Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JHB

(37,158 posts)
53. Consider when it began, in the 1970s...
Sun May 28, 2017, 06:46 PM
May 2017

Inflation was high, foreign competition was on the rise, computerization was beginning to have real impact on traditional trades (e.g., typesetting), etc. The New Deal framework had become creaky in places and clearly needed updating. The framework needed some modernizing, and to portions of the Democratic establishment, some degree of deregulation and privatization seemed like a more flexible structure.

Add to that the fact that relations with unions had become strained, over the Vietnam War and other things, and they were a major source of resistance about changing things.

There was also a geopolitical aspect: the economy of most ex-colony nations was resource extraction, in which most of he population was poor peasants ripe for revolutions the Soviets were happy to encourage. If they had some form of industry and a middle class dependent on it, there would be more internal stability and less volatility. Or at least, so the thinking went.

Then also consider the Democratic Party's internal structure and how it was evolving at the time. Coming off the blow-out of McGovern by Nixon, dealing with the New Left who attacked the Democratic establishment for its role in supporting the war in Vietnam, demographic shifts away from traditional centers of Democratic power, changes to the primary system to get away from the "men in a smoke-filled room" method of selecting candidates (or perception thereof), the rise of television advertising, etc.

Heap on top of that changes to what was allowed in terms of campaign financing, both from new laws and court decisions.

Those began a shift toward a more open method of choosing candidates than had been the case, with TV advertising and exposure rising in importance. Politics has always been a money game, but TV ads added rocket boosters to it, and that means more backing from wealthier donors, most of whom are ok with neoliberal changes that improve returns on their portfolio.

Enter 1980, when fifteen years of conservative efforts to pry apart the Democratic coalition come into full flower with the "Reagan Democrats" who give Reagan a blow-out win.

To avoid droning on even further, suffice to say that the intellectual climate, political math, incentives, and disincentives for charting a more "pro-business" neoliberal path outweighed the comparable factors arguing not to do so.

