As long as I’ve been alive, they’ve been saying how they want “free market” and “deregulation”. This isn’t really surprising to me. They want zero rules for corporations.
And what’s doubly ironic is they’re INCREDIBLY selective about what they want free market for. Abolish restrictive zoning, parking minimums, and other arbitrary deed restrictions to allow literally anything but suburban sprawl and help alleviate the housing crisis? Nope, the GOP is all about government-mandated sprawl for all! Eliminating child labor laws? Hell yeah, GOP is all about that free market with zero government mandates at all, baby!
It’s so blatantly obvious their whole schtick is just pure, unabashed selfishness. Keep burdensome land use regulations because it inflates their property values (which is profitable to existing landlords and speculators), but reject child labor laws so you can hire cheaper labor.
It’d be one thing if they actually tried to be consistent in support of the free market, but they don’t even try to. As in many things, the GOP has no principles besides profit.
Yeah. If we are talking about the constituents though, it’s funny because they’re actually trying to be selfish but actually most of them hurt themselves too. it’s worth it to them if they hurt enough other people though. A very strange psychology
Definitely. It’s selfish but in a short-sighted, stupid way. Turns out housing crises are catastrophic for the economy in the long term, and all their selfish policies to jack up the value of their properties has resulted in decades of stagnation and everything (including labor for their precious businesses!) getting so dang expensive.
Likewise, not tackling the climate crisis is going to be devastating for the economy long-term. Basically all economists agree that we need immediate, drastic climate action, else we’ll pay the price 10 times over.
And yet Republicans consistently choose the options that cost them dearly long-term.
The “save the children” crowd is awfully keen to let their children and descendants bear the consequences of their decisions…
“Climate change won’t cost me long term.” It’s still selfishness. Fooled them: climate change effects are coming decades earlier than they should have
Some of that is “starving people will take crumbs and scraps over death” but unfortunately, some of it is “people who hit their family also vote and it turns out they like abusing and controlling those people too”.
they’re INCREDIBLY selective about what they want free market for. Abolish restrictive zoning, parking minimums, and other arbitrary deed restrictions to allow literally anything but suburban sprawl and help alleviate the housing crisis? Nope, the GOP is all about government-mandated sprawl for all!
It’s amazing how many people are so deep into the status-quo that they genuinely don’t realize how much those regulations have shaped everything, instead deluding themselves to think car-dependent single-family hegemony is somehow the “natural” result of the “free market.”
And what’s doubly ironic is they’re INCREDIBLY selective about what they want free market for.
It’s because neoliberals don’t genuinely believe in neoliberalism. If it actually worked as promised even half the time, they’d openly oppose it because they get rich off it’s failure, not it’s success.
It’s just a book of excuses that sound plausible to the average person and keeps their messaging consistent without needing secret, leakable, probably illegal meetings to discuss corporate collusion and managed democracy.
As far as neoliberals are concerned, the only immoral act is standing in the way of profits.
So slice by slice, they pared a wage that would have once been enough to buy a family home into a wage that barely lasts to the next one.
They pocketed the difference, but it still wasn’t enough.
So they moved the jobs overseas where they could pay people even less, happily working with brutal authoritarian regimes.
They pocketed the difference, but it still wasn’t enough.
So they drew in “illegals”, exploiting their vulnerability like an abusive partner so they could pay them below minimum wage.
They pocketed the difference, but it still wasn’t enough.
So now they want to use children, so they can exploit people who are even more vulnerable by paying them even less money.
They’ll pocket the difference and it still won’t be enough.
So they’ll start eyeing up slavery, astro-turfing for fascists so they can pay their workers in bread and water.
And with nothing left to take from them, it still won’t be enough.
But the dirty secret is that this isn’t cutting edge of exploitation, this is the middle of the road.
The trailblazers are already there and have been for a decade. Nestlé uses child slaves, distant and brown enough to be swept under the rug. Walmart and Wendy’s use prison labor, paying less than a dollar an hour.
