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.
I don’t think it’s possible for one’s definition of leftwing and rightwing to float just like that if one’s politics are anchored in principles, though I can see how the tribalist unthinking parroty crowd will follow their political tribe to wherever the tribe “leaders” take it hence end up so deep rightwing (whilst thinking they’re lefties) that at times they parrot fascist shit with just a few words changed.
Personally, all it takes for me is to examine what party leaders do and say in light of the “the greatest good for the greatest numbers” principle to see if a party is at least paying lip-service to leftwing ideals or not and it’s quite interesting how so many self-proclaimed leftwing parties seem to have a long list of priorities far above and beyond abiding by said principle.
For example, in light of that principle it would make sense to do what’s “good for business” when the businesses in question are good for people, but those two things are completelly detached in today’s policy making which is purelly about maximizing outcomes for businesses and people can (and do) get screwed - something clearly not abiding by the second part of the “greatest good for the greatest number” principle. Ditto for the whole obcession with “GDP Growth” - a country’s GDP going up is completelly useless if said growth doesn’t actually help most people and is even a negative if it comes on the back of making life worse for many or even most (for example, all the GDP “growth” from house price inflation is screwing a lot more people than it helps).