The EU is being sacrificed because of the bad part of globalization: neoliberalism
Jason Rhode
Paste
Britain has voted to leave the European Union. Why? The good part of globalization, the European Union, is being sacrificed because of the bad part of globalization, neoliberalism. Although noxious racism and xenophobia played a part, they were the symptoms, and not the disease. The EU and the world economy get yoked together in discussion. They shouldn’t be—a peaceful, federal political union of liberal democratic states is not inevitably tied in with an elite web of multinational corporate interests.
Understanding that these are two different systems will explain to us why Brexit happened. What sent it tumbling down wasn’t the racism or xenophobia of English burghers, but the continued indifference of the elite economic order to the suffering of British citizens. If we keep sneering over at marginalized citizens and labeling them as universal bigots – no matter how tempting that might be — we are missing the bigger story, and empowering those who put us in the mess in the first place.
After austerity, Iraq, and insecurity, they didn’t leave the everyday Brit much choice. Bernie Sanders had it right: “What worries me very much about Great Britain leaving the EU is the breaking down of international cooperation. On the other hand, it’s a sign that the global economy is not working for everybody.”
But while racism is an undeniable part of the problem, it does not explain why. Torsten Bell did a breakdown of why the Brexit vote rolled the way it did. He noted that living standards since the early 2000s played a huge part in the loss of faith in British politics: earnings are still well below the point before the crisis. In other words, the recent past can’t explain everything. Bell found there was no relationship between an area’s prosperity in recent history and how they voted. What did correlate was how relative levels of pay mattered for how the public voted. These were chronically depressed area, who felt the impact of history’s hand heavily. Bell wrote:
So it’s not the unequal impact of the recent recession driving voting patterns – or indeed as some argue the impact of migration driving down wages in some areas. Instead, in so far as economics drove voters’ behaviour last night, it is areas that are, and have been for some time, poorer. Or to put it another way, it’s the shape of our long lasting and deeply entrenched national geographical inequality that drove differences in voting patterns. The legacy of increased national inequality in the 1980s, the heavy concentration of those costs in certain areas, and our collective failure to address it has more to say about what happened last night than shorter term considerations from the financial crisis or changed migration flows.
The reason it is safe to label them all as racists is because fixing the injustices of race, gender, and sexual orientation does not threaten the neoliberal economic order.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
zazen
(2,978 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)good about sticking it to the man.
TomCADem
(17,387 posts)Afterall, neo as a prefix means "new." During the Bush era, neocons were known as more conservative or a throwback to right wingers from the Reagan era. Neoliberal should refer to liberal throwbacks from the Lyndon Johnson era.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)Neoliberalism (or sometimes neo-liberalism) is a term which has been used since 1938, but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and '80s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences and critics primarily in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Its advocates avoid the term "neoliberal"; they support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy. The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 as one of the ultimate results.
TomCADem
(17,387 posts)...and neoliberal, then?
If there is no substantial difference, then is neoliberal just used to sound pretentious?
Also, why call unfettered capitalism "new liberalism"? Shouldn't it be called, "Anything, but liberalism"?
Nitram
(22,794 posts)It is used by many liberals the way conservatives used the term liberal during the heyday of right wing talk radio.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)Neoliberalism is a collection of economic ideas and policy proscriptions. If you want a discussion of what conservatism means, at least historically, I would suggest you read The Conservative Mind.
Wikipedia has a Cliff's Notes version:
A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;
A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;
A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.
Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are "unimaginable apart from one another" and that "all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief."
So, as you can see, there is a very specific different between classical conservatism and neoliberalism, but you can extrapolate from the item about "property" and "freedom" to see how a neoliberal trade regime would be appealing to conservatives, but also how the tenants about natural law and order make the movement easily exploitable on nativist and racist lines to reject neoliberal trade policies.
Seriously, read a book. Words have meanings.
TomCADem
(17,387 posts)Maybe you were not trying to, but that came off as both pretentious and opaque in one fell swoop.
Don't you think it is a bit confusing to use the term neoliberal, since as you advocate you have to read and read a lot just to understand the etymology of a word that translates literally to new-liberal.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)I think on a forum where adults who are ostensibly participating to discuss politics can be expected to be up to date on political terms or at least able to look them up.
Complaining about words will not make people stop using them.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)Your definition of conservatism is idiosyncratic, to say the least. The "variety" bit in particular is way off base, as conservatives have always been suspicious and offended by variety of any kind. A better definition: any political philosophy that favors tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change.
Neoliberals supposedly support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy. You will notice that all of these are views strongly held by contemporary conservatives and included in the GOP platform. I would suggest that conservatives do not view these so-called neoliberal ideas as change, but a return to the way things are supposed to be, and once were. Conservatives always long for a Golden Age - in America that golden age is in fact The Gilded Age in which most if not all of the neoliberal beliefs were common practice. Ergo, neoliberalism is just another name for contemporary conservatism.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 2, 2016, 10:28 AM - Edit history (1)
TomCADem
(17,387 posts)Do we call people who are not racist, neo-racists? If I say someone is a neo-alcoholic, does that mean that they are still an alcoholic or not?
Finally, if I have to "read" a whole series of linked articles simply to understand that what the author was actually intending to refer to is essentially a type of libertarian/conservative free market idealogy, has the new buzzword really helped?
I am sure that the use of third way/DLC/neoliberal, etc. type terminology makes folks feel smart and pretentious, and it must be empowering to act in condescending manner towards those folks who ask what do they mean by the use of such terminology.
But, if the goal is to be persuasive, and not try to intimidate or demean folks through the use of the buzzword of the moment, then I would suggest using plain language, rather than the political legaleze of the moment.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)FairWinds
(1,717 posts)Got to admit that the term is confusing for a lot of people.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)And many seem to use the word as a generic term for any ideology or practice they don't like.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)I suspect the term is often used where the term conservative would more appropriately be used instead.
gordianot
(15,237 posts)The idea among some there is a "new" along with a "true". Since Neo liberal is a term commonly used in European discussions it was bound to confuse an American audience used to discussing Neo Cons. I recently saw on this website Neo Radical. Hey using Neo makes you sound intelligent just bother to get a dictionary do some research. The article you site is spot on.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)When someone's knee-jerk, consistent response to disagreement is that the person holding the opposing viewpoint must be a bigot, that tells me 1 of 2 things about that someone:
1) They're intellectually lazy, have no real interest in defending their viewpoint, and may indeed not even truly believe in the viewpoint that they purport to hold. Thus, they're going to do anything they can to avoid actually having to coherently justify their opinions. They see questioning the other person's integrity as the best means to avoiding that.
OR
2) They believe wholeheartedly in their cause, but likely aren't as intelligent as they think they are, and aren't self-aware enough to recognize that fact. Thus they're absolutely TERRIFIED of the prospect of being required to have an actual discussion/debate, and they again see questioning the other person's integrity as the best means to avoiding that.
This is becoming far too common even on DU. I saw a thread the other day accusing a known progressive reporter of being racist for referring to "Mr. Obama and Vice President Biden." Is there a chance that the reporter is actually racist? Extremely unlikely, but sure, anything is possible. Are there also about a million other reasons why the reporter might have said it that way (habit, laziness, actually using "Mr." as a term of respect, etc.)? Yep. But instead, the poster didn't even speculate on any other possibility; they immediately jumped to the conclusion that this reporter must be racist.
