve things, personality cult, entertainment, shocking the bourgeoisie, pretending to value those feeling excluded, Trump’s alleged attention to single issues of importance to many Americans (guns, religion, the judiciary enacting conservative social and economic policies, foreign policy…), dislike of Hilary Clinton or identity politics, a change from the status quo… but Trump did not have a coherent, fixed position on too many issues. Nor is it true Trump accomplished nothing. But Trump’s NAFTA looked like the old one, for all the rancour and fireworks giving more heat than light.
Biden’s immigrant policies and talk of American protectionism do not look light years different from Trump’s. Biden is a corporate Democrat in a fairly familiar form. Hardly the polar opposite of neoliberalism. Most voters are more mainstream than attention-seeking political pundits. They want social services (at least for themselves), want sufficient law and order for protection and to have faith someone has their back, want to receive “their fair share” but don’t think this has yet happened, to the benefit of their political adversaries.
I certainly don’t believe America, with its flourishes and flaws, is remotely a failed state. How would one then characterize countries with much more tenable claims to being unable to provide basic government services? I don’t think Haque’s characterization of Conservatism is helpful or accurate. Of course, definitions of Conservatism have also changed over more than three centuries and from place to place.
But for clarity, let us stick to the given guidelines, where neoliberalism is generally associated with policies of economic liberalization, including privatization, deregulation, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending. What Sanders would call “corporate democrats”. But business interests have been influential in every major political party, especially in the US. Economic fashions come and go, currently both parties want to spend too freely while paying lip service to austerity. Protectionism goes in and out of fashion; parties want to win elections and will point fingers when things could be going better.
No electable American politician seriously questions the basis of the capitalist system - Sanders is a millionaire too. Degrees of privatization, tax and environmental protection might differ. Not really by that much. Biden allowed Alaskan oil development because he thought it was economically and politically pragmatic. It does not amount to a sea-change in terms of deregulation or business policy. But it is where most of the votes are, even if many Democrats are unenthusiastic about corporations and might disagree with that decision. When the Republicans use the term “neoliberal”, they simply mean “Liberals” to other them from their perceived political tribe. Yet it is the Conservatives who are complaining most loudly about, say, Silicon Valley. The traditional intellectual basis of libertarianism or classic or compassionate Conservativism - and there is a basis - can sometimes be hard to identify in the newer party.
Anger and perpetual dissatisfaction by itself is not really a political position. One assumes most prefer democracy to anarchy and realize the enormous wealth, position and prestige America generally enjoys, and particularly its curmudgeonly elites, are really the result of compromise, pragmatic law, innovative business, widespread education and sensible traditions. Sure, many legal and health care reforms are needed. But those complaining most loudly might not actually be better off if their wishes were granted. It is not worth paving paradise to put up a parking lot.