Neo-liberalism & Neo-Conservatism?

Watch
RealLifeJoker
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
What’s the different between neo-liberals and liberals? Is neo-liberalism more right wing term, is it another word for classical liberals?

Same question for neo-conservatives & conservatives?
0
reply
Tr0ubl3123
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
have a look at Graham Brights book on youth and policy he has a full chapter regarding neo-libralism in simplistic terms
2
reply
MajorFader
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Neo-liberals are a sub strand of Conservatism which could be argued that they are the opposite of traditional conservatives.
1
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by AnxiousAtypical)
What’s the different between neo-liberals and liberals? Is neo-liberalism more right wing term, is it another word for classical liberals?

Same question for neo-conservatives & conservatives?
Liberals, in the ordinary sense of the term (not the American sense, in which it means progressive/left-wing), are people who are 'classical liberals'. Generally believe in free markets, low taxes, trying to keep the government out of the way of business and the individual. It purports to maximise individual freedom. That is, of course, a contested issue; how free are you if you die for lack of healthcare? But that is the general gist.

This political mentality started to develop in the 18th and 19th centuries, economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and it was essentially the ideology of the ruling class of America, of the British Empire, etc. However, after the Great Depression (1930s) and World War 2 (1940s), a general consensus was reached among the political class (the 'postwar consensus') that things had to change, that pure liberalism perpetuated inequality. So we saw American politicians like Roosevelt in the 30s and 40s who created the 'New Deal' (invested government money in creating jobs), regulated the markets more tightly, cracked down on cartels, created 'Social Security' (old age pensions).

In this country, we saw that from 1945 with the Labour government. And even after the conservatives got back into power, in 1952 in both America and Britain, they essentially retained the quite left-wing governing style that had become the norm. So even under the Republican President Eisenhower in the 1950s in the US, they had like 90% tax rates for super high earners, and that was considered sort-of normal. High levels of regulation of the economy was considered normal. Even the right-wing believed it was very important to work with trade unions, and industry, in order to have a harmonious society and an economy that worked for everyone. While that era wasn't perfect, it was when ordinary working people in the west saw the greatest gains in living standards (i.e. it was really easy to buy a house, a husband could support his whole family on his salary as a factory worker without the wife needing to work, that sort of thing).

This all changed in the 1970s. A group of conservative 'Young Turks' (i.e. those pushing for change) in both countries started to try to overturn the cosy and comfortable 'postwar consensus'. They believed that many conservatives had too paternalistic an attitude, almost like the 'noblesse oblige' of the old aristocracy; "We have an obligation to look after the less fortunate", that sort of thing. Milton Friedman was the icon of these politicians who wanted to return to the liberal, free-market principles of old. Hence, they were the "neo-liberals". Margaret Thatcher was one, Ronald Reagan was another. But neoliberalism went beyond the left-right divide, in Australia and New Zealand the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s (privatisation of state-owned companies, cutting regulations of the financial markets, in the case of Australia, "floating the dollar", i.e. making the AUD a free-floating currency rather than having an official exchange rate).

To some degree, the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s were carried out almost everywhere to lesser and greater degrees. By 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and even Russia carried out neoliberal reforms of privatisation. There's no question that there have been some benefits to these reforms, but 30 years on, we can also see the downsides. The relative power and wealth of ordinary people has declined, it's much harder to buy a house, while there has been an explosion of wealth in the very richest.

Back in the 1970s, it was not unusual for a CEO to earn maybe 15 or 20 times the salary of the ordinary man working on the "shop floor". These days it's more like 500 times. There's no question there's been an increase in inequality. This has also accompanied big declines in trade union membership.

So there you have it, my admittedly flawed but (I feel) generally accurate summation of how liberals differ from neo-liberals. Now, the neo-conservatives were a different thing altogether, they were a group of American politicians, scholars and ideologists who believed that the US had become weak in the face of Soviet aggression in the 1970s, and proposed massive increases in defence spending. After the end of the Cold War, they advanced the notion that military intervention is justified to secure democratic, human rights and security objectives. This is quite different from old conservatives in the US, like old Senator Taft of the 1950s, who was strongly against foreign interventions. The libertarian wing of the Republicans also tend to be quite anti-intervention.
3
reply
RealLifeJoker
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Liberals, in the ordinary sense of the term (not the American sense, in which it means progressive/left-wing), are people who are 'classical liberals'. Generally believe in free markets, low taxes, trying to keep the government out of the way of business and the individual. It purports to maximise individual freedom. That is, of course, a contested issue; how free are you if you die for lack of healthcare? But that is the general gist.

This political mentality started to develop in the 18th and 19th centuries, economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and it was essentially the ideology of the ruling class of America, of the British Empire, etc. However, after the Great Depression (1930s) and World War 2 (1940s), a general consensus was reached among the political class (the 'postwar consensus') that things had to change, that pure liberalism perpetuated inequality. So we saw American politicians like Roosevelt in the 30s and 40s who created the 'New Deal' (invested government money in creating jobs), regulated the markets more tightly, cracked down on cartels, created 'Social Security' (old age pensions).

