I didn't like the DeLong/Smith piece either. But …
I think that soft neoliberals are still pleased with the progressive left, largely for its pragmatism. The LEFT does not make deals; the left does. Soft neolibs view the Republican party as fash-adjacent, at best. They do not like fascism. On the other hand, I agree with you that the soft neolibs long for a "legitimate" hard neolib party. That's a mistake, not the least because hard neoliberalism is unpopular, and hard neolibs need to make very unsavory alliances to get elected.
On charter schools, you're out of date. Fifteen years ago, the soft neoliberals were in favor of charter schools. They were receptive to the idea on the merits, and thought it was a valid point of compromise with the hard neolibs. (Soft neolibs did not like vouchers; hard neolibs did.) Now, charters are poison among soft neolibs, for a few reasons. First, the results are in, and charter schools don't look very impressive. The performance of charters in well-regulated states is nothing special, and the scamsters step in where regulation is poor. Charter advocates can come up with no better inherent charter advantage than "Union Free." Second, the teachers' unions are a core part of the Democratic Party. Third, it is increasingly obvious that charter schools are a stalking horse for the right's war on public education. The hard neolibs want it all left to the market; the Jesus folk cannot tolerate tolerance; and the fash want to tear everything down. Even the soft neolibs realize this by now.
(fwiw, I sent my kid to a charter school. It was one of the good 'uns, and nobody has a social conscience with respect to the welfare of their children)
The Iraq War was "supposed to" spread western liberal democracy to the Middle East, but it didn't work.
I'm more concerned with "what they actually represent" then what they are "supposed to represent."
Most g-loaded tests seem to basically be IQ tests provided even the most basic exposure to the material is present.
Given this, the argument that kids should have to attend schools they and their parents wouldn't choose freely because they are "supposed to (but don't)" raise test scores seems suspect. Choice is the default and non-choice must present a very compelling case.
The neolibs simply use straw man arguments and the compliant MSM report that. It's like the current Aussie 'discussion' we are having around gas. Quite simply we should not be opening new fossil fuel projects, but when that is brought up, pollies from both sides, and lobbyists, counter with the line that we can't shut the industry tomorrow. No one is saying to do that but then the pollie keeps on answering the question they wanted asked
I think you have started well, Prof John, and I'd like to read the rest of the piece when you have finished.
A source material you might like to consult is a recent article in the New York Times which I think nicely summarises the veering away of the US right (and the Australian right as it mimics the US, or picks up the leads laid down here by the Murdoch press, Musk et al) from any notion of liberalism. In the author's perspective, the Democratic party in the US is now the champion of policies that are conducive to freedom – freedom of individual agency, freedom from economic oppression, freedom from gender oppression.
But to explain why this has come about, and to therefore justify this conclusion, it is necessary to postulate the trajectory of right-wing thought. I would argue that the Republican Party has been captured by sectors who wish to de-legitimise the anti-corporation Left - environmental and other corporate regulation being the real target, culture war fabricated outrage and abortion stuff being a smokesceen. To the extent that the anti-corporation Left overlaps with the soft left, which is to say a fair bit, then the target can be portrayed as monolithic although in reality it is sectored like the right.
I’m a little confused about what “soft” neoliberals are accused of. Since “Neoliberal” has acquired so much negative baggage, I really wish we had a word for what _I_ think of “neoliberal as meaning: “market friendly” regulation plus income transfers.
In the here and now I see that cashing out as YIMBY land use and building code reforms, taxation of net CO2 emissions, merit based immigration, near zero fiscal defects achieved mainly by increased revenues using both a VAT and progressive consumption taxes, cost-benefit guided regulation of safety and environmental regulations, and public investment that have NPV>0 when evaluated at shadow prices.
If “neoliberalism” means lax regulation of banking risk, and tax cuts for the rich with deficits, and the failure of the Fed to keep inflation up to target during 2008-2020, then good riddance.
So would THE LEFT in Australia be a combination of Socialist Alliance, Socialist Alternative, Vic Socialists, and various campaigning groups like the AUWU? Whereas the The Left would be Green-Labor Parliamentarianism and establishment trade unionism?
That's the kind of division. But campaigning groups that are actually campaigning for something are part of the left, in my view. For The LEFT, the point of campaigning on specific issues is to raise consciousness, recruit members etc. And of course there plenty of unions that aren't left in any sense.
