Neoliberals are those who support traditionally left-wing ends through the traditionally libertarian means of minimal intervention into the economy. Those ends include recognizably liberal or progressive ones such as shared prosperity and minimal standards of material security and comfort for all people as actualized in (for example) universal health coverage. Those
Neoliberalism is fundamentally an economic orientation and the term itself typically has little to say about an adherent's views on social or foreign policy. Almost universally, neoliberals are supportive of typically liberal views on social issues, such as gay marriage, but there is no existential reason for this orientation. (The reason arises in part from neoliberalism's former place as a reformist current within conventional American liberalism; neoliberalism is now the dominant orthodoxy among American liberals writ large and controls the Democratic party almost without challenge.) Neoliberals are all over the map in terms of foreign policy, from the generally dovish early neoliberals such as Michael Kinsley and Mickey Kaus to the committed "liberal interventionists" within the Obama administration. Some critics of neoliberalism, such as Marxist geographer David Harvey, believe that an aggressive foreign policy such as that of the contemporary United States is an inevitable aspect of neoliberalism, as the expansion of available labor markets is necessary for the production of cheap material goods that powers the consumption economy.
Though neoliberals advocate for free markets, they are clearly distinguishable from conservatives and libertarians economically. Neoliberals are almost all Keynesian, and prefer a countercyclical economic and fiscal policy that uses central banks and stimulus spending to "prime the pump" of the private sector economy and encourage growth during economic slumps or recession. In this sense, neoliberals tend to see the economy and its cycles as socially conditioned and subject constantly to policy manipulation, as opposed to libertarians, who see the economy as an organic or even spiritual phenomenon that exists independent of the policies and governments that surrond it. This difference makes neoliberals natural foes of austerity measures, which interfaces easily with another major difference with conservatives and libertarians, the push for redistribution. Neoliberals believe that the best, most effective way of eliminating traditional or entrenched inequality is through redistributive social programs. In keeping with their hands-off economic character, their preference is for programs that come with minimal restrictions: food stamps are better than a handout of preselected foods, but cash with which food (or anything else) can be bought is even better. Because of the necessity of paying for these redistributive programs, neoliberals are far more amenable to taxation than conservatives.
While these basic contours define the philosophy, they are inadequate for understanding neoliberalism as a social phenomenon. Critics of neoliberalism frequently complain about the philosophy's tendency to advocate for market solutions to all human problems, for market and economic structures in all human organizations, and for market values as the only values. For example, the neoliberalization of the modern university is lamented because it seeks to impose the logic, methods, and goals of commercial enterprises on institutions that were specifically created for noncommercial ends, namely the creation and dissemination of knowledge. Arguments between neoliberals and leftists are frequently unproductive in part because of a disagreement about whether economic activity is a means or an end, or whether economic growth is necessary and sufficient in the pursuit of solving a particular social program. At an extreme, neoliberalism can involve the elevation of what is typically thought as a means to an end, economic efficiency, to an end of political action itself.
The relationship between the left and neoliberals is typically vexed and unhappy. In part, this is indicative of the fact that arguments are often most personal when they stem from agreement about goals but disagreement about methods. What's more, there are deep, perhaps irresolvable divisions between the two groups. One of the most passionate disagreement involves orientation towards labor, both in terms of labor writ large and organized labor in particular. Leftists such as left liberals, socialists, and Marxists typically describe politics in terms of power, where neoliberals typically describe politics in terms of economics. Traditionally, leftists believe that political progress depends upon the balance of power between corporations and the moneyed on one hand and workers and the poor on the other. Because neoliberals prefer the mechanisms of redistribution and growth through the relatively unfettered process of capitalism, left-wing critics frequently identify a failure on their part to adequately address the power disparity between capital and wage earners. This is particularly acute given the left wing's belief that moneyed interests such as banks and the wealthy have captured the democratic process through economic power.
Traditionally, the left wing in American politics has been the champion of organized labor and union power. Neoliberals tend to run from indifference towards labor unions, seeing them as quaint or past their usefulness, such as with the younger generation of neoliberal pundits like Ezra Klein or Matt Yglesias, to outright resistant to them, such as with Kaus. This lack of support for unionism typically stems from the belief that unions stand in the way of corporate efficiency, which in turn restricts the economic growth that neoliberals believe is the only effective means to improving living standards. A typical dispute between leftists and neoliberals might stem, for example, from a round of heavy layoffs at a prominent company and a union dispute stemming from same. Leftists identify the power disparity between workers and corporation as an impediment to fairness and humanitarian outcomes, and highlight the human costs of so many workers being denied their livelihoods. Neoliberals insist that the efficiency gained from the layoffs will improve the company's productivity and ultimately contribute to economic growth, and that adequate social safety nets can ameliorate the effects of this "creative destruction." (In general, traditional leftists tend to identify individuals in their capacity as workers, neoliberals in their capacity as consumers.) This leads to accusations from leftists of callousness and from neoliberals of opposition to economic growth.
This contributes to the sense in which neoliberals tend to be proceduralists. That is, they have identified the relatively unfettered flow of capitalism, along with the "dynamism" or "disruption" that causes widespread job loss, as the engine of positive social change, and are deeply resistant to interventions that jeopardize that flow. Leftists, in contrast, tend to be more concerned with outcomes, having far less faith that capitalism will eventually produce the bounty that ends suffering. This contributes to the constant fights about regulation between neoliberals and leftists. A typical skirmish involves leftists arguing that a specific example of regulation will prevent unnecessary risk or suffering, with neoliberals arguing that the regulation will ultimately reduce the incentive for economic activity that will have positive effects in growing the economy.
