The paleo-liberals were for capitalism, "free trade" , liberty for themselves, liberalization of government control of themselves, etc.
If one makes the adjustments for this historical relativity, Brad is correct, because today's "neo-liberals" are actually conservative or really reactionaries, because they are trying to turn the clock back from capitalism as modified by the impact of socialism and colonial national liberation, to paleo-capitalism.
Another twist in this U.S. is the long term historical inversion of liberalism on the issue of government or state action in society and economy. As stated above, the original or paleo-liberals were for the government keeping their hands off the bourgeoisie (laissez -faire, "liberty"). By the time of the New Deal, liberalism came to represent extensive social and economic legislation and regulation, an inversion of the original. U.S. conservatives were for "less government".
Today's neo-liberalism is actually retro-liberalism, reinverting the New Deal form of liberalism. Neo-liberalism is actually a third historical liberalism, which returns to the original, like a spiral.
Charles Brown
>>> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> 05/18/99 04:11PM >>>
Bert Davis wrote:
>I am at times puzzled, confused, dismayed and outraged by the uses of the term
>Neo-liberalism.
>In my youth Liberal Democrats believed in unions, safety nets and progressive
>taxation. Conservative Republicans were against unions, safety nets and
>wanted
>none or regressive taxation.
>To label today's corporate drive for world domination as Neo-liberalism is
>like
>saying that black is white.
>Please enlighten me as to the origin, history, meaning and purpose of
>Neo-liberalism.
>Shouldn't it be called Neo-conservatism? TIA.
Liberalism outside the U.S. means Manchester liberalism, i.e. small-state, laissez-faire economics. Back in the 60s and early 70s, Milton Friedman tried to popularize this definition of liberalism, but it never took.
Doug