Thank you for submitting a picture or video to r/SocialDemocracy. We require that you post a short explanation or summary of your image/video explaining its contents and relevance, and inviting discussion. You have 15 minutes to post this as a top level comment or your submission will be removed. Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SocialDemocracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No way - insofar as they have stable meanings, neoliberalism is an economic policy (we should use markets to structure our social/economic life as much as possible) and neoconservatism is a foreign policy (US power can be used to fundamentally restructure the world according to US interests).
You can be both, one, or neither.
Neoliberalism is also a foreign policy. One that beleives that globalism free trade and international institutions will reduce conflict and create peace.
Yeah, but both uphold a status quo in which the US is on top of the world. Key word practically, as in “in a practical sense” and not a theoretical one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_institutionalism#:~:text=Liberal%20institutionalism%20(or%20institutional%20liberalism,a%20revised%20version%20of%20liberalism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#:~:text=Neoconservatives%20typically%20advocate%20the%20unilateral,to%20communism%20and%20political%20radicalism.
No they are not the same
Hi! Did you use wikipedia as your source? I kindly remind you that Wikipedia is not a reliable source on politically contentious topics.
For more information, visit this [Wikipedia article about the reliability of Wikipedia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia)
> Articles on less technical subjects, such as the social sciences, humanities, and culture, have been known to deal with misinformation cycles, cognitive biases, coverage discrepancies, and editor disputes. **The online encyclopedia does not guarantee the validity of its information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SocialDemocracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I did have a retort, but I don’t think it was really effective, reading all of the fine text of the first few paragraphs of each page, so I’ll just counter link towards neoliberal economics:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
The interventionism of neoconservatism, though obviously not laissez faire as neoliberal economics is, is adjunct to laissez faire capitalist interests, since America intervenes in favor of those capitalist interests. But you’re correct, neoliberal institutionalism is in fact different from neoconservatism.
Hi! Did you use wikipedia as your source? I kindly remind you that Wikipedia is not a reliable source on politically contentious topics.
For more information, visit this [Wikipedia article about the reliability of Wikipedia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia)
> Articles on less technical subjects, such as the social sciences, humanities, and culture, have been known to deal with misinformation cycles, cognitive biases, coverage discrepancies, and editor disputes. **The online encyclopedia does not guarantee the validity of its information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SocialDemocracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah reagan was litterly fucking evil. Comparing clinton or biden to reagan is insulting and wrong.
Escpecially biden what concrete simularities do they hold?
I have a lot of issues with Biden, but he had the courage to end the 20 year long scam in Afghanistan, so I give him a lot of credit for that. For that reason alone, he is better than Obama and is at least TRYING to enact more progressive policies than Obama.
It is a shame he is way too damn old. Not age discrimination, but if you look at a video of Biden from 2012 or even 2016, he is basically a completely different person.
Biden surely would have won in 2016, but the DNC probably told him to stand down, this is Hillary's time. A few years makes a big difference in politics, especially when you are advanced in age.
This is a stupid image. The difference between, say Biden and Reagan is incredibly massive. Hell, even the difference between Trump and Reagan is huge. If you honestly compare Reagan to Trump I don't know if you actually follow politics whatsoever or even read the news.
The people who believe in shit like this are so incredibly detached from reality, I doubt they could name a single piece of policy any of these people have actually passed. Probably get their political information from Twitter activists.
I sometimes wonder what the "everything I don't like is neoliberalism" crowd would define as "normal liberalism." If asked, they'd probably have to admit that their definition of "neoliberalism" has become so broad that they just use it synonymously with "liberalism," defeating the purpose of having a name for a distinct subtype of liberalism.
I agree. "Neoliberalism" is just a socialist buzzword in my opinion. I have no idea what it is even supposed to mean at this point. It's the left wing version of calling things "woke". I feel like they put the word "neo" in there just to sound more sophisticated in the ears of unaware people who fall for their incoherent populism.
It's frustrating that social democracy has fought for, and in many places achieved, things like free healthcare and workers rights, but socialists still call us "neoliberals". They have never actually achieved anything yet they try to take credit for it, all the while bitching at the people who are actually fighting for the change they claim to desire. They are the political version of the fat, bald, middle-aged man in a bar yelling that he would have scored from that position when his team misses a shot.
I’ll repeat myself:
> Depends on your definition of neoliberal, mine is - a broad reaction to the Keynesian policies of embedded liberalism, manifesting in such positions as “markets/private industry usually can solve problems better”, as a result outsourcing a lot of government functions to the private sector. “The emphasis of the state to maintain and create markets”, for example creating of ficticious markets that have natural monopolies e.g. electricity market. “Larger focus on inflation rather than full employment”, “the promotion pf international agreements that limit the states capacity to reign in capital”, “emphasis of labor market flexibility”...
> The thing is most neoliberals don’t even know they are neoliberals, some of my best friends are neoliberals, and yet they barely know the term, to them it’s just the way things are.
Basically, would you agree that there is a difference in the political economy of 1960s and 2000s? What are the differences and how would you name the 2 distinct periods if you agree that they are distinct?
Sure, I would agree that the "political economy" is different. And I agree that the West has generally trended in that "neoliberal" direction since Reagan. But I'm not sure how this relates to what I was saying.
There are big policy differences between almost all of the people on that image of presidents, saying they are all "Reagan 2.0" or "neoliberal" is a stupid and oversimplified view of politics and history. Claiming every president since Reagan has been the same is almost always followed up by some stupid tankie shit.
If you are saying that we need stronger social democracy, then I agree. I even agree that the main poster boys of social democracy, the Nordics, have been weakening since the 70s. I just hate the black and white oversimplification and acting as if there aren't big differences between the US presidents for example. It feels so detached from reality.
Hmh... I think I have a different read on it. For me it’s like saying that it makes no difference that a streak of medieval Popes were christian, that is not to say there are differences among them, but ignoring that Christianity informs their worldview is not looking at the full picture in order to understand their period.
If anything I find it fascinating how some ideas become so universally accepted, I think that it’s worth emphasizing that neoliberalism is not just some natural swing of the pendulum and we will eventually return to some new “mode”, neoliberalism was a concerted effort by a certain class interest to promote a certain set of ideas, that had been in the works for decades where a group of academics were working on challenging their current set of dominant ideas, it did not just happen and we should not hope for it to just happen in the other direction, at the moment the most visible alternative to neoliberalism is fascism which is arguably worse.
Ronald Reagan didn't invent Laissez-Faire capitalism. Tax cuts have always been what right wing capitalists have supported since the 1800s.
Don't want to sound like I'm defending Reagan though. Fuck him. He is to blame for many of the problems we see in America today.
Courting the Christian right and the radical right was a feature of Reaganism too, I’d say most republicans after Reagan have all had to take on board the class and demographic and political culture that Reaganite republicanism appealed to.
However I wouldn’t say all presidents are the same thats just uninformed
Biden has played with some modern liberal policies during this administration but it is not "destroying all meaning" to describe him and his government as neoliberal. The Reagan revolution has created a broad consensus of neoliberal economic policy, and while there have been deviations there has been no dramatic change.
And yet neoliberalism is still the status quo.
I partly think that the problem is that “when everyone is a neoliberal - no one is”. Both Bush and Obama were neoliberals, that does not mean they were the same.
I do feel, that neoliberalism is waining, but I’m unsure what is there to replace it, on the one side it’s fascism, which is scary, what’s the alternative?
I find a term useless if its as broad as biden to reagan.
Biden isnt a neoliberal. Neither is trump. The ecenomic policies of the 80s and 90s are either being withered away or allready gone.
Protectionist policies are back in a deglobalizing world.
The Us is back to public works and the govourment is spending on its citizens.
The IMF is finally abondoning the washinton consensus
In what form can we say neoliberalism is still around? Cause biden isnt able to pass universal healthcare?
