richard lightner

Jan 13 min read

Neo-Liberalism

The Rise and Impact of Neoliberalism: A Historical Analysis EDITED BY AI

Neoliberalism emerged as one of the most influential economic and political philosophies of the late 20th century, fundamentally reshaping global society and financial systems. The term originated with members of the Mont Pelerin Society, who deliberately chose the name to signal their modernization of 19th-century pro-market ideas1. This ideological movement gained institutional backing in 1956 when the University of Virginia established the Thomas Jefferson Center for Political Economy and Social Philosophy, combining libertarian economic policies with conservative political philosophy2.

The core principles of neoliberalism advocate for unfettered markets, massive deregulation, and the systematic weakening of labor unions, alongside extensive privatization of public services and reduction of social safety nets. These ideas gained prominence during the 1980s under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States, fundamentally challenging the post-World War II social compact that had provided various forms of social protection across different nations3.

The fall of communist dictatorships in 1989 marked a pivotal moment for neoliberal ideology. Rather than viewing these events as part of broader movements against authoritarianism, neoliberal advocates interpreted them as a definitive victory for market capitalism and electoral democracy. This interpretation effectively marginalized alternative economic critiques, particularly Marxist analyses that had gained traction in the 1970s and 1980s4.

The global impact of neoliberalism has been profound and far-reaching. In Japan, for instance, implementing neoliberal policies led to dramatic employment changes, with workers losing the ability to move from low-paid to well-paid sectors, resulting in increased income inequality5. The International Monetary Fund's imposition of neoliberal economic policies globally has often resulted in financial hardship for affected populations6. Traditional social welfare systems, from Germany's social market to France's healthcare system, have faced increasing pressure from neoliberal reforms7.

In the United States, the Democratic Party's embrace of neoliberalism marked a significant transformation in American politics. This shift became particularly evident during Bill Clinton's presidency and his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)8. Initially negotiated by George H.W. Bush, NAFTA was ultimately passed under Clinton with Republican support. While presented as a means of removing trade barriers, the 2,000-page agreement primarily focused on protecting corporate investments in Mexico9.

The neoliberal orientation of the Democratic Party continued through subsequent administrations. Obama's political philosophy aligned with neoliberal principles early in his career10, while Hillary Clinton's close ties to financial institutions exemplified the party's ongoing relationship with corporate interests11. This transformation of the Democratic Party has had lasting implications for American politics and society.

The implementation of neoliberal policies has led to numerous significant consequences. Income inequality has increased substantially, while labor unions have been systematically weakened. Privatizing public services has accelerated, and democratic institutions have faced mounting challenges. These changes have contributed to rising social tensions and political polarization12. Critics argue that neoliberal policies have created conditions of scarcity that increase working-class competition and undermine solidarity13.

As we grapple with neoliberalism's legacy, its impacts remain deeply embedded in contemporary economic and political structures. The transformation it has wrought in global societies continues to shape debates about monetary policy, social welfare, and the role of government in the 21st century.

Footnotes

McLean, Nancy. "Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America." 2017, 2023, p. 51. ↩
Ibid., p. 45. ↩
Schrecker, Ellen, ed. "Cold War Triumphalism: The Misuse of History After the Fall of Communism." pp. 87-88. ↩
Ibid., p. 73. ↩
"New Cambridge History of Japan." p. 283. ↩
Ali, Tariq. "Street Fighting Years: An Autobiography of the Sixties." p. 20. ↩
Schrecker, Ellen, ed. "Cold War Triumphalism: The Misuse of History After the Fall of Communism." pp. 87-88. ↩
Frank, Thomas. "Listen, Liberal: or, Whatever Happened to the Party of the People." 2017. ↩
Frank, Thomas. "Listen, Liberal: or, Whatever Happened to the Party of the People." 2017, p. 86. ↩
Street, Paul. "Hollow Resistance: Obama, Trump and the Politics of Appeasement." p. 146. ↩
Ibid. ↩
Street, Paul. "Hollow Resistance: Obama, Trump and the Politics of Appeasement." p. 90. ↩
Lewis, Penny. "Hardhats, Hippies, and Hawks: The Vietnam Antiwar Movement as Myth and Memory." ↩

Last edited just now

Commentaires

Different Points of View over the future of Atomic weapons.

