However, neoliberalism is not that much different from old British Whig liberalism and the ideas of Manchester Capitalism, not to mention South American liberalism. While many of the saints of the US libertarian/Friedmanite neolib movements, e.g. Austrian School, came definitely from Central European liberalism.
So I suggest an acceptance of "liberalism" as the name of a big ideological family tree, whose regional branches evolved into rather different ideologies, with US equal-opportunity social liberalism being just one of those, and with neoliberalism as a cancerous growth.
Where the for me sad part is that what remains of the formerly rich and varied Central European liberalism (including a good chung of social liberalism) are a bunch of converts to the neolib; and a similar disease affected most Western European liberal parties, too - witness the name of the European liberal meta-party: European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
As far as I could ascertain, the origin of the modern sense of Neoliberalism is South American (Pinochet's time), and was also used by some American originators of nineties Third Wayism early as 1983 (see A Neoliberal's Manifesto [pdf!]), though it is primarily NOT self-applied.
On a further nuance, the English Wiki has this to say:
Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strictly in the context of English-language usage the term is a syllabic abbreviation of "neoclassical liberalism", since in other languages "liberalism", minus any modifier such as "social" (as in social liberalism), has more or less retained its classical meaning.
The converse is privilege for some. Sometimes it is simple plutocracy, but other times there is a hint of the "philosopher king" or wise ruler model.
The genius of the American model was, that for the first time, rulers operated with "the consent of the governed". If the people make bad decisions at least they are their own.
I think I see too much of the top down model of governance in the various versions of "liberalism" for comfort. I think this blurring of the fundamental axiom of democracy is deliberate. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
As I said, that's the US sense of it. Liberal means 'literally' freedom for all. Though, liberals being the ideology of the Enlightment, all three of "liberty, equality, fraternity" were present, even if with changing weights.
And sometimes it is a delusion of meritocracy, as in the case of many 18th-19th century British and not just British liberals.
I think I see too much of the top down model of governance in the various versions of "liberalism" for comfort. I think this blurring of the fundamental axiom of democracy is deliberate.
It definitely discomforts me, too, but it's easy from my position :-) However, I suggest that the same top-down attitude is reflected in the US Founding Fathers' fears of direct democracy, ideas about the Senate and the electoral college, and the lack of universal suffrage they had initially in most (all?) states. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