The claims of “the free market will solve it” were bullshit. For-profit media companies don’t cover it because the unspoken rule is that you can push and shove for market share but you never, ever attack neoliberalism itself.
But even if we do hear of it, it won’t do us any good. Ethically produced goods are a luxury that few people can afford because their first move was suppressing wages.
Need a kitchen knife? A good one that will last forever is $300 dollars you don’t have. A slave made one that will be landfill in a year is $3 that you do have. Two years from now the ethical company will be buried beside it for refusing to play the game.
Regulations did (and still could) solve it, so they groomed their own children for politics, capturing both sides of the aisle and building an illusion of choice, letting us decide if we want to be slammed into a wall at 100mph in a red car or 98mph in a blue one.
But it’s also the only way back out of this hole, so vote better I guess. Progressive politicians are the only solution and if you can’t find one, as disgusting as they might have made the job, you might have to become one.
Does “neoliberal” mean conservative?
I found this to be well written https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-neoliberalism-definition-and-examples-5072548
Neoliberal economic policies stress two fundamentals of capitalism: deregulation—the removal of government control over industry—and privatization—the transfer of ownership, property, or business from the government to the private sector.
Later on also says globalization.
Ok so yeah, basically. Neoliberalism is what conservatives are in favor of.
Unfortunately, not really.
Whatever country you’re in, the right-wing (or center-right if you’ve got fascists) tend to be a bit more shameless and psychopathic with their neoliberalism.
So tax cuts for the rich, deregulation until disaster, cut social services but keep letting your friends and donors overcharge tenfold for government contracts, hand them monopolies by privatising critical services then line their pockets further by letting them demand ransom payments on top, open hostility towards unions, that kind of stuff.
This is the Reagan and Thatcher way, they’ve just learned to never use the word “neoliberalism” in public because if people don’t know the word, they can’t find the studies that show it never actually works.
But unfortunately, in most wealthy countries, the left-wing parties are doing the same thing, just slower and with a well practised frown.
They’ll still give tax breaks to the rich, but they’ll throw in some crumbs for the middle class. They won’t read their climate policy directly from an oil company email, but they’ll still prioritise millions of dollars over millions of lives.
Often, they work as a holding pattern. They pick a small number of social issues that won’t touch the rich and work on those. Things like gay marriage, legal weed and helping the native people who weren’t genocided. Some infrastructure here and there (which still lines the pockets of friends and donors, but we actually get something back in return).
But they won’t actually undo any of the previous neoliberalism. They won’t nationalise critical infrastructure or significantly expand social services (for example, expanding universal healthcare to cover dental). They’ll keep most of the previous budget cuts, maybe undoing half of one here and there as part of the “pretending to be two different parties” pantomime.
There will be genuine progressives among them (much like fascists in the conservatives) but they never weild real power, always being outnumbered by faceless neoliberals at all times. But they’re basically PR, making the party look more (or less) progressive than it really is and serving as a litmus test for “how many crumbs will it take to keep us from the guillotine”.
One of the most high profile examples of this was Bernie Sanders, a genuine progressive that had a genuine shot at the presidency and once there, might make actual changes.
So left-wing politicians, right-wing politicians, left-wing for-profit media empires, right-wing for-profit media empires, progressive business leaders and conservative business leaders all joined together to undermine and attack him in an act of class solidarity that socialists and communists can only dream of.
Instead we got Hillary who offered crumbs or Trump who offered racism. Now we have Biden, offering slightly larger crumbs than expected because polling showed that “eat the rich” was gaining momentum.
Which is probably more than you ever cared to know about neoliberalism (and definitely more than I care to edit), but it’s important to identify it and challenge it.
With social media astro-turfing now being the most effective way to win an election and AI poised to be the most effective propaganda/mind-control tool ever created, we have a very small window to end this “endless financial growth forever” insanity before it kills hundreds of millions of people.
Cogent and thoughtful post. Well done.
