Yikes! Every answer to this question thus far is incredibly off-base! No, it does not refer to a new kind of liberalism that promotes Communism or socialism.
Neo-Liberalism, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism refers to a political movement that espouses economic liberalism as a means of promoting economic development and securing political liberty. The movement is sometimes described as an effort to revert to the economic policies of the 18th and 19th centuries classical liberalism...
Policies of Neo-Liberals (Few, if any, appear very "communist-like" to me):
# Fiscal rectitude, meaning that governments would cut expenditures and/or raise taxes to maintain a budget surplus
# Competitive exchange rates, whereby governments would accept market-determined exchange rates, as opposed to implemented government-fixed exchange rates, as had prevailed under the Bretton Woods System
# Free Trade, which means the selected removal of trade barriers, like tariffs, subsidies, and regulatory trade barriers
# Privatization, which means the transfer of previously-public-owned enterprises, goods, and services to the private sector.
# Undistorted Market Prices, meaning that governments would selectively refrain from policies that would alter market prices.
# Limited Intervention, with the exception of intervention designed to promote exports, some kinds of education or infrastructural development.[5]
From: http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html
"Since the 1990's activists use the word 'neoliberalism' for global market-liberalism ('capitalism') and for free-trade policies. In this sense, it is widely used in South America. 'Neoliberalism' is often used interchangeably with 'globalisation'. But free markets and global free trade are not new, and this use of the word ignores developments in the advanced economies. The analysis here compares neoliberalism with its historical predecessors. Neoliberalism is not just economics: it is a social and moral philosophy, in some aspects qualitatively different from liberalism...
The idea that everyone should be an entrepreneur is distinctly neoliberal. Early liberals never expected the majority of the population to own property, let alone run a business... Policy to increase the number of entrepreneurs is typically neoliberal, although ironically it must be implemented by the State. A classic market-liberal would not say that a free market is less of a free market, because only 10% of the population are entrepreneurs. For neoliberals it is not sufficient that there is a market: there must be nothing which is not market."
2007-08-11 10:47:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by Sangria 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
The "neocons" are a group of ex-liberals who took a few steps to the political right.
Therefore a "neoliberal" would be a group of ex-conservatives who took a few steps to the political left?
2007-08-11 10:22:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
well... there is a classic definition... as many have posed the wikipedia bit that discusses it... that mainly deals with economic liberalism and free markets...
but it seems that some conservatives that have grown tired of being called "neocons" thought it would be cute to roll all their bad ideas about liberals into one and call that made up group "neoliberals"...
as with anything... definitions can change with popular use... but as far as technical definitions go... the wikipedia one is quite different than the common usage on here from conservatives...
2007-08-11 11:13:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
The term neo liberal is a irrational because the nature of liberalism is flexibility. It doesn't have to be "neo" because its inborn requirement to be relevant always makes it so.
If the prefix "neo" means "new" a neo-liberal would be one who has a new view or a new practice with respect to being liberal.
A neocon is a conservative who is more strident in his view of conservatism perhaps injecting fundamentalist religion into his political views.
2007-08-11 10:16:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by fredrick z 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
Neoconservative. I believe it started out being a term to describe anyone who is conservatively minded, but in favor of large government and large spending. That would notably include GW Bush and his administration's record federal budget deficit. However, it has started to become a word that is used by Democrats and Liberals as a pejorative term [i.e. smear] to describe anyone right of them who they think are especially evil.
2016-05-19 23:43:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Speakeasy's got it right as far as what the pre-LBJ liberals believed in. Johnson's presidency began what is more accurately called neo-marxism, which was established by Adorno, Horkheimer, Gramsci and Lukacz, from the Frankfurt School at Columbia University after they fled nazi
Germany. Marxism had failed in the soviet union because it had to be enforced militarily, so they reworked it and influenced a cadre of educators in universities, who passed it on in the guise of "cultural marxism", although of course they never called it that, to education majors. Cultural marxism later became known by it's more socially acceptable name, "political correctness" and has been promoted for years in the schools and entertainment industry in America. Modern liberalism bears no resemblance to classical liberalism, which actually resembles conservatism today.
2007-08-11 10:37:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
From what I remember (and it was too long ago that I read an economic book) it really reflects around economic policy and going back to the economic views of classic liberalism with Free Trade and raising taxes.
2007-08-11 10:18:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by ALASPADA 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
What David R (above) says is the right response. It's a term that probably comes from this very forum. The argument that I would have with David is that it's the TRUTH. The Democratic party has indeed been infiltrated with Socialists and some, not all, are actually beginning to admit it.
2007-08-11 10:22:25
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
Anything to one extreme or another is to much.. There needs to be a balance...all over this board I've been seeing why do liberals believe this.. why do conservatives believe that.. It's like we are all Americans.. who we decide to run for president will make the policies for all of us not just one group... In the end you just loose your point.. this country needs to be united not divided...
2007-08-11 10:09:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
There is no translation.
Neocon came about when Jews left the democrats a long time ago. It is a slur.
2007-08-11 10:44:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by Chainsaw 6
·
0⤊
2⤋