> Friedman wrote, “implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny.” (Of course, Kennedy had said that Americans should not ask what their country could do for them. But never mind. It’s that kind of book.)
It's hard to take this article seriously when it makes a glaring mistake analyzing the first two paragraphs of Friedman's book. Friedman was critiquing both statements in Kennedy's famous line ("Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society.")
The term theoretically was invented in the 1930. However it was not really used outside a very small circle and not for long.
The usage of the term, really only exploded after the Chile invasion, where neoliberalism was mentioned in a influential paper. So in that context its more about the US government doing interventions to help the US private sector.
From there the term exploded in usage, going from very little usage to being on . Like literally exploded, and 'neoliberalism' became 'the' term. The main reason it was so successful is because it literally identified 'anything that is not far left' as 'neoliberal' and therefore evil. It was 'invented' as a term to lump together the left of center and the right of center with all conservatives and libertarians. Basically it was just by the 'real' leftist to lump together the 'New Left' with 'Libertarians'. No need to have nuance because they are 'neoliberal' and therefore bad.
Of course nobody actually identified as neoliberal, the 'New Left' didn't and neither did conservatives or libertarians. Hayek or Friedman wouldn't call themselves neoliberal. It was just a term used by the left leaning intelligentsia to identify everything bad in the modern world.
The reason this was so important to have this word is because many of the reforms of social democracy in the 70-90s were actually driven by the traditionally left party. For example, in German politics its common to call the SPD traitors to the Left and call them neoliberal.
This is a pretty common and effective tactic. The libertarian version of this is 'statist'. Basically it doesn't matter if you are right-of-center social democrat or communists, its all just a bunch of 'statists'.
> Neoliberalism is a pragmatically free market with progressively minded government influence and a strong bias towards globalism.
Ironically while there basically was not actual 'neoliberal' philosophy, the last 30-40 years of writing about this philosophy essentially created its own counter-movement that is quite different then anything that actually existed in the 70s.
> Neoliberalism is contemporarily used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers"
> Neoliberalism is distinct from liberalism insofar as it does not advocate laissez-faire economic policy but instead is highly constructivist and advocates a strong state to bring about market-like reforms in every aspect of society.
It's hard to take this article seriously when it makes a glaring mistake analyzing the first two paragraphs of Friedman's book. Friedman was critiquing both statements in Kennedy's famous line ("Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society.")