Why YSK: I’ve noticed in recent years more people using “neoliberal” to mean “Democrat/Labor/Social Democrat politicians I don’t like”. This confusion arises from the different meanings “liberal” has in American politics and further muddies the waters.
Neoliberalism came to the fore during the 80’s under Reagan and Thatcher and have continued mostly uninterrupted since. Clinton, both Bushs, Obama, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Johnson, and many other world leaders and national parties support neoliberal policies, despite their nominal opposition to one another at the ballot box.
It is important that people understand how neoliberalism has reshaped the world economy in the past four decades, especially people who are too young to remember what things were like before. Deregulation and privatization were touted as cost-saving measures, but the practical effect for most people is that many aspects of our lives are now run by corporations who (by law!) put profits above all else. Neoliberalism has hollowed out national economies by allowing the offshoring of general labor jobs from developed countries.
In the 80’s and 90’s there was an “anti-globalization” movement of the left that sought to oppose these changes. The consequences they warned of have come to pass. Sadly, most organized opposition to neoliberal policies these days comes from the right. Both Trump and the Brexit campaign were premised on reinvigorating national economies. Naturally, both failed, in part because they had no cohesive plan or understanding that they were going against 40 years of precedent.
So, yes, establishment Democrats are neoliberals, but so are most Republicans.
If you look up the definitions of liberalism and neoliberalism I do not see a difference. Both want exactly the same: deregulation, strengthening the ownership of private capital assets, low taxes, no trade unions, reduced government spending, privatisation.
Let me put things this way:
The liberal principle of “People should be free to do what they want with other willing people” collides with the leftwing principle of “The greatest good for the greatest number” when it comes to the field of Economics and wealth in general: it’s absolutelly fine per the first one that some people accumulate as many resources (i.e. wealth) as they want whilst it’s definitelly not the case under the second principle if that deprives others of the use of said resources and hence decreases the spreading of the “good” to the greatest number.
Mind you, if “money is power” and “ownership is power” were taken into account then the liberal principle would be compatible with the leftwing one as accumulating money/assets would be seen as reducing the power of others, hence their freedom (a simple example: “if somebody owns all the land, then nobody else is free to live as they want because they can’t own the place were they live and work”). You will notice that “strangelly”, all the liberals (both neolibs and identity warriors) never talk about how the power of money and the power of ownership restricts the freedom of others.