The procedural quality of neoliberal discourse frequently contributes to a kind of meta-disagreement. Leftists are frequently frustrated by neoliberal claims that they do not propose an alternative. Because neoliberalism is the dominant discourse of our economic policy apparatus, stretching back to the Reagan-Thatcher revolution, and because our political media is likewise dominated, thanks to the synthesis between corporatism and neoliberalism, it is easy for neoliberals to see economic political questions as necessarily a matter of achieving a more efficient economy, whether in the macro or micro sense. Leftists, meanwhile, often admit that a particular economic intervention will have a negative impact on efficiency, but that the benefits in human welfare outweigh those costs. This misalignment in perspective is one of the many reasons arguments between the two groups are so frequently angry.
The "there is no alternative" attitude is related to the controversy over the "wonk." Wonks are policy analysts who tend to conduct their analysis and their discussions in a dispassionate way, typically referring to empirical evidence in chart or graph form (though rarely assembling that evidence themselves), and frequently constraining their considerations to the immediately procedural or technical in a way that, critics say, restricts the boundaries of the possible. Wonks do indeed tend to be neoliberal, although this is not universal. Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute is a left liberal wonk, Megan McArdle a libertarian wonk, Reihan Salam a conservative wonk. Another point of tension between leftists and neoliberals stems from the activist tradition within left-wing circles, which privileges political relationships and solidarity in a long-term effort to change philosophical and moral convictions, which stands in direct and frequently ugly tension with the very specific, narrow definition of adult political discourse typical to neoliberals, who have a tendency to reply to less-direct philosophical arguments by asking "what's your policy prescription?"
That social and communicative tension must be accounted for to understand this broad divide. For while both sides can and do articulate very specific and technocratically-oriented disagreements about best practices, the unhappiness of those disagreements are essentially cultural. Neoliberals, with their embrace of capitalism as the best (or least-worst) method for improving human welfare, are natural optimists. Leftists such as socialists tend to practice a kind of defensive pessimism, out of a conviction that optimism can obscure suffering and the continued need for change. The symmetry between neoliberalism's desire for ever-more-efficient economies and the desires of corporate entities fosters mutual suspicion between neoliberals and the fundamentally anti-corporate left. Neoliberalism, owing to its reformist roots, reminds leftists uncomfortably of the tradition of anti-leftist purges within American liberalism, such as in the Truman era or the immediate post-9/11 era. Finally, the tendency of neoliberals to move rightward over time is naturally of concern to leftist critics, evidence in the extreme by Mickey Kaus, who has become functionally identical to a movement conservative. Note, however, that there are rare exceptions, such as Paul Krugman, who has moved markedly to his left after a long career as a standard-issue neoliberal.
Perhaps no issue better illustrates the differences between neoliberals and leftists than education reform. Most neoliberals are deeply antagonistic towards teachers unions, seeing them as a major impediment to the kind of innovation and disruptive practice that leads to improved outcomes. Leftists identify teachers as workers and teacher unions as a legitimate expression of basic rights. Neoliberals view tenure and job security for teachers as a clear barrier to effective change; leftists, as a hard-earned job benefit that raises the standard of living of a large class of poorly-compensated workers. At issue, too, is what mechanisms best create positive change in society, and whether a corporate model can really be applied to all domains of human activity. For left-wing critics of neoliberalism like me, the broad failure of preferred "market-oriented" reforms like charter schools, private school vouchers, or merit pay is indicative of the limitations of applying market solutions to every human problem. Unsurprisingly, this opinion is not shared by most neoliberals.
Is detente between leftists and neoliberals possible? Perhaps. The short-term political exigency of opposing brutal austerity measures and rebuilding the social safety net is certainly an area where leftists and neoliberals can and should work together. What's more, many or most leftists share with neoliberals a desire to remove restrictions on the kind of redistributive payments governments can make to those who need them. "Just give people money" is a rallying cry that can be voiced by both groups. What's more, the socialist left's recent re-embrace of a Universal Basic Income or similar scheme actually synthesizes quite nicely with neoliberal concerns. For those of us who think that market socialism is a likely next stage of human macroeconomy, this is reason for optimism. In the most basic level, the real and deep commitment among most neoliberals towards providing for the worst off and reducing suffering offers a common point of agreement against those who believe that differences in ability and chance will always create some degree of economic pain and necessary suffering.
The longer term is more difficult. Many neoliberals are among the most enthusiastic of capitalists. Meanwhile, many leftists such as myself see the market economy as necessarily producing injustice and undermining democracy through the capture of political structures by capital. Disciplining capital, particularly the investment banks and financial corporations that produce so much instability in the economy and put so many wage-earners at risk, is seen by many leftists as an absolute key element of long-term progress; most neoliberals are decidedly unlikely to participate in that effort. It's an open question whether there is room to rebuild non-economic civic structures and community ties that could reinvigorate our civic responsibility within the neoliberal macroeconomic frame in which we live. Opposing the market-ization of everything will never produce this kind of solidarity. Yet perhaps there's reason for hope. Though I am a skeptic of political salvation through technology, perhaps the capital-biased technological change that we've witnessed will lead necessarily to a redefinition of the human species writ large not as workers but as the beneficiaries of automation that can secure human welfare. While the wonkish journalists might seem far from potential allies, I see someone like Yglesias as amenable enough to a redefinition of human flourishing away from the purely economic that he could be a partner in solidarity, in a new movement towards universal material security and comfort. Perhaps we can all transcend mutual distrust, I don't know. I'm not optimistic.
What I do know, though, is that there is a coherent ideology called neoliberalism, and that any ideology is necessarily a loose collection of fellow travelers with many internal disagreements. Neoliberalism is no different in that regard than conservatism and liberalism. Just as Andrew Sullivan and Jonah Goldberg can meaningfully be called conservative, so can Ezra Klein and Michael Kinsley be called neoliberals comfortably. I don't know why this point is so often disputed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment