Did somebody say "neoliberalism"?
Many people have been saying it recently. Of all delicious pieces of wonkery coming down the pike, David Greenberg's overview and analysis of its rise and fall is, I think, the best and most accurate take so far. But in all the happy chatter about whether neoliberalism "failed" or not, there's at least one big theme I haven't seen cited, but which could be thought of as a point of success: neoliberals' original drive to maintain the fusion of policy and (party) politics.
Looked at another way, political anlysis is often about whether liberalism is broadly appealing in America. The neolibs actually worried that liberalism could breed cynicism and detachment from politics among liberals. In his 1983 "Neoliberal's Manifesto", Charles Peters describes one of his four major principles of traditional liberals with which he disagrees as "Politics is Bad and Politicians are Even Worse". His specific point is that liberals had gone too far in cracking down on political patronage (which doesn't strike me as right today, though I'm no expert on the subject). But the broader point I think is that liberals had, after the 60s, come to despise and distrust government and politicians -- and, in the spirit of Eugene McCarthy, to turn away from the Democratic Party as a whole.
Of course, neoliberalism was wonktastic -- politics was a means to an end, which was good government. Nor was neoliberalism exactly partisan; it was essentially factional within the Democratic Party. But it did have as a central tenet keeping policy talk from retiring into think tanks and universities and staying joined with the mess and cyncism of electoral politics. In the 70s-era movement to eliminate patronage and take the presidential nomination process out of the smoky back rooms and open it up to voters, the risk that politiking, fundraising and personality-based campaigning would eclipse policy debate in the political sphere and further sour liberals on the electoral process was probably pretty real (a point John Judis just made in an article unrelated to neoliberalism.)
This strikes me as pretty important to neoliberalism's original identity. In the "Manifesto", Peters constantly quotes and/or pushes the initiatives of the pols he likes -- Bill Bradley, Paul Tsongis, Gary Hart -- people he clearly sees and wants you to see as luminaries even though they have to raise money and scrounge for votes. Similarly, the Washington Monthly (like TNR) used to publish all sorts of wonky articles by elected officials, and even more articles about how specific policians could fuse their identities with broader ideologies to create an appealing package (here's a perfect example by Josh Green writing about John Edwards).
This doesn't seem so big a deal now. In the Bush era, rallying around the Democrats as the only alternative to something very dark and evil makes sense. John Kerry was a rock star in 2004. The liberal blogosphere sees its job to prod, but also to defend, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as they try to reverse or at least slow the Republican agenda. Liberals and neoliberals (except maybe Mickey Kaus) tend to engage and support any politician who presents a viable alternative to the Bush agenda and worldview. The result is more strictly partisan than what the neolibs originally wanted, in that their distinctions are made at the party rather than the party-faction level. But it's worth remembering that keeping party politics safe and palatable for wonks and dreamers was definitely a very neoliberal thing.
Looked at another way, political anlysis is often about whether liberalism is broadly appealing in America. The neolibs actually worried that liberalism could breed cynicism and detachment from politics among liberals. In his 1983 "Neoliberal's Manifesto", Charles Peters describes one of his four major principles of traditional liberals with which he disagrees as "Politics is Bad and Politicians are Even Worse". His specific point is that liberals had gone too far in cracking down on political patronage (which doesn't strike me as right today, though I'm no expert on the subject). But the broader point I think is that liberals had, after the 60s, come to despise and distrust government and politicians -- and, in the spirit of Eugene McCarthy, to turn away from the Democratic Party as a whole.
Of course, neoliberalism was wonktastic -- politics was a means to an end, which was good government. Nor was neoliberalism exactly partisan; it was essentially factional within the Democratic Party. But it did have as a central tenet keeping policy talk from retiring into think tanks and universities and staying joined with the mess and cyncism of electoral politics. In the 70s-era movement to eliminate patronage and take the presidential nomination process out of the smoky back rooms and open it up to voters, the risk that politiking, fundraising and personality-based campaigning would eclipse policy debate in the political sphere and further sour liberals on the electoral process was probably pretty real (a point John Judis just made in an article unrelated to neoliberalism.)
This strikes me as pretty important to neoliberalism's original identity. In the "Manifesto", Peters constantly quotes and/or pushes the initiatives of the pols he likes -- Bill Bradley, Paul Tsongis, Gary Hart -- people he clearly sees and wants you to see as luminaries even though they have to raise money and scrounge for votes. Similarly, the Washington Monthly (like TNR) used to publish all sorts of wonky articles by elected officials, and even more articles about how specific policians could fuse their identities with broader ideologies to create an appealing package (here's a perfect example by Josh Green writing about John Edwards).
This doesn't seem so big a deal now. In the Bush era, rallying around the Democrats as the only alternative to something very dark and evil makes sense. John Kerry was a rock star in 2004. The liberal blogosphere sees its job to prod, but also to defend, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as they try to reverse or at least slow the Republican agenda. Liberals and neoliberals (except maybe Mickey Kaus) tend to engage and support any politician who presents a viable alternative to the Bush agenda and worldview. The result is more strictly partisan than what the neolibs originally wanted, in that their distinctions are made at the party rather than the party-faction level. But it's worth remembering that keeping party politics safe and palatable for wonks and dreamers was definitely a very neoliberal thing.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home