jonathanchait   73

« earlier    

Jonathan Chait Is Wrong About Ryan, Trump, the FBI, and Me | National Review
“Chait, by contrast, was writing columns during the Republican primary like ‘Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination,’ which concluded that ‘If he does win, a Trump presidency would probably wind up doing less harm to the country than a Marco Rubio or a [Ted] Cruz presidency. It might even, possibly, do some good.’ (Other progressive writers like Matt Yglesias, Jamelle Bouie, and Amanda Marcotte were singing from the same hymnal at the time). Of course, once Trump had obtained that nomination and it was no longer in Chait’s interest to say such things, he conveniently claimed a conversion that he blamed on not having been adequately informed (while writing for a New York-based magazine 35 years into Trump’s public career) what sort of fellow Trump was.”
JonathanChait  DanMcGlaughlin 
may 2018 by cbearden
“Neoliberalism” isn’t an empty epithet. It’s a real, powerful set of ideas. - Vox
"It’s hard to think of a term that causes more confusion, yet is more frequently used in political debate, than “neoliberalism.” It’s one thing to argue that the term should be discouraged or retired from public discussions, because it generates heat instead of light, but it is another to say that it doesn’t have any meaning or use. Jonathan Chait makes the second case in New York magazine.

Whenever I find myself reaching for “neoliberalism,” I look for a different phrase, simply because it will better communicate what I’m trying to convey. But if we throw away the term entirely, or ignore what it’s describing, we lose out on an important way of understanding where we are right now, economically speaking.

Neoliberalism, at its core, describes the stage of capitalism that has existed over the past 30 years, one that evolved out of the economic crises of the 1970s. The underpinnings of this stage are buckling under the weight of our own crises, perhaps even collapsing, all of it in ways we don’t yet understand. A careful consideration of the term can help us grasp a lot of what is going on in the world, especially as the Democratic Party looks to change.

Jonathan Chait’s sweeping condemnation of the word “neoliberal”

For Chait, the term neoliberal “now refers to liberals generally” and indiscriminately, regardless of what views they hold. The “basic claim is that, from the New Deal through the Great Society, the Democratic Party espoused a set of values defined by, or at the very least consistent with, social democracy,” but then, starting in the 1970s, “neoliberal elites hijacked the party.” However, the efforts at hijacking that the critics identify “never really took off,” in Chait’s view. As such, to use the term is simply to try “to win [an argument] with an epithet.”

Chait correctly points out that the left has historically been disappointed with the New Deal and Great Society, viewing them as lost opportunities. But he oversteps when he goes further to say that “neoliberal” is not only devoid of meaning, but that there was no essential shift in Democratic identity toward the end of the last century.

The difficulty of the term is that it’s used to described three overlapping but very distinct intellectual developments. In political circles, it’s most commonly used to refer to a successful attempt to move the Democratic Party to the center in the aftermath of conservative victories in the 1980s. Once can look to Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck’s influential 1989 The Politics of Evasion, in which the authors argued that Democratic “programs must be shaped and defended within an inhospitable ideological climate, and they cannot by themselves remedy the electorate's broader antipathy to contemporary liberalism.”

Galston and Kamarck were calling for a New Deal liberalism that was updated to be made more palatable to a right-leaning public, after Reagan and the ascendancy of conservatism. You might also say that they were calling for “triangulation” between Reaganism and New Deal liberalism — or, at worst, abandoning the FDR-style approach.

In economic circles, however, “neoliberalism” is most identified with an elite response to the economic crises of the 1970s: stagflation, the energy crisis, the near bankruptcy of New York. The response to these crises was conservative in nature, pushing back against the economic management of the midcentury period. It is sometimes known as the “Washington Consensus,” a set of 10 policies that became the new economic common sense.

These policies included reduction of top marginal tax rates, the liberalization of trade, privatization of government services, and deregulation. These became the sensible things for generic people in Washington and other global headquarters to embrace and promote, and the policies were pushed on other countries via global institutions like the International Monetary Fund. This had significant consequences for the power of capital, as the geographer David Harvey writes in his useful Brief Introduction to Neoliberalism. The upshot of such policies, as the historical sociologist Greta Krippner notes, was to shift many aspects of managing the economy from government to Wall Street, and to financiers generally.