I didn't like the DeLong/Smith piece either. But …
I think that soft neoliberals are still pleased with the progressive left, largely for its pragmatism. The LEFT does not make deals; the left does. Soft neolibs view the Republican party as fash-adjacent, at best. They do not like fascism. On the other hand, I agree with you that the soft neolibs long for a "legitimate" hard neolib party. That's a mistake, not the least because hard neoliberalism is unpopular, and hard neolibs need to make very unsavory alliances to get elected.
On charter schools, you're out of date. Fifteen years ago, the soft neoliberals were in favor of charter schools. They were receptive to the idea on the merits, and thought it was a valid point of compromise with the hard neolibs. (Soft neolibs did not like vouchers; hard neolibs did.) Now, charters are poison among soft neolibs, for a few reasons. First, the results are in, and charter schools don't look very impressive. The performance of charters in well-regulated states is nothing special, and the scamsters step in where regulation is poor. Charter advocates can come up with no better inherent charter advantage than "Union Free." Second, the teachers' unions are a core part of the Democratic Party. Third, it is increasingly obvious that charter schools are a stalking horse for the right's war on public education. The hard neolibs want it all left to the market; the Jesus folk cannot tolerate tolerance; and the fash want to tear everything down. Even the soft neolibs realize this by now.
(fwiw, I sent my kid to a charter school. It was one of the good 'uns, and nobody has a social conscience with respect to the welfare of their children)
All good points. I'll keep thinking through this.
Charter Schools don't change peoples IQs, so you wouldn't expect them to have any kind of affect on test scores.
They do often make kids childhoods better though. That's pretty important.
And of course private schools remained open and sane while public schools decided to take a two year break from doing their jobs.
Test scores are supposed to reflect learning, not IQ.
"Supposed to"
The Iraq War was "supposed to" spread western liberal democracy to the Middle East, but it didn't work.
I'm more concerned with "what they actually represent" then what they are "supposed to represent."
Most g-loaded tests seem to basically be IQ tests provided even the most basic exposure to the material is present.
Given this, the argument that kids should have to attend schools they and their parents wouldn't choose freely because they are "supposed to (but don't)" raise test scores seems suspect. Choice is the default and non-choice must present a very compelling case.
The neolibs simply use straw man arguments and the compliant MSM report that. It's like the current Aussie 'discussion' we are having around gas. Quite simply we should not be opening new fossil fuel projects, but when that is brought up, pollies from both sides, and lobbyists, counter with the line that we can't shut the industry tomorrow. No one is saying to do that but then the pollie keeps on answering the question they wanted asked
I think you have started well, Prof John, and I'd like to read the rest of the piece when you have finished.
A source material you might like to consult is a recent article in the New York Times which I think nicely summarises the veering away of the US right (and the Australian right as it mimics the US, or picks up the leads laid down here by the Murdoch press, Musk et al) from any notion of liberalism. In the author's perspective, the Democratic party in the US is now the champion of policies that are conducive to freedom – freedom of individual agency, freedom from economic oppression, freedom from gender oppression.
But to explain why this has come about, and to therefore justify this conclusion, it is necessary to postulate the trajectory of right-wing thought. I would argue that the Republican Party has been captured by sectors who wish to de-legitimise the anti-corporation Left - environmental and other corporate regulation being the real target, culture war fabricated outrage and abortion stuff being a smokesceen. To the extent that the anti-corporation Left overlaps with the soft left, which is to say a fair bit, then the target can be portrayed as monolithic although in reality it is sectored like the right.
I’m a little confused about what “soft” neoliberals are accused of. Since “Neoliberal” has acquired so much negative baggage, I really wish we had a word for what _I_ think of “neoliberal as meaning: “market friendly” regulation plus income transfers.
In the here and now I see that cashing out as YIMBY land use and building code reforms, taxation of net CO2 emissions, merit based immigration, near zero fiscal defects achieved mainly by increased revenues using both a VAT and progressive consumption taxes, cost-benefit guided regulation of safety and environmental regulations, and public investment that have NPV>0 when evaluated at shadow prices.
If “neoliberalism” means lax regulation of banking risk, and tax cuts for the rich with deficits, and the failure of the Fed to keep inflation up to target during 2008-2020, then good riddance.
I've written lots on this. An internet search on "quiggin" + "neoliberalism" will clarify
So would THE LEFT in Australia be a combination of Socialist Alliance, Socialist Alternative, Vic Socialists, and various campaigning groups like the AUWU? Whereas the The Left would be Green-Labor Parliamentarianism and establishment trade unionism?
That's the kind of division. But campaigning groups that are actually campaigning for something are part of the left, in my view. For The LEFT, the point of campaigning on specific issues is to raise consciousness, recruit members etc. And of course there plenty of unions that aren't left in any sense.