In this country, we saw that from 1945 with the Labour government. And even after the conservatives got back into power, in 1952 in both America and Britain, they essentially retained the quite left-wing governing style that had become the norm. So even under the Republican President Eisenhower in the 1950s in the US, they had like 90% tax rates for super high earners, and that was considered sort-of normal. High levels of regulation of the economy was considered normal. Even the right-wing believed it was very important to work with trade unions, and industry, in order to have a harmonious society and an economy that worked for everyone. While that era wasn't perfect, it was when ordinary working people in the west saw the greatest gains in living standards (i.e. it was really easy to buy a house, a husband could support his whole family on his salary as a factory worker without the wife needing to work, that sort of thing).

This all changed in the 1970s. A group of conservative 'Young Turks' (i.e. those pushing for change) in both countries started to try to overturn the cosy and comfortable 'postwar consensus'. They believed that many conservatives had too paternalistic an attitude, almost like the 'noblesse oblige' of the old aristocracy; "We have an obligation to look after the less fortunate", that sort of thing. Milton Friedman was the icon of these politicians who wanted to return to the liberal, free-market principles of old. Hence, they were the "neo-liberals". Margaret Thatcher was one, Ronald Reagan was another. But neoliberalism went beyond the left-right divide, in Australia and New Zealand the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s (privatisation of state-owned companies, cutting regulations of the financial markets, in the case of Australia, "floating the dollar", i.e. making the AUD a free-floating currency rather than having an official exchange rate).

To some degree, the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s were carried out almost everywhere to lesser and greater degrees. By 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and even Russia carried out neoliberal reforms of privatisation. There's no question that there have been some benefits to these reforms, but 30 years on, we can also see the downsides. The relative power and wealth of ordinary people has declined, it's much harder to buy a house, while there has been an explosion of wealth in the very richest.

Back in the 1970s, it was not unusual for a CEO to earn maybe 15 or 20 times the salary of the ordinary man working on the "shop floor". These days it's more like 500 times. There's no question there's been an increase in inequality. This has also accompanied big declines in trade union membership.

So there you have it, my admittedly flawed but (I feel) generally accurate summation of how liberals differ from neo-liberals. Now, the neo-conservatives were a different thing altogether, they were a group of American politicians, scholars and ideologists who believed that the US had become weak in the face of Soviet aggression in the 1970s, and proposed massive increases in defence spending. After the end of the Cold War, they advanced the notion that military intervention is justified to secure democratic, human rights and security objectives. This is quite different from old conservatives in the US, like old Senator Taft of the 1950s, who was strongly against foreign interventions. The libertarian wing of the Republicans also tend to be quite anti-intervention.
Where do I fit in from your perspective?

I’m Pro: Brexit, Trump, free speech, limited government, LGBT rights, same sex marriage, disability rights, individuality, low taxes, life (unless its incest, rape or pregnant person’s life in danger)

Anti: feminist, Islam, PC, open borders, globalism, war
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
In Britain, 'neo-liberal' isn't really all that useful a term. It seems to be entirely covered by 'liberal', but with some anti-capitalist vitriol thrown in by the sort of people who use it.

That said, as a vaguely centrist liberal and member of the Conservative Party, I do like to use neo-liberal as a term of self-identification to annoy the far left occasionally.
1
reply
sridia
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
I personally consider that the term 'neoliberalism' refers to the time period that it was introduced. In the same way that liberalism only makes sense because it was a liberalisation of the medieval economy, neoliberalism only makes sense because it was a reintroduction of liberalism into mainstream politics.

At the time the main political movements concerned communism and socialism, and the economic policies around at the time weren't so liberal, such as the aftermath of WW2 and its socialism, or the Bretton Woods system of exchanges. So neoliberalism was a reintroduction of liberalism in opposition to socialism/communism rather than medieval Europe.
1
reply
Bossatron
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by AnxiousAtypical)
What’s the different between neo-liberals and liberals? Is neo-liberalism more right wing term, is it another word for classical liberals?

Same question for neo-conservatives & conservatives?
So basically Neo liberalism is the current form of capitalism we live under right now. You know.. the really unfair one where some CEO's have more power than elected officials. In effect it threatens democratic process, especially through lobbying etc. Whether you identify as a socialist, capitalist, liberal, conservative, communist or fascist; Neo liberalism is harmful to both individuals and the planet in its very nature.
0
reply
RealLifeJoker
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Bossatron)
So basically Neo liberalism is the current form of capitalism we live under right now. You know.. the really unfair one where some CEO's have more power than elected officials. In effect it threatens democratic process, especially through lobbying etc. Whether you identify as a socialist, capitalist, liberal, conservative, communist or fascist; Neo liberalism is harmful to both individuals and the planet in its very nature.
Sounds like One Nation Conservatism .Is David Cameron a good example of neo-liberlism. He’s very liberal in social issues but what’s conservative on economics?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should 'Mental health support' be included on league tables?

Yes (196)
75.1%
No (65)
24.9%

Watched Threads

View All