Chait summarizes this sense of the term in the following way: It simply “means capitalist, as distinguished from socialist.” But what kind of capitalism? The Washington Consensus represents a particularly laissez-faire approach that changed life in many countries profoundly: To sample its effects, just check out a book like Joseph Stiglitz’s Globalization and its Discontents. The shock therapy of mass privatization applied to Russia after the Soviet collapsed, for example, reduced life expectancy in that country by five years and ensured that Russia was taken over by strongmen and oligarchs.

International pressure forced East Asian countries to liberalize their capital flows, which led to a financial crisis that the IMF subsequently made use of to demand even more painful austerity. The European Union was created to facilitate the austerity that is destroying a generation in such countries as Greece, Portugal, and Spain. (The IMF itself is reexamining its actions over the past several decades; titles it has published, including Neoliberalism, Oversold?, demonstrate the broad usefulness of the term.)

Markets are defining more and more aspects of our lives

The third meaning of “neoliberalism,” most often used in academic circles, encompasses market supremacy — or the extension of markets or market-like logic to more and more spheres of life. This, in turn, has a significant influence on our subjectivity: how we view ourselves, our society, and our roles in it. One insight here is that markets don’t occur naturally but are instead constructed through law and practices, and those practices can be extended into realms well beyond traditional markets.

Another insight is that market exchanges can create an ethos that ends up shaping more and more human behavior; we can increasingly view ourselves as little more than human capital maximizing our market values.

This is a little abstract, but it really does matter for our everyday lives. As the political theorist Wendy Brown notes in her book Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution, the Supreme Court case overturning a century of campaign finance law, Citizens United, wasn’t just about viewing corporations as political citizens. Kennedy’s opinion was also about viewing all politics as a form of market activity. The question, as he saw it, was is how to preserve a “political marketplace.” In this market-centric view, democracy, access, voice, and other democratic values are flattened, replaced with a thin veneer of political activity as a type of capital right.

You may not believe in neoliberalism, but neoliberalism believes in you

Why does this matter if you couldn’t care less about either the IMF or subjectivity? The 2016 election brought forward real disagreements in the Democratic Party, disagreements that aren’t reducible to empirical arguments, or arguments about what an achievable political agenda might be. These disagreements will become more important as we move forward, and they can only be answered with an understanding of what the Democratic Party stands for.

One highly salient conflict was the fight over free college during the Democratic primary. It wasn’t about the price tag; it was about the role the government should play in helping to educate the citizenry. Clinton originally argued that a universal program would help people who didn’t need help — why pay for Donald Trump’s kids? This reflects the focus on means-tested programs that dominated Democratic policymaking over the past several decades. (Some of the original people who wanted to reinvent the Democratic Party, such as Charles Peters in his 1983 article “A Neoliberal’s Manifesto,” called for means-testing Social Security so it served only the very poor.)

Bernie Sanders argued instead that education was a right, and it should be guaranteed to all Americans regardless of wealth or income. The two rivals came to a smart compromise after the campaign, concluding that public tuition should be free for all families with income of less than $125,000 — a proposal that is already serving as a base from which activists can build.

This points to a disagreement as we move forward. Should the Democratic Party focus on the most vulnerable, in the language of access and need? Or should it focus on everyone, in the language of rights?

We’ll see a similar fight in health care. The horror movie villain of Republican health care reform has been killed and thrown into the summer camp lake, and we’re all sitting on the beach terrified that the undead body will simply walk right back out. In the meantime, Democrats have to think about whether their health care goals will build on the ACA framework or whether they should more aggressively extend Medicare for more people.

