Thanks. I will join the pile-on of the Republicans in the proposed thread. But is it possible to be more specific as to which policies without falling back on instead trying to define neo-liberalism? I'm asking a very specific question. When someone blames neo-liberal policies for something, exactly what policies do they mean?
To partially disagree with Jack, I think privatization is *the* cornerstone policy of neoliberalism such that wealth can be distributed upward without (completely) relying on policies that are facially regressive like flattening of tax codes, weakening of entitlements access, etc., which neoliberals may well insist upon too, even if to smaller extents than their Republican colleagues (see: Clinton's welfare reform).
The prototypical example of someone who has faced backlash for his neoliberal tendencies is (imo) Cory Booker. Booker, as you have probably noticed, is perhaps Washington's most enthusiastic Everybody-Love-Everybody-style liberal who champions inclusivity and tolerance. As a Senator and especially as Mayor of Newark, Booker has repeatedly done the bidding for private capital, from privatizing public services, to selling off public land for private development, to shilling for private equity firms. to opposing overly progressive tax codes. Booker's most infamous and steadfast position has been in his support for charter schools, which, though a perfectly fine extension of market logic toward improving a fundamental public good, have been fiercely opposed by labor unions and advocates for the poor and, indeed, have not yielded much in the way of the tangible improvements that their advocates sold them on.
But figures like Booker can't be said to be slavishly beholden to free market ethos, as they, just like their Republican colleagues, have absolutely no problem taking a diametrical and economically illiberal positions when it suits their benefactors (and, to be fair, constituents). This can be seen in the case of when Booker took a beating last year in his opposition to freeing the US pharmaceutical market to Canadian pharmaceuticals in an effort to weaken monopoly pricing and reduce the country's GOAT-status pharmaceutical prices. This sort of corporate protectionism is hardly what would be expected of a market enthusiast, but, since New Jersey is one of the country's biggest homes to the pharma industry, his position followed. In this way, he's sort of analogous to Joe Lieberman.
These problems are exacerbated by the fact that many of these liberals are and have been propped up by the industries they are benefiting. For Booker, for instance, charter schools were
the donor industry that was instrumental in his mayoral election. And then, when he ran for Senate, private equity firms like Goldman backed him hard.
