used to read him. Max would probably know his work best. I followed him, back in 2003-4 because Max blogged with Myg, etc.
I think you're right that he thinks it's just sexier. I also think that it's just indicative of, well, whatever you want to call these guys: it's their defining trait. That is, they believe that you can have growth + progressive policies. They don't see a contradiction. Or rather, as I think Charles Mueller once said, they're all about "Ralph's Pretty Good Grocery."
Basically, the idea is: we all know that capitalism is inherently broken. Alas, there is nothing better and there cannot be anything better. This comes down to a basic understanding of human nature in which people are basically lazy, stupid, and brutish. Sure, you can try to have a world where the grocery has everything anyone could ever want, plus good working conditions, pay and collective ownership for the help, etc. But that aint' ever gonna happen because people are basically cheaters, slackers, and brutes.
The conservative thinks that any effort to correct this condition - to rectify the excesses of capitalism or to massage human nature inevitably leads to tyranny. You cannot try to make Ralph's Excellent Utopian Grocery where every thing and every one is above average, etc. because that will lead to the loss of freedom. We settle for Ralph's Pretty Good Grocery and our crap economy and democracy because there cannot be anything better due to the limits of human nature.
The progressive neo-liberal agrees but is embarrassed to say so out loud. This is also why neo-liberals LOVE any story at all about communist tyranny and constantly question whether central planning successes are "real".
The old liberals really did disagree. Liberals tend to think humans aren't naturally lazy, greedy, selfish, and prone to inertia. That they are naturally good and are only not good by virtue of unnatural forces -- like a deformed society or 'bad' culture.
Old liberals think you have to correct the imbalances of capitalism, tone down its harsher consequences through redistribution. Here, have some money for college. Here, have some money to tide you over through unemployment. Here, have a low interest loan for a house. They assume they can encourage people to be good people through policy, because they also assume people have the capacity for being good.
Neoliberals think you can correct the imbalances of capitalism through redistribution ALWAYS tied to mechanisms that assume people are cheaters, slackers, and brutes and punish people for this behavior. Capitalism is broken because of the bad people who are capitalists. they are bad because they are naturally so. You can correct its imbalances, but you can't simply redistribute wealth because the dumbass, brutish, lazy hoi poloi are, well, dumbass, brutish, and lazy.
shag
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)