I can definitely see an argument for Clinton, the champion of NAFTA, moving in a neo-liberal direction, but calling it some broader break-point where the whole democratic party abandoned labor is a much, much broader claim. Wouldn’t you say?
there are factions within any party that can be ascendant in any given cycle (measured in decades). I am guessing this may be obvious to you, but reagan and the dirty tricks full court press by the republicans terrified the “left” in the US and made it easier for neo-liberal mindshare to metastasize in the democratic party.
clinton style neo-lib ideology didnt get much resistance because it seems that the dems have been the place where anyone to the left of attila the hun moved and set up shop for quite a while.
so the arc of the democratic party continues to ebb and flow. hopefully the “new left” will make a permanent mark on it and course correct the neo-lib terror of the last 30 years.
The problem is that Clinton’s neoliberalism and rejection of the unions both wasn’t just Clinton (he didn’t get a revolt from other Democrats over NAFTA) and the results weakened the unions so they were less valuable to Democrats. Neoliberal economic policy has been the dominant philosophy of the party establishment for 30 years now, to the detriment of the unions. Hell, many of those establishment politicians were already in power during Clinton’s term.
Now, this doesn’t mean “all Democrats never listen to unions”, but they’re just often not a priority. And hopefully it’s changing. Biden’s done some meaningfully pro-union things (albeit with one very high-profile anti-union thing), and the resurgence of the labor movement in general means they’re more powerful.
There was a fair bit of pushback against NAFTA. Additionally, I would point towards things like blocking petroleum exploration and generally pursuing greater business regulation as not very neo-liberal positions.
I can definitely see an argument for Clinton, the champion of NAFTA, moving in a neo-liberal direction, but calling it some broader break-point where the whole democratic party abandoned labor is a much, much broader claim. Wouldn’t you say?
there are factions within any party that can be ascendant in any given cycle (measured in decades). I am guessing this may be obvious to you, but reagan and the dirty tricks full court press by the republicans terrified the “left” in the US and made it easier for neo-liberal mindshare to metastasize in the democratic party.
clinton style neo-lib ideology didnt get much resistance because it seems that the dems have been the place where anyone to the left of attila the hun moved and set up shop for quite a while.
so the arc of the democratic party continues to ebb and flow. hopefully the “new left” will make a permanent mark on it and course correct the neo-lib terror of the last 30 years.
The problem is that Clinton’s neoliberalism and rejection of the unions both wasn’t just Clinton (he didn’t get a revolt from other Democrats over NAFTA) and the results weakened the unions so they were less valuable to Democrats. Neoliberal economic policy has been the dominant philosophy of the party establishment for 30 years now, to the detriment of the unions. Hell, many of those establishment politicians were already in power during Clinton’s term.
Now, this doesn’t mean “all Democrats never listen to unions”, but they’re just often not a priority. And hopefully it’s changing. Biden’s done some meaningfully pro-union things (albeit with one very high-profile anti-union thing), and the resurgence of the labor movement in general means they’re more powerful.
There was a fair bit of pushback against NAFTA. Additionally, I would point towards things like blocking petroleum exploration and generally pursuing greater business regulation as not very neo-liberal positions.