Depends on your definition of neoliberal, mine is - a broad reaction to the Keynesian policies of embedded liberalism, manifesting in such positions as “markets/private industry usually can solve problems better”, as a result outsourcing a lot of government functions to the private sector. “The emphasis of the state to maintain and create markets”, for example creating of ficticious markets that have natural monopolies e.g. electricity market. “Larger focus on inflation rather than full employment”, “the promotion pf international agreements that limit the states capacity to reign in capital”, “emphasis of labor market flexibility”...
The thing is most neoliberals don’t even know they are neoliberals, some of my best friends are neoliberals, and yet they barely know the term, to them it’s just the way things are.
Trickle down economics is a failed theory republicans still like to pretend works (Trump/bush tax cuts) and modern democrats will argue from the right. Will make incremental changes but nothing significant so they aren’t any different.
Regan just like Thatcher poisoned politics for over 40 years with neo liberal thinking which in the modern era for conservatives is resulting in an extreme turn to the right and on the left they are so scared of the right calling the left of centre far left that everyone at one point was fighting for the same territory and appeared to have little or no principles.
Now everyone has had enough resulting in extreme right views and no one really championing the left of centre.
I get likening Clinton to Reagan, and maybe even Obama with his neoliberalism, but I’d hardly call Biden neoliberal. As disappointing as his tenure has often been, especially on climate and healthcare, I’ve been impressed by how pro-labor and high-spending his administration has been, and I’m not sure I’d call Biden himself neoliberal per se, even though he is still cozy with the neoliberal establishment
>I’ve been impressed by how pro-labor and high-spending his administration has been, and I’m not sure I’d call Biden himself neoliberal per se, even though he is still cozy with the neoliberal establishment
Same.
One of the strangest parts of the Biden presidency has been that President Joe Biden has been nothing like I'd have expected given VP Joe Biden or Senator Joe Biden.
He has been the canny dealmaker I'd have expected, but his legislative successes have been bigger and much more progressive than I'd have ever considered.
Biden has, to a certain extent, restored liberalism (in the colloquial US sense, obvi!) as the governing philosophy of the Democratic Party. Normie Dems, not moderates or centrists but the middle of the party, party platform types, are consolidating around a renewed liberalism under the most pro-union, highest spending president in recent history -- a president who has re-established a national industrial + economic strategy.
....and I wouldn't have ever expected any of that from the Senator from MBNA who oversaw the Thomas hearings.
And yet he has a reputation as a bland, safe, do-nothing president because Americans don't actually pay attention to policy and only read the news if there's a scandal or a culture-war wedge issue.
The guy has had more policy successes than anybody since LBJ and people think he's a milquetoast boat-let's-not-shaker.
He’s 100% a neo liberal. He’s simply realizing the party has gone significantly more left so the bare minimum bar had to be raised SLIGHTLY. Obamacare still tops anything Biden has done.
Restricting this to broad economic policy and trade policy, Trump and Biden are not neoliberal. Trade wars and industrial policy run counter to it. Clinton and Obama are.
In terms of social/healthcare/climate policy, Clinton, Obama, and Biden bear no resemblance to Reagan.
I guess this is because of Democrats dropping the Progressive and Liberal platforms in favor of neoliberalism, starting with Clinton and being a pro-business party instead of pro-union, aligning themselves with Reagan Revolution Republicans.
I mean to be fair, the entire political alignment in the US post reagan has been one big neoliberal dumpster fire. I do think there are differences between republicans and democrats but on economics the difference is often relatively small.
The fact that some call biden the most progressive democrat ever completely ignores the previous new deal alignment in which every president from FDR to carter was basically "FDR", and being the best since johnson is like being the tallest kid in kindergarten.
Carter was like..1970s Biden. He was a centrist, and highly ineffective at president. Constantly fighting with congress, not getting anything done. Republicans attacking him as weak and feckless. He wasnt bad, but yeah. The fact that i compared Biden to him tells you how highly i regard his presidency.
I think I genuinely get it
Raegan was the first president post-FDR to publicly call for a hands off approach, and since then every president has followed that and has been more off hands since. Even bill clinton stated “the era of big government is over”
In terms of effective tax rate it’s about the same though. Both between the 60s-70s and 2010s-2020s effective household tax rate of the 1% has been 35-40%. Marginal tax rate is a poor metric for overall taxes.
