The ACA is not that different from Romneycare or the old Republican HEART bill that was proposed in opposition to Clinton’s attempts at passing universal healthcare. It remains a market-based solution.
The establishment of the CFPB, like the passing of the ACA, was a stripped-down pro-market version of what could have been.
In terms of foreign policy, the Democrats have enthusiastically supported and continued to support the globalisation of capital through such agreements as NAFTA and continued various imperialist adventures (Obama’s use of drones is legendary).
In terms of workers rights, a lot of the bullshit from the Reagan years is still alive and well, unquestioned by the mainstream of either big party (it is frequently said on Lemmy and elsewhere that nearly everything wrong with modern America can be traced back to Reagan). Antitrust measures remain largely unenforced.
Stuff like this is well within the preview of other neoliberal parties like Fianna Fail/Fine Gael or the CDU. They too have limited market-based “solutions” to social problems. Just tax carbon emissions and the market will fix climate change. Stimulate more housebuilding and homelessness will be solved. This pattern continues.
Only during Biden’s term was there some deviation from the old formula, in the form of stimulus checks and more investment in infrastructure, along with some support of trade unions. These were good steps in a shift towards the social-liberal wing of the party. Kamala leaned into this early in the campaign but then towards the end she decided it was better to get the endorsement of people like Dick Cheney.
The matter is simple.
Yes or no: are they for market regulation & intervention?
Yes.
Therefore, they’re not neoliberal.
You can hue & cry all you want, but words mean things.
If you want a word that means not anti-market, then find that word.
Neoliberal isn’t it.
Your criticisms of those social programs & market regulations only amount to claiming they don’t go far enough even though they definitely are market regulations & interventions.
If they weren’t social programs & market regulations, then the Republicans wouldn’t have anything to cut & deregulate as they are doing: the current administration is rescinding consumer & labor protections proposed by the previous administration & they’re restricting & defunding major public programs (Medicaid, SNAP, medical research, public health programs, national weather service, public broadcasting).
While you seem to take these programs & regulations for granted, treat them like nothing, & act like they weren’t a significant undertaking that could only barely scrape through our political obstacle course, they make a significant difference in people’s lives.
What Republicans offer with their senseless trade war & cuts isn’t protections to the working class, but the illusion of protections to some domestic businesses while exploiting other domestic businesses (reliant on international trade), labor (losing protections from defunded regulatory agencies & programs), consumers (shafted with consumer protection losses, tariff costs, less affordable goods & services) & while transferring income from the poor to the rich.
Calling market regulation & social programs neoliberal indicates you don’t know the meaning of words.
Market intervention & regulation isn’t free, unregulated market, ie, neoliberalism.
Any policy in support of a mixed economy with regulated markets suffices to not be neoliberal.
Comrade, the only people who are for complete nonintervention are right-“libertarians”.
To call the Democratic ideal a mixed market is kinda wild. Nearly everything that could be privatized already is, besides perhaps the post office.
I will not pretend that the current programs are not significant or that cutting them will not kill people. But the fact of the matter is that it’s peanuts compared to the social-democracy that reigned in Western Europe for most of the Cold War or even the social-liberalism of the pre-Reagan US.
I am not sure what your talk of the Republicans has to do with this. I am certain they’re not really neolibs though. They’re fascists, or close to it.
You can’t have your cake & eat it too.
This is simple logic.
You’re talking about differences in degree the words do not imply.
You’re confusing mixed market with rejection of markets & muddling words.
You don’t have to agree with their policies to understand they don’t fit the definition.
Definitions don’t imply your approval/disapproval.
If they are for unregulated, free markets, then they are absolutely neoliberal.
If they are not for that (eg, they’re for regulated markets & public services), then they are not neoliberal.
Unless you can refute a definition, you’re just fighting logic (in vain).
The ACA is not that different from Romneycare or the old Republican HEART bill that was proposed in opposition to Clinton’s attempts at passing universal healthcare. It remains a market-based solution.
The establishment of the CFPB, like the passing of the ACA, was a stripped-down pro-market version of what could have been.
In terms of foreign policy, the Democrats have enthusiastically supported and continued to support the globalisation of capital through such agreements as NAFTA and continued various imperialist adventures (Obama’s use of drones is legendary).
In terms of workers rights, a lot of the bullshit from the Reagan years is still alive and well, unquestioned by the mainstream of either big party (it is frequently said on Lemmy and elsewhere that nearly everything wrong with modern America can be traced back to Reagan). Antitrust measures remain largely unenforced.
Stuff like this is well within the preview of other neoliberal parties like Fianna Fail/Fine Gael or the CDU. They too have limited market-based “solutions” to social problems. Just tax carbon emissions and the market will fix climate change. Stimulate more housebuilding and homelessness will be solved. This pattern continues.
Only during Biden’s term was there some deviation from the old formula, in the form of stimulus checks and more investment in infrastructure, along with some support of trade unions. These were good steps in a shift towards the social-liberal wing of the party. Kamala leaned into this early in the campaign but then towards the end she decided it was better to get the endorsement of people like Dick Cheney.
The matter is simple. Yes or no: are they for market regulation & intervention? Yes. Therefore, they’re not neoliberal.
You can hue & cry all you want, but words mean things. If you want a word that means not anti-market, then find that word. Neoliberal isn’t it.
Your criticisms of those social programs & market regulations only amount to claiming they don’t go far enough even though they definitely are market regulations & interventions. If they weren’t social programs & market regulations, then the Republicans wouldn’t have anything to cut & deregulate as they are doing: the current administration is rescinding consumer & labor protections proposed by the previous administration & they’re restricting & defunding major public programs (Medicaid, SNAP, medical research, public health programs, national weather service, public broadcasting). While you seem to take these programs & regulations for granted, treat them like nothing, & act like they weren’t a significant undertaking that could only barely scrape through our political obstacle course, they make a significant difference in people’s lives.
What Republicans offer with their senseless trade war & cuts isn’t protections to the working class, but the illusion of protections to some domestic businesses while exploiting other domestic businesses (reliant on international trade), labor (losing protections from defunded regulatory agencies & programs), consumers (shafted with consumer protection losses, tariff costs, less affordable goods & services) & while transferring income from the poor to the rich.
Calling market regulation & social programs neoliberal indicates you don’t know the meaning of words. Market intervention & regulation isn’t free, unregulated market, ie, neoliberalism. Any policy in support of a mixed economy with regulated markets suffices to not be neoliberal.
Comrade, the only people who are for complete nonintervention are right-“libertarians”.
To call the Democratic ideal a mixed market is kinda wild. Nearly everything that could be privatized already is, besides perhaps the post office.
I will not pretend that the current programs are not significant or that cutting them will not kill people. But the fact of the matter is that it’s peanuts compared to the social-democracy that reigned in Western Europe for most of the Cold War or even the social-liberalism of the pre-Reagan US.
I am not sure what your talk of the Republicans has to do with this. I am certain they’re not really neolibs though. They’re fascists, or close to it.
You can’t have your cake & eat it too. This is simple logic.
You’re talking about differences in degree the words do not imply. You’re confusing mixed market with rejection of markets & muddling words.
You don’t have to agree with their policies to understand they don’t fit the definition. Definitions don’t imply your approval/disapproval.
If they are for unregulated, free markets, then they are absolutely neoliberal. If they are not for that (eg, they’re for regulated markets & public services), then they are not neoliberal.
Unless you can refute a definition, you’re just fighting logic (in vain).
Even Reagan left some regulations be.