During the Afghan War, President Donald Trump (GAG!) authorized a General to use the Mother of all Bombs, a bomb just shy of the power of an atomic bomb, on his own. Notice that this had no positive affect for the US in the outcome of the war. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/world/asia/moab-mother-of-all-bombs-afghanistan.html)

There is a plethora of information about the development and use of the atomic bomb during World War II. Much of the world was astounded that the US used such a bomb on civilians. Others said, drop more.

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 9, 1945, “served as the symbolic coronation of American global power.” Nevertheless, the use of the atomic bomb in World War II brought international condemnation. At the Tokyo War Crimes Trials of 1946-1948, Justice Pal of India cited the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as war crimes. U.S. President Harry S. Truman responded by publicly saying that the atomic bombs were dropped “in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands of young Americans.” However, President Truman in correspondence with John Foster Dulles that his reasons for dropping the atomic bombs were the attack on Pearl Harbor and the murder of our prisoners of war. “The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.” (Martin Sherwin. “Hiroshima and Modern Memory.” The Nation. October 10, 1981)

“In the summer and fall of 1945, US atomic policy left us troubled and perplexed. Roosevelt, we thought, had been committed to a policy of international understanding and conciliation. . . . Truman’s policy, however, appeared to have the opposite aim: to keep a monopoly of the atomic bomb in U.S. and British hands, and to use it as a strong trump card in tough political bargaining with the Soviet Union.” (Sherwin, Martin. A World Destroyed: the Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance. 1975. xi)

And, well before the bombings FDR and Churchill “rejected steps that might have led to the international control of atomic energy.” (Martin Sherwin. “Hiroshima and Modern Memory.” The Nation. October 10, 1981)

According to nuclear physicist Hans Bethe who worked on the Manhattan Project, “Many of us had been influenced directly or indirectly by Niels Bohr, the great Danish physicist. He argued that only international control of nuclear weapons could save the world from a nuclear arms race, and that such a race would imperil, not enhance the security of the United States and Great Britain. Many other scientists, especially at the University of Chicago Metallurgic Laboratory, at the initiative of Leo Szilard, had come independently to the same conclusion.

Martin Sherwin, George Mason University History professor who specialized in the history of nuclear weapons, wrote that, this interpretation by physicists and historian is wrong. Roosevelt decided, with Churchill, “that the bomb should remain and Anglo-American monopoly.” (Sherwin, Martin. A World Destroyed: the Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance. 1975. xii)

However, this is not mentioned in Hiroshima in America: fifty years of denial, by Robert Jay Lifton and Gregg Mitchell.

KOREA

There are numerous arguments about whether or not the atomic bomb should have been used in Korea, Vietnam, or other existential circumstances.

In late 1950, following their invasion of Korea, Chinese forces surrounded U.S. Marines. “Distraught himself, the chief executive (Truman), told a press conference on November 30 that nuclear bombsight be used against the enemy and seemed to indicate that the decision would be MacArthur’s.” (William Manchester. American Caesar. 608, 610; Bruce Cumings. The Korean War: a History. 2010. p. 30)

The U.S. developed the ability fire an “atomic shot from a cannon.” (Bruce Cumings. The Korean War: a History. 2010. p. 34)

“In mid-May Ike (President Dwight Eisenhower) told the [American] National Security Council that using nukes in Korea would be cheaper than conventional weaponry, and a few days later the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended launching nuclear attacks against China.” (Bruce Cumings. The Korean War: a History. 2010. p. 34)

This is interesting since Eisenhower’s reaction to Hiroshima was, we didn’t have to use that awful thing on them. (Lifton, Robert Jay and Mitchell, Greg. Hiroshima in America: fifty years of denial. 1995. 213)

Operation Hudson Harbor - flying lone B-29 bombers over North Korea to simulate a dropping of an atomic bomb. North Korean leaders must have had “steel nerves” as this simulation was eerily similar to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Operation Hudson Harbor concluded that the use of atomic weapons would not be “useful” as it was difficult to identify “large masses of enemy troops.” (Bruce Cumings. The Korean War: a History. 2010. p. 157-159)