Chait argues that “[t]he Democratic Party has evolved over the last half-century, as any party does over a long period of time. But the basic ideological cast of its economic policy has not changed dramatically since the New Deal.” Whether you believe that’s true hinges on what you think of the relative merits of public and private provisioning of goods. For there was clearly some change in Democratic policymaking — and, arguably, in its “ideological cast” — sometime between 1976 and 1992. It became much more acceptable to let the private market drive outcomes, with government helping through tax credits and various nudges. One influential 1992 book, Reinventing Government, by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, described a government that should “steer, not row.” (FDR believed government could and should row.)

Another place we can see a break in the Democratic Party … [more]
neoliberalism  capitalism  democrats  history  politics  2017  mikekonczal  jonathanchait  billgalston  elainekamarck  newdeal  liberalism  conservatism  economics  policy  liberalization  privatization  government  governance  josephstiglitz  globalization  markets  berniesanders  ideology  dvidorsborne  tedgaebler  finance  banking  boblitan  jonathanruch  education  corporations  1988  ronaldreagan 
july 2017 by robertogreco
Jonathan Chait on Twitter: "If McCain's decided to be a good soldier, why not be a good soldier? Or be a rebel, form a bipartisan bloc. Why be an easy vote and bitch? https://t.co/5RrbfKn65h"
If McCain's decided to be a good soldier, why not be a good soldier? Or be a rebel, form a bipartisan bloc. Why be an easy vote and bitch? https://t.co/5RrbfKn65h

— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) July 12, 2017
ifttt  twitter  jonathanchait 
july 2017 by galletto
100 Years After the Revolution, Communism Hasn’t Changed
“Sunkara may want to work out why Marxist principles failed in the past, but he seems determined not to arrive at any conclusion that implicates the ideological principles that caused those failures.”

Via https://twitter.com/jonathanchait/status/880409689460281344
Venezuela  JacobinMag  Leftism  JonathanChait  Marxism 
june 2017 by cbearden
Other People's Pathologies - The Atlantic
Over the past week or so, Jonathan Chait and I have enjoyed an ongoing debate over the rhetoric the president employs when addressing African Americans. Here is my initial installment, Chait's initial rebuttal, my subsequent reply, and Chait's latest riposte. Initially Chait argued that President Obama's habit of speaking about culture before black audiences was laudable because it would "urge positive habits and behavior" that are presumably found especially wanting in the black community.
toread  tanehisicoates  TNC  theatlantic  jonathanchait  race  poverty  black 
march 2017 by laurenipsum
Obama on P.C.: ‘A Recipe for Dogmatism’
The left may be correct about the general existence of widespread problems like sexual assault on campus and racist policing, but clung to false accounts of a horrific rape at the University of Virginia and the cold-blooded murder of a surrendering Michael Brown. Many of us mocked anybody who raised what turned out to be legitimate questions about those incidents as “rape deniers” or racists. The spread of that misinformation discredited the causes liberals care about.
JonathanChait  obama  PC  liberalism  BEST  freespeech 
november 2015 by nightcrawler
‘Political correctness’ doesn’t hinder free speech – it expands it
But here is the thing: white students parading around campus in blackface is itself a silencing tactic. Telling rape victims that they’re “coddled” is a silencing tactic. Teaching marginalised people that their concerns will always be imperiously dismissed, always subordinated to some decontextualised free-speech absolutism is a silencing tactic. ¶ Framing student protests as bratty “political correctness gone mad” makes campuses a hostile environment for everyone except for students who have no need to protest.
by:LindyWest  politics  geo:UnitedStates  TriggerWarnings  censorship  privilege  misogyny  from:CommentIsFree  JonathanChait  UniversityOfMissouri  BlackLivesMatter  race 
november 2015 by owenblacker
Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say -- NYMag
"In both cases, the threat was deemed not the angry mobs out to crush opposing ideas, but the ideas themselves."
feminism  gender  nymag  jonathanchait  politics 
may 2015 by mjs