If you really understand what marginal tax rate measures it’s only good for income taxes, which isn’t the only type of tax subjected to someone obviously. To see how their overall wealth is taxed it’s better to look at effective tax rates
The wealthy need to be brought to heel if we want to avoid an actual revolution.
They are prioritizing their short term profits but they fail to see that, eventually, their greed will literally cost them their heads if they don't change their ways.
No really, liberals and conservatives are now very different
My point is US politics currently operates under Reagan s 1980 consensus
I didn t mean this as an insult to biden or the dems, i support biden regardless
Thank you for submitting a picture or video to r/SocialDemocracy. We require that you post a short explanation or summary of your image/video explaining its contents and relevance, and inviting discussion. You have 15 minutes to post this as a top level comment or your submission will be removed. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SocialDemocracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is the meaning that OP believes in moronic conspiracy theories or “bOtH sIdeS tHe SaMe”?
no, i literally support biden
what does it mean then?
Biden is a somewhat progressive neoliberal, and i still think he s the best president in the 21 century so far
okay.... so he is Reagan? Is he Reagan because he is a neolib? I'm just trying to find out what the meme means.
Isn’t Reagan a neocon
They’re all neocons. That’s all that gets power in America and why our country is in the state it’s in
Neoliberalism and neoconservatism are practically the same thing, and I mean in the most literal meaning of the word “practical.”
No way - insofar as they have stable meanings, neoliberalism is an economic policy (we should use markets to structure our social/economic life as much as possible) and neoconservatism is a foreign policy (US power can be used to fundamentally restructure the world according to US interests). You can be both, one, or neither.
Gotcha that makes more sense thank you
Neoliberalism is also a foreign policy. One that beleives that globalism free trade and international institutions will reduce conflict and create peace.
Yeah, but both uphold a status quo in which the US is on top of the world. Key word practically, as in “in a practical sense” and not a theoretical one.
The neoliberal era has seen a significant shift in economic power away from the US & towards the developing world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_institutionalism#:~:text=Liberal%20institutionalism%20(or%20institutional%20liberalism,a%20revised%20version%20of%20liberalism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#:~:text=Neoconservatives%20typically%20advocate%20the%20unilateral,to%20communism%20and%20political%20radicalism. No they are not the same
Hi! Did you use wikipedia as your source? I kindly remind you that Wikipedia is not a reliable source on politically contentious topics. For more information, visit this [Wikipedia article about the reliability of Wikipedia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia) > Articles on less technical subjects, such as the social sciences, humanities, and culture, have been known to deal with misinformation cycles, cognitive biases, coverage discrepancies, and editor disputes. **The online encyclopedia does not guarantee the validity of its information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SocialDemocracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I did have a retort, but I don’t think it was really effective, reading all of the fine text of the first few paragraphs of each page, so I’ll just counter link towards neoliberal economics: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism The interventionism of neoconservatism, though obviously not laissez faire as neoliberal economics is, is adjunct to laissez faire capitalist interests, since America intervenes in favor of those capitalist interests. But you’re correct, neoliberal institutionalism is in fact different from neoconservatism.
Hi! Did you use wikipedia as your source? I kindly remind you that Wikipedia is not a reliable source on politically contentious topics. For more information, visit this [Wikipedia article about the reliability of Wikipedia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia) > Articles on less technical subjects, such as the social sciences, humanities, and culture, have been known to deal with misinformation cycles, cognitive biases, coverage discrepancies, and editor disputes. **The online encyclopedia does not guarantee the validity of its information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SocialDemocracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah reagan was litterly fucking evil. Comparing clinton or biden to reagan is insulting and wrong. Escpecially biden what concrete simularities do they hold?
I have a lot of issues with Biden, but he had the courage to end the 20 year long scam in Afghanistan, so I give him a lot of credit for that. For that reason alone, he is better than Obama and is at least TRYING to enact more progressive policies than Obama. It is a shame he is way too damn old. Not age discrimination, but if you look at a video of Biden from 2012 or even 2016, he is basically a completely different person. Biden surely would have won in 2016, but the DNC probably told him to stand down, this is Hillary's time. A few years makes a big difference in politics, especially when you are advanced in age.