The United Nations/United States forces faced defeat in Korea but Truman looked strong because he “threatened to use the atom bomb against China.” However, this “made peace talks virtually impossible.” (Stone, I.F. The Hidden History of the Korean War. 213)

Major General Emmett (“Rosy”) O’Donnell, commander of the Far East Air Force’s Bomber Command . . . [stated that] “We have never been permitted to bomb what are the real strategic targets, the enemy’s real sources of supply.” He said that the strategic bombing commanded been “designed to deliver the atomic offensive to the heart of the enemy” and indicated very clearly that he thought the bomb should have been used against the Chinese.”” (Stone, I.F. The Hidden History of the Korean War. 245)

RICHARD NIXON

Richard Barnet, former State Department aide, activist and scholar, who founded the Institute for Policy Studies (Wikipedia) warned “of the danger that the United States government might resort to the use of nuclear weapons. Barnet then cites Vice President Richard Nixon speaking to the Executive Club of Chicago on March 17, 1955 as saying,

“The weapons which were used during the Korean War and World War II are obsolete. Our artillery and our tactical Air Force in the Pacific are now equipped with atomic explosives which can and will be used on military targets with precision and effectiveness.

“It is foolish to talk about the possibility that the weapons which might be used in the event war breaks out in the Pacific would be limited to the conventional Korean and World War II types of explosives. Our forces could not fight an effective war in the Pacific with those types of explosives if they wanted to. Tactical atomic explosives are now conventional and will be used against the military targets of any aggressive force.”

Of course, we are not aggressors by threatening China or invading Vietnam.

VIET NAM

1964 American Republican Presidential candidate Senator Goldwater of Arizona was a reserve Air Force General and “suggested that the United States could isolate the Vietcong in South Vietnam any bombing the supply routes connecting China and North Vietnam.” He also proposed using nuclear weapons “to clear the jungles where the Vietcong were presumably hiding. The public reaction to those notions was one of horrified alarm.” (Thomas Powers, The War at Home. 2) It turns out that the United States bombed Southeast Asia the equivalent of many atomic bombs through out the war.

“Although Goldwater was finally persuaded to stop talking about nuclear weapons.”

Although Goldwater’s advocacy of atomic weapons scared people his idea to win the war did not. Johnson portrayed himself as “responsible” as opposed to Goldwater who he implied would get us all killed. (Thomas Powers, The War at Home. 9)

Noted military writer Hanson Baldwin believed that the US should use its overwhelming technological power to counter communism even if that meant nuclear weapons. Of course, only for “defensive purposes.” “If we cannot do this, he says, we had better “call it quits.” (Noam Chomsky, At War with Asia. 52)

General Curtis LeMay advocated the use of nuclear weapons to end the conflict with communism once and for all. “We ought to nuke the chinks. . . . We are swatting flies when we should be going after the manure pile.” (Thomas Powers. The War at Home. 40; Rowland Evans and Robert Novak. Lyndon B. Johnson: the Exercise of Power. 538)

So, there is pretty much agreement that the use of the atom bomb was on the table. The horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki completely ignored.

In 1954 the United States “assuming the Chinese Communists intervene would engage in a “highly selective atomic offensive.” (Pentagon Papers. New York Times. 1971. 46) However, if the “Chinese Communists do not intervene” then the use of atomic weapons would occur if it would aid the US in the war. (Pentagon Papers. New York Times. 1971. 47)

McNaughton drafted a “Proposed Course of Action” to McNamara. In his long list of actions McNaughton noted risks. One was the “escalation to the use of nuclear weapons.” (Pentagon Papers. New York Times. 1971. 442-445, passim)

Presidential assistant for national security, Walt. W. Rostow, wrote a memorandum on May 6, 1967, analyzing U.S. bombing strategy in Viet Nam. One of his conclusions was “we do not want a nuclear confrontation over Viet Nam.” (Pentagon Papers. New York Times. 1971. 585, 588)

Neo-Liberalism

Recent Posts

Commentaires

Atomic Bomb

Viet Nam War

Subscribe here to get my latest posts