THE "NEO-LIB" LABEL

Understanding and opposing “neoliberalism” is one thing, valid and urgent. However, using “neo-liberal” as an epithet against a wide range of individuals is quite another, indiscriminate and divisive.

“Neo-liberalism” is probably the most widely used term for the economic philosophy of so-called “free market” capitalism in this age of full-blown “globalization”. The concept posits that human freedom depends on freedom for international business enterprise (corporations). That’s akin to the US Supreme Court ruling that “freedom of speech” requires that corporations be allowed to buy our elections as though they were individuals exercising our 1^st Amendment rights. The reality is obviously different: as “free market” imperialism reigns and economic inequality defies any limits, freedom and democracy are diminished and severely threatened aroud the world, notably in our own United States.

Most liberals, almost all, would not conceive of corporate privilege (“free” unregulated markets) as the cornerstone of democracy and human rights. Yet many, perhaps most, might not share a leftist analysis of  “neo-liberalism” and the capitalist system.

It has become all to common on the Left to use “neo-liberal” as an epithet to label and dismiss individual liberals and progressives of varying outlooks. The label has been thrown at Ta-Nehisi Coates, whose brilliant writing  and insights on racism as related to the Obama and Trump presidencies leave room for much thoughtful discussion and debate. The same epithet has been applied to Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, even Bernie Sanders, Rachel Maddow and to all Democratic Party representatives from John Lewis to Nancy Pelosi.

Certainly the influence of neoliberalism has a powerful impact on our political system and both major parties. The problem with applying the label indiscriminately to personalities is that it obscures some very important distinctions among political figures. It substitutes for serious evaluation of complex and contradictory tendencies that distinguish a particular individual and his or her role. It paints with the same brush many serious resisters to incipient fascism and the likes of Donald Trump and Paul Ryan, chief proponents of the most extreme policies of neoliberal dog-eat-dog capitalism. It invites antagonism and inhibits serious exchange of views among all of us now engaged in the fight of our lives to stop fascism and descent into the ultimate World War.

The course of our times has not proven any of us so righteous that we can afford immodest restraints on listening to each other. Understanding neoliberalism should contribute to greater awareness of capitalism’s dire prospects for life on our planet. Popular support for the message of Sanders here and Corbyn in Britain, challenging the “billionaire class” head-on, is a source of serious hope for turning things around.

But flinging around  the “neoliberal” epithet can divide and distract from what has to be done.