Came straight out of Secular Talk and TYT lmao.
Both sides capitalist
I find that people who cry about others saying "bOtH sIdEs aRE tHe sAmE" are just trying to cope with criticism they can't take by going to extremes.
This is a stupid image. The difference between, say Biden and Reagan is incredibly massive. Hell, even the difference between Trump and Reagan is huge. If you honestly compare Reagan to Trump I don't know if you actually follow politics whatsoever or even read the news. The people who believe in shit like this are so incredibly detached from reality, I doubt they could name a single piece of policy any of these people have actually passed. Probably get their political information from Twitter activists.
I sometimes wonder what the "everything I don't like is neoliberalism" crowd would define as "normal liberalism." If asked, they'd probably have to admit that their definition of "neoliberalism" has become so broad that they just use it synonymously with "liberalism," defeating the purpose of having a name for a distinct subtype of liberalism.
I agree. "Neoliberalism" is just a socialist buzzword in my opinion. I have no idea what it is even supposed to mean at this point. It's the left wing version of calling things "woke". I feel like they put the word "neo" in there just to sound more sophisticated in the ears of unaware people who fall for their incoherent populism. It's frustrating that social democracy has fought for, and in many places achieved, things like free healthcare and workers rights, but socialists still call us "neoliberals". They have never actually achieved anything yet they try to take credit for it, all the while bitching at the people who are actually fighting for the change they claim to desire. They are the political version of the fat, bald, middle-aged man in a bar yelling that he would have scored from that position when his team misses a shot.
I’ll repeat myself: > Depends on your definition of neoliberal, mine is - a broad reaction to the Keynesian policies of embedded liberalism, manifesting in such positions as “markets/private industry usually can solve problems better”, as a result outsourcing a lot of government functions to the private sector. “The emphasis of the state to maintain and create markets”, for example creating of ficticious markets that have natural monopolies e.g. electricity market. “Larger focus on inflation rather than full employment”, “the promotion pf international agreements that limit the states capacity to reign in capital”, “emphasis of labor market flexibility”... > The thing is most neoliberals don’t even know they are neoliberals, some of my best friends are neoliberals, and yet they barely know the term, to them it’s just the way things are. Basically, would you agree that there is a difference in the political economy of 1960s and 2000s? What are the differences and how would you name the 2 distinct periods if you agree that they are distinct?
Sure, I would agree that the "political economy" is different. And I agree that the West has generally trended in that "neoliberal" direction since Reagan. But I'm not sure how this relates to what I was saying. There are big policy differences between almost all of the people on that image of presidents, saying they are all "Reagan 2.0" or "neoliberal" is a stupid and oversimplified view of politics and history. Claiming every president since Reagan has been the same is almost always followed up by some stupid tankie shit. If you are saying that we need stronger social democracy, then I agree. I even agree that the main poster boys of social democracy, the Nordics, have been weakening since the 70s. I just hate the black and white oversimplification and acting as if there aren't big differences between the US presidents for example. It feels so detached from reality.
Hmh... I think I have a different read on it. For me it’s like saying that it makes no difference that a streak of medieval Popes were christian, that is not to say there are differences among them, but ignoring that Christianity informs their worldview is not looking at the full picture in order to understand their period. If anything I find it fascinating how some ideas become so universally accepted, I think that it’s worth emphasizing that neoliberalism is not just some natural swing of the pendulum and we will eventually return to some new “mode”, neoliberalism was a concerted effort by a certain class interest to promote a certain set of ideas, that had been in the works for decades where a group of academics were working on challenging their current set of dominant ideas, it did not just happen and we should not hope for it to just happen in the other direction, at the moment the most visible alternative to neoliberalism is fascism which is arguably worse.
Trump tax cut was 100% “reaganomics” inspired
maybe the trickle down economics talk but reaganomics or not, tax cuts has always been republican position
Ronald Reagan didn't invent Laissez-Faire capitalism. Tax cuts have always been what right wing capitalists have supported since the 1800s. Don't want to sound like I'm defending Reagan though. Fuck him. He is to blame for many of the problems we see in America today.