« earlier    

related tags

*favoritearticles  08election  1968  1988  2000  2004  2006  2008  2011  2012  2014  2015  2017  abefortas  ableism  abortion  academia  adambellow  adolphreed  alexpareene  alexparnee  allies  amandataub  america  americanisraelpublicaffairscommittee  amityshlaes  analysis  andrewsullivan  antoninscalia  avengers  aynrand  banking  barackobama  berniesanders  best  bias  billclinton  billgalston  black  blacklivesmatter  blog  bloggers  blogs  bobcorker  boblitan  book  bridgetannekelly  budget  bully  bush  business  by:glenngreenwald  by:lindywest  capitalism  cbc  cbo  censorship  centrism  chapter  charlesfreeman,jr.  charlesfreeman  charleskrauthammer  chrisbodenner  chrischristie  chrisnelson  chuckschumer  class  clinton  community  confirmationbias  congress  congressionalresearchservice  conservatism  conservative  conservatives  constitutionalism  corporations  corruption  cpb  crisis  ct-sen  culture  cultureofpoverty  culturewar  dailydish  danielklein  danmcglaughlin  davidgreenberg  davidwildstein  debate  debtceiling  deficit  democracy  democrats  dennisblair  depression  dineshdsouza  discourse  discussion  donaldtrump  dvidorsborne  economics  economy  editorial  education  edwardschlosser  elainekamarck  election  election_08  electoralcollege  empathy  excerpt  exclusion  ezraklein  factcheck  fanniemae  fatalism  fdr  federalreserve  feminism  film  finance  florida  florigan  foreignpolicy  freddiedeboer  freddiemac  freespeech  from:commentisfree  funny  gawker  gaymarriage  gender  geo:unitedstates  georgewbush  globalization  goodstuff  gop  governance  government  greatmess  gregsargent  gregwalden  gse  guiliani  gwot  hampshire  healthcare  heathermacdonald  herberthoover  heritagefoundation  hillaryclinton  history  homophobia  huckabee  hypocrisy  identity  ideology  ifttt  inclusion  inclusivity  inlcusivity  intelligencer  interesting  intersectionalpolitics  iraq  jacobinmag  jacobweisberg  jamesbaldwin  jimlobe  joebiden  joeklein  joelieberman  johnmccain  johnmearsheimer  jonahgoldberg  jonathanruch  josephstiglitz  jr.  judithshulevitz  kerry  keynes  kindness  lamaralexander  larryrothkopf  laurakipnis  lbj  left  leftism  legenda  legislation  liberalism  liberalization  liberals  libertarianism  libertarians  lieberman  literature  magazine  marcorubio  marginaalization  markets  markkirk  marxism  matthewyglesias  maxblumenthal  mccain  media  medicaid  megangarber  mikekonczal  misogyny  mitchmcconnell  nedlamont  neoliberalism  netroots  newdeal  newideas  newjersey  newrepublic  newyorktimes  noahmillman  northwestern  nro  ny  nymag  nytimes  obama  obamacare  ohio  oxford  palin  partisanship  pathology  patriarchy  pc  pew  philosophy  policy  politicalcorrectness  politics  portauthority  poverty  presidency  primaries  privatization  privilege  professors  progress  progressivism  prohibition  psychology  race  racism  rameshponnuru  randpaul  realestate  rebeccareillycooper  recession  reconciliation  rel:02009  republicanparty  republicans  richlowry  ronaldreagan  sahilkapur  satire  scam  scandal  science  senate  sexism  sexualharassment  slate  slavery  snark  socialjustice  socialsecurity  society  spending  spin  src:salon  stephenmoore  stephenwalt  steverosen  stimulus  studentloans  study  subprime  supplyside  supremecourt  susancollins  ta-nehisicoates  tanehisicoates  taxes  teaching  tedcruz  tedgaebler  theatlantic  thebigcon  theplank  time  tnc  tnr  tomcotton  toread  tpm  treasury  triggerwarnings  twitter  unitedstates  universities  universityofmissouri  us-pres  us  usa  uwarwick  values  venezuela  vids  vox  wages  wallstreet  washpost  wealth  weirdtwitter  welfare  whitesupremacy  willwilkinson  wonkblog  wsj  wtmwk?  youtube  zeljkabuturovic 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: