You're not living in reality. But I think this is more you as a Trump voter failing to accept you were conned in plain sight.
I never voted for Donald Trump, sorry. And if anyone was conned, it was those who saw the inevitability/invincibility of Hillary Clinton's brand of tepid neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is an economic theory that has been long defined.
Free market capitalism - - deregulation, privatization of public resources, the dissolution of the welfare state.
That fact that you want to juxtapose it with political progressivism is why you keep having these positions that don't always make sense when trying to label anyone who isn't a progressive as a neoliberal.
Donald Trump is more of a neoliberal than anything Obama pushed.
One key tenet of neoliberalism you're missing is the globalization of capital via free trade, hence the corporatist trade deals that dominate our current economic system. To try and render an understanding of our economic status quo without addressing that aspect leaves one crucially short. Obama is very obviously a neoliberal. That was the political ideology he was formed under, word to Adolph Reed. It's heavily interwoven into his most signature policies. Obamacare is a neoliberal approach to health care due to the primacy of private industry in its ecosystem. Dodd-Frank was a neoliberal approach to financial regulation due to the financial industry helping to write the damn thing, and evidenced by their unabated misbehavior post-implementation. Obama himself doesn't reject this claim and draws a direct economic lineage between Reagan to Bush Sr to Clinton to Bush Jr to his administration.
But if you believe he is not, then I'm curious to hear how you would categorize his ideology. And if not Obama, then who is neoliberal? You say Donald Trump is neoliberal, in spite of his utilization of distinctly non-neoliberal trade tools like tariffs in pursuit of non-neoliberal policies like a trade war with China. I'd like to know who else you think is a neoliberal.
Ergo, 2016 was not a rejection of neoliberalism
See, this right here is exactly why I fight this fight and take the negs instead of just moving on. It is essential for the Democratic Party and voters at large to see neoliberalism as a failed project so we don't repeat the same mistakes that have left America in this gutted, fukked place that is is right now, where right-wing fascism becomes a viable option.
And just as a point of historical accuracy, using your own definition of neoliberalism, Trump didn't strongly run as one. When it came to the biggest issue of the welfare state in that Republican primary, cutting Social Security and privatizing the VA, Trump publically and controversially bucked Republican orthodoxy and refused to endorse SS cuts and point blank said "No." when asked if he wanted to privatize the VA. Yes, deregulation was always a central element of his economic platform, but he viewed corporations as subordinate to the American government (as long as he's in charge, which is evidence of his autocratic narcissism), to the degree he threatened to economically punish them if they used globalized routes to take their capital to other countries in the wake of tax hikes. That is antithetical to neoliberalism.
Trump didn't campaign as a neoliberal, he campaigned as a populist xenophobe. The idea that he won the election by campaigning as just another typical Republican but with some racist makeup plastered on is one of the most dangerous myths in American political discourse. I say that not to give props to Trump - he's a grotesque clown - but to highlight an emerging consensus amongst the general population that the existing neoliberal order has failed and they want something else. If Democrats don't fill that space with progressivism, then Trumpian-Republicans will fill it with neo-fascism. Returning to neoliberalism is fatal.
And I don't label anyone who isn't a progressive a neoliberal. Trump is neither. There are a host of politico-economic ideologies besides progressivism and neoliberalism. The reason I didn't highlight them in my previous post is that they're not particularly relevant to this conversation about Democratic Party. There isn't a meaningfully large contingent of Marxists or Anarcho-primitivists or Libertarians in the Democratic coalition.
This is a hefty Juelz.
He merely point out that the progressive wave isn't so much a rebuke to Obama and Neoliberalism, but instead a launching point for modern progressive politics in this country because they are all building upon many of Obamas key initiatives.
The popularity of Obama and the popularity of Obama, Obamas signature legislation, and the popularity of progressive policies that overlap prove as much.
Yeah and I'm merely pointing out that Chait's argument is a stunningly superficial, idiotic one that totally ignores the entirety of the raft of current political activity/warfare in order to preserve the egos of Democratic elitist who refuse to consider they were
also on the wrong side of history. It's honestly pathetic. None of the Squad are out there begging for Obama's endorsement. Bernie and Liz aren't out there with Obama's name in their mouths 24/7. No progressive is touting his record on anything. His only relevancy is his celebrity, nothing ideological.
When every post before that you wanted a revolution, progressive policies or nothing and moderates who could bridge the divide we’re not good enough