This is also the reason that immigrants became “illegal”. If they are legal you have to pay them a real wage/benefits/pay taxes for them. If you make them “illegal” you can have very cheap labor (slaves) that can’t rat you out or they are deported. They also only give corporations a slap on the wrist when they “had no idea they were illegal”. Then the corp just replaces them with “new hires” who are totally “NOT illegal” and starts the process all over until the next time.
“Illegal” immigrants also pay billions in taxes every year while receiving no benefits provided to US citizens with a Social Security number.
"Are my wages illegal?“ “No, it’s the workers who are wrong”
Some of their policies now are just things they’ve always been in support of, but they’re saying it outloud now.
Yup. Who would’ve thought the party that’s been very much pro-corporate business and has been bribed - sorry, “supporting business lobbyists” - would become the party that supports things that help businesses, like abortion bans and child labor law regressions?
deleted by creator
I was watching them argue that orphans should work for their room and board 30 years ago.
This is not new.
Who else is going to pay their orphanage bills?!?!
Just read the Mormons have some cash laying around. Maybe tax that a bit?
deleted by creator
Technically, the first Republican President was the one to end slavery, so I wouldn’t go that far.
But they’ve obviously changed a great deal since those days, and modern Republicans wouldn’t have been in of the party of Lincoln.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
personal wealth. They’re against Anything to enrich society or build a prosperous future.
I mean, we’d all prefer more money but how can you ignore the gaps, issues, the people not benefitting or even falling out of society? How can you ignore the long term consequences of your actions? How can you look at yourself in the mirror and be ok with that wealth coming from people’s suffering or stealing fron the future?
When the Libertarians did the same thing and thus the Republicans stole their talking points and what not and used them to prop up business interest. :)
Libertarians are Republicans that don’t like being called racist. Honestly, some of the dumbest people I’ve ever spoken to. One tried explaining to me how a world with no taxes would work. I was like even nations that hadn’t invented written language had taxes. But no dude was like, “privatization would save money and be more efficient!”
Some of them (including, notably, the American “Libertarian Party”) are that, yes. However, little-L “libertarian” just means “the opposite of authoritarian,” and includes leftist folks like anarcho-syndicalists and commune-dwelling hippies too.
The difference is Libertarians are supposedly pro-choice and support decriminalization of drugs. Conservatives end up on the wrong side of that conflict too.
Libertarians are just Republicans that wanna get high and feel superior.
I think often libertarianism is just for really stupid people who are under the impression they’re really smart. They just found a way to plagiarise other people’s explanation “so I’m actually not a huge asshole, see there’s this super-smart principle that protects me from criticism to that effect”
Naive. I’ve known many otherwise smart people who see Libertarian (briefly), and yes, me too. It usually cures itself when people realize what a dumbass they’re being
Libertarianism is like Communism: it seems like a view of an ideal world …. Until you realize how far from reality it is. Until you realize you may have started with a good premise, but took it way too far. Until you actually experience reality
They just wish everyone was a bit more despicable in general. Name something that will hurt somebody, they’re all for it. As long as you don’t encroach on their, “freedums.” Which are surprisingly few the closer you look at the party as a whole. Sure there is a guilding of 1%'s who are safe behind walls of money but once you get through them… trailer trash.
deleted by creator
“Become”
deleted by creator
They haven’t cared that children are gunned down at school. At least this way they pay their way. Freeloaders!
I had to make it.
Literally always were.
Always were.
like the 1700s?
The GOP didn’t exist in the 1700’s…
Eh, the two party system has direct ancestry to the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists. You can argue the specific ancestry since then but it’s indisputable that the Democrats have direct organizational ancestry from the Democratic-Republicans, and the same can be said of the Republican party being formed from the ashes of the Whigs, who had also been formed from said Democratic-Republicans. Which honestly should have been more predictable, that the Democratic-Republicans would eventually split into the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
Practically a law of history, tbh.
Of course, the Republicans of the 1850s were formed as an anti-slavery party, so things change and getting worked up over old party positions is foolish.
labels change with time, people generally dont.