If Trump and his Russian masters hadn't stolen the election, Hillary Clinton would be president now. 50 Shades Of Blue May 2017 #1
That has nothing to do with the point being made. Chasstev365 May 2017 #3
Don't you condescend to me. It has everything to do with it AFAIC. 50 Shades Of Blue May 2017 #4
The headline wrongly attributes the loss to anything but the "cultural anxiety" the GOP and Trump bettyellen May 2017 #6
Trump ran on privatization, deregulation and that's exactly what he's doing. emulatorloo May 2017 #8
these are career types JI7 May 2017 #25
I think that column entirely misrepresents Clinton's position. NT Adrahil May 2017 #2
Yes. Better question is why binary-thinking folk call everyone they disagree with a 'neoliberal' emulatorloo May 2017 #5
I think Naomi Klein has it mostly right nbsmom May 2017 #10
THAT Hillary was always there. She showed up years ago. mhw May 2017 #14
Exactly ismnotwasm May 2017 #18
THAT Hillary was there all along. Now that she's not ambitious it scares you less and you're more bettyellen May 2017 #26
"What do Dems stand for, really?" That is bullshit. Maybe Klein should pull her head out of her still_one May 2017 #33
That Hillary was always there, but the media found it more fun to cover DT. pnwmom May 2017 #82
+1 betsuni May 2017 #85
It's an opinion piece, not God's honest truth. emulatorloo May 2017 #7
Chump is governing as a neo-liberal and the Deplorables still adore him !!! DemocratSinceBirth May 2017 #9
So true. NT Adrahil May 2017 #24
and the Hillary hater's like Kline and Greenwald, continue to spew falsehoods and distortions about still_one May 2017 #34
What a pantload ..keep that Dem Party divided Naomi! Fascism thanks you. mhw May 2017 #11
Klein wrote this in November. I have not idea why it is posted today. Demsrule86 May 2017 #52
Because fracturing the Party of the people is still in force. mhw May 2017 #59
Yes and we she consider the motives of folks who post this stuff. Demsrule86 May 2017 #76
Exactly. What's the motive behind dividing the Democratic Party? mhw May 2017 #77
Not just November, but the week of the election SharonClark May 2017 #62
One can only hope...I truly despise spoiled entitled people like her. Demsrule86 May 2017 #75
What a joke. This is an insanely stupid gibberish. In the meantime, we are stuck R B Garr May 2017 #12
And they call Louise & Claude opportunists? Wow. mhw May 2017 #16
Author of a book called "The Shock Doctrine " nbsmom May 2017 #21
Good book, well received. emulatorloo May 2017 #28
Much of the "populist Left", including her forjusticethunders May 2017 #84
Yes, only five months of Trump, and this is all they can come up with?? It's R B Garr May 2017 #22
Seeing how you've been on this site for 5 minutes? nbsmom May 2017 #23
No offense but he's only got 200 posts less than you. emulatorloo May 2017 #29
All that proves is that the poster has time nbsmom May 2017 #41
It's typical for people like Klein. wyldwolf May 2017 #32
And those like Klein who do all they can to assist the Repubs in dividing & destroying the Dems mhw May 2017 #36
To win loyalsister May 2017 #13
Exactly. Republicans were rewarded for their egregious behavior nbsmom May 2017 #17
Some Dems choose not to counter the rigged economy once they get into office. OrwellwasRight May 2017 #61
Basically yes. Kentonio May 2017 #19
Friendly FYI, you're misusing the term 'new left.' wyldwolf May 2017 #27
Thanks, I should be more careful with my terminology. Kentonio May 2017 #31
Yes WellDarn May 2017 #58
Neoliberalism will net you neonothing. democratisphere May 2017 #15
What I think Naomi was talking about nbsmom May 2017 #20
Which is why... wyldwolf May 2017 #30
This is nonsense mcar May 2017 #35
Its nothing more than a hit piece on the Dem Party. mhw May 2017 #37
Thanks for nothing Naomi Klein. LenaBaby61 May 2017 #63
Righteous rant LenaBaby61. Thank you. mhw May 2017 #73
Naomi Klein is a meanie. QC May 2017 #65
Great article. LWolf May 2017 #38
Right? Not meant to pile on or litigate nbsmom May 2017 #43
She is a Canadian you know...and people on this board do not disparge Dems... Demsrule86 May 2017 #46
Perhaps those people aren't real into the whole reading books thing. QC May 2017 #66
Neoliberalism/Republican/neoconservative Dem2 May 2017 #39
This is just how dumb Naomi Klein is. Jakes Progress May 2017 #40
This should be an OP- thank you! bettyellen May 2017 #47
Supreme Court Striking Down Voting Rights was a HUGE thing JI7 May 2017 #71
Stop trying to make "neoliberalism" happen. It's not going to happen. betsuni May 2017 #42
That's because Neoliberalism has already happened. nbsmom May 2017 #48
Exactly, it's already happened, past. It is 2017. betsuni May 2017 #83
This is a very old article ....why would you post this...and Democrats do not embrace neoliberalism Demsrule86 May 2017 #44
Ahem...Hillary got 3mil+ more votes. nt justiceischeap May 2017 #45
SHE PROBABLY WON OUTRIGHT. nbsmom May 2017 #50
What many Dems on DU seem to forget is that there are other Dems justiceischeap May 2017 #56
The flaw with neoliberalism as put into practice is that there was no Volaris May 2017 #49
Neoliberalism is Repuke neocon theory 30 years of econ. failure. Greybnk48 May 2017 #51
Doesn't mean that it hasn't been practiced faithfully in the U.S. and elsewhere. nbsmom May 2017 #57
"liberal" means something entirely different in Britain, QC May 2017 #67
Consider when it began, in the 1970s... JHB May 2017 #53
Thanks Dem2 May 2017 #55
Thanks. nbsmom May 2017 #60
I don't believe it's true WellDarn May 2017 #54
Same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks--that's where the money is. QC May 2017 #64
Because Americans got greedy. Dawson Leery May 2017 #68
Neoliberalism seems to be a floating term. Quayblue May 2017 #69
Maybe the same message, without the polarizing labels? nbsmom May 2017 #70
I don't like the term either, but Neoliberalism long predates 2016. QC May 2017 #72
I dunno, why do liberal extremist opinion writers make up bullshit about "neoliberalism"? Foamfollower May 2017 #74
What fucking horseshit jpak May 2017 #78
It was seen as the way to win. alarimer May 2017 #79
Good article, thank you nbsmom May 2017 #80
Hillary isn't a neoliberal. Bill may have been, but that was after pnwmom May 2017 #81
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why have Democrats embrac...»Reply #53