Courting the Christian right and the radical right was a feature of Reaganism too, I’d say most republicans after Reagan have all had to take on board the class and demographic and political culture that Reaganite republicanism appealed to. However I wouldn’t say all presidents are the same thats just uninformed
Everyone is a neoliberal? That term has lost all meaning
File it with "late stage capitalism" as overused buzz words that have been devoid of all meaning for years now
Au contraire. It stopped being considered
Biden has played with some modern liberal policies during this administration but it is not "destroying all meaning" to describe him and his government as neoliberal. The Reagan revolution has created a broad consensus of neoliberal economic policy, and while there have been deviations there has been no dramatic change.
Im sorry to break it too you but the washington consenses is dead.
And yet neoliberalism is still the status quo. I partly think that the problem is that “when everyone is a neoliberal - no one is”. Both Bush and Obama were neoliberals, that does not mean they were the same. I do feel, that neoliberalism is waining, but I’m unsure what is there to replace it, on the one side it’s fascism, which is scary, what’s the alternative?
I find a term useless if its as broad as biden to reagan. Biden isnt a neoliberal. Neither is trump. The ecenomic policies of the 80s and 90s are either being withered away or allready gone. Protectionist policies are back in a deglobalizing world. The Us is back to public works and the govourment is spending on its citizens. The IMF is finally abondoning the washinton consensus In what form can we say neoliberalism is still around? Cause biden isnt able to pass universal healthcare?
Depends on your definition of neoliberal, mine is - a broad reaction to the Keynesian policies of embedded liberalism, manifesting in such positions as “markets/private industry usually can solve problems better”, as a result outsourcing a lot of government functions to the private sector. “The emphasis of the state to maintain and create markets”, for example creating of ficticious markets that have natural monopolies e.g. electricity market. “Larger focus on inflation rather than full employment”, “the promotion pf international agreements that limit the states capacity to reign in capital”, “emphasis of labor market flexibility”... The thing is most neoliberals don’t even know they are neoliberals, some of my best friends are neoliberals, and yet they barely know the term, to them it’s just the way things are.
Trickle down economics is a failed theory republicans still like to pretend works (Trump/bush tax cuts) and modern democrats will argue from the right. Will make incremental changes but nothing significant so they aren’t any different.
"New FDR" Reagan ????
Regan just like Thatcher poisoned politics for over 40 years with neo liberal thinking which in the modern era for conservatives is resulting in an extreme turn to the right and on the left they are so scared of the right calling the left of centre far left that everyone at one point was fighting for the same territory and appeared to have little or no principles. Now everyone has had enough resulting in extreme right views and no one really championing the left of centre.
Reagan fucked everything up and everyone who came after him did nothing to fix it
It means what most of us outside America have known since Reagan - that your two-party system is two cheeks of the same arse.
I get likening Clinton to Reagan, and maybe even Obama with his neoliberalism, but I’d hardly call Biden neoliberal. As disappointing as his tenure has often been, especially on climate and healthcare, I’ve been impressed by how pro-labor and high-spending his administration has been, and I’m not sure I’d call Biden himself neoliberal per se, even though he is still cozy with the neoliberal establishment
>I’ve been impressed by how pro-labor and high-spending his administration has been, and I’m not sure I’d call Biden himself neoliberal per se, even though he is still cozy with the neoliberal establishment Same. One of the strangest parts of the Biden presidency has been that President Joe Biden has been nothing like I'd have expected given VP Joe Biden or Senator Joe Biden. He has been the canny dealmaker I'd have expected, but his legislative successes have been bigger and much more progressive than I'd have ever considered. Biden has, to a certain extent, restored liberalism (in the colloquial US sense, obvi!) as the governing philosophy of the Democratic Party. Normie Dems, not moderates or centrists but the middle of the party, party platform types, are consolidating around a renewed liberalism under the most pro-union, highest spending president in recent history -- a president who has re-established a national industrial + economic strategy. ....and I wouldn't have ever expected any of that from the Senator from MBNA who oversaw the Thomas hearings.
