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.
That’s not really reality tho is it?
Not every political ideology that seeks the greatest good for the greatest number involves a Revolution Of The Proletariat and the Confiscation Of The Means Of Production.
There is quite a range of ideas of how to make things as best as possible for the many which are entirelly compatible with leaving the core choices in the hands of people in general (i.e. Democracy) and even recognize that in light of human behaviour the sweet spot of “the greatest good for the greatest number” might not in fact be the utopia of “everybody has exactly the same as everybody else” and are even compatible with Capitalism (at least with free pricing and markets as a way to allocate most resources).
I mean the whole point of Social Democracy is to be a way of also working for the many (not just the few) in the context of Democracy (rather than requiring a centralized autocracy, like Socialism) which also makes it compatible with at least some Capitalism since unlike Socialism, it does not seek to centralized ownership of the means of production and centralized price setting.