If you want to understand modern neoliberalism read the magazine The Economist. It stills believes in classic capitalism, markets, free trade, globalism, and all the other stuff British socially liberal, economically conservative politicians have espoused since the 19th century. The dances their columnists do to persevere with these beliefs are concise, well thought out, and mostly a bewildering contrast to the excellent news articles. Underneath it all, the constant whisper floats from the pages: what is the alternative? Well, what is the alternative? If not capitalism, then what? Communism? Hardly. Socialism? Not likely. Social democracy? Define it.
That’s a far better question than the one that Cecil asked. The reality is that economic policy is political policy is social policy, both during the Cold War and after when America was the only true superpower. (The hysteria you see emanating from Washington is the thought that the Cold War is replaying and that American dominance over the world’s economy, politics, and society is fading.)
The establishment wanted to slot the three into separate silos and think about them in isolation, except when they could control social policy by using the first two. (Exporting American “exceptionalism” proved to be more a social policy than a political one.) The difference between liberal policies and neoliberal policies both in domestic and global settings was always on social policies. Neoliberalism in the U.S. was created by conservatives; the internal battles were more about social issues. That’s how Clinton got dragged in. Globalism was the only possible approach to the end of American economic hegemony; the world’s health depended on it. The advent of cheap labor around the world pulled the plug on the American lake; he could not stop the flow of jobs any more than the legendary Thor could drain the ocean by drinking it. Cheap labor produced cheap goods. The shoppers at Walmart were told ten million times that they were destroying their own jobs. The response was “but it’s cheap.”
Of course resentments followed logically from the top-down failures of militarism and the bottom-up failures of a sensible labor policy. Conservatives stoked those resentments for their own political benefit and are now shocked and horrified that the mob no longer respects the establishment. Lunacy ensues. Neoliberalism did not lead to Trumpism. Conservatism did. Cecil’s analysis does a flailing dance around that reality that makes it unreadable. Get a subscription to the Economist instead. I have one despite everything.