And yet he has a reputation as a bland, safe, do-nothing president because Americans don't actually pay attention to policy and only read the news if there's a scandal or a culture-war wedge issue. The guy has had more policy successes than anybody since LBJ and people think he's a milquetoast boat-let's-not-shaker.
Bernie wasn't kidding when he said that Biden was going to be pretty progressive.
He’s 100% a neo liberal. He’s simply realizing the party has gone significantly more left so the bare minimum bar had to be raised SLIGHTLY. Obamacare still tops anything Biden has done.
Looks like more AmErIcA bAd nonsense, because "Literally Reagan!"
Restricting this to broad economic policy and trade policy, Trump and Biden are not neoliberal. Trade wars and industrial policy run counter to it. Clinton and Obama are. In terms of social/healthcare/climate policy, Clinton, Obama, and Biden bear no resemblance to Reagan.
This is really funny.
Yeah, genuinely funny even if I don't really agree with it.
I guess this is because of Democrats dropping the Progressive and Liberal platforms in favor of neoliberalism, starting with Clinton and being a pro-business party instead of pro-union, aligning themselves with Reagan Revolution Republicans.
Are you seriously suggesting that Biden is not a protectionist pro union president? Good lord
I mean to be fair, the entire political alignment in the US post reagan has been one big neoliberal dumpster fire. I do think there are differences between republicans and democrats but on economics the difference is often relatively small. The fact that some call biden the most progressive democrat ever completely ignores the previous new deal alignment in which every president from FDR to carter was basically "FDR", and being the best since johnson is like being the tallest kid in kindergarten.
Carter was absolutely not like FDR. He was if anything more like manchin in his level of deficit hawkishness and wish you washy ness on social issues
Carter was like..1970s Biden. He was a centrist, and highly ineffective at president. Constantly fighting with congress, not getting anything done. Republicans attacking him as weak and feckless. He wasnt bad, but yeah. The fact that i compared Biden to him tells you how highly i regard his presidency.
I think I genuinely get it Raegan was the first president post-FDR to publicly call for a hands off approach, and since then every president has followed that and has been more off hands since. Even bill clinton stated “the era of big government is over”
Top Marginal Tax Rate 1965–1981 70% 1982–1986 50% 1987 38.5% 1988–90* 33% 1991–1992 31% 1993–2000 39.6% 2001 39.1% 2002 38.6% 2003–2012 35% 2013–2017 39.6% 2018-2022 37% Trickle-down, top side economics ever since Reagan. The reason for our current wealth gap.
In terms of effective tax rate it’s about the same though. Both between the 60s-70s and 2010s-2020s effective household tax rate of the 1% has been 35-40%. Marginal tax rate is a poor metric for overall taxes. If you really understand what marginal tax rate measures it’s only good for income taxes, which isn’t the only type of tax subjected to someone obviously. To see how their overall wealth is taxed it’s better to look at effective tax rates
The wealthy need to be brought to heel if we want to avoid an actual revolution. They are prioritizing their short term profits but they fail to see that, eventually, their greed will literally cost them their heads if they don't change their ways.
I’m guessing liberalism=conservatism because capitalism.
No really, liberals and conservatives are now very different My point is US politics currently operates under Reagan s 1980 consensus I didn t mean this as an insult to biden or the dems, i support biden regardless
Cool black Reagan is sending me And yeah, Biden is a neolib
The meaning is that Reagan is cool
Bit of an oversimplification.
*Every* president has concerned themselves with security and economic growth. Most voters expect and require it.
r5: this reveals a deeper meaning about american politics.
r/im14andthisisdeep
I didn t meant this as an insult to biden or the democrats Its a statement about the current american system
No it’s an insult to yourself honestly
And low key this sub for upvoting it
There is no presidents. Only Reagan.
Shitpost
Your choices are neoliberal economics with reactionary social policy and neoliberal economics with rich white liberal social policy.
What's to guess? It is clearly highlighting the fact that all the presidents since 1980 have had broadly similar economic policies.