March 24, 2022
CONSIDER THAT UKRAINE IS LIBERAL AND RUSSIA POST-LIBERAL:
The New Paradigm: How Fares Post-Neoliberalism? (QUINN SLOBODIAN, SPRING 2022, Democracy)
In early 2018, Larry Kramer, the dean of Stanford Law School and the president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, which held assets of about $10 billion and disbursed around $400 million a year in grants, wrote a memo to the foundation's board with a plan to end neoliberalism. Across 26 pages, he laid out a theory of recent U.S. history. By his account, the last four decades had seen the steady rise to dominance of a philosophy that operated around three interconnected beliefs: Society was composed of individuals seeking to maximize their own utility, progress was measured in metrics of monetary wealth, and the role of government was to enable markets to operate as freely as possible. The philosophy was incubated by a small group of intellectuals including Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, who carried out a breathtaking victory march from the margins in the early postwar years of social democracy and Keynesianism to the center of American political consciousness. By the 1980s and 1990s, neoliberalism reached into every field of human endeavor from higher education to public policy. Kramer noted that philanthropy had played a major role in the success of neoliberalism, from the William Volker Fund to the Olin Foundation to the Koch Network. He proposed something radical to the board of the philanthropic body he directed: The Hewlett Foundation should take this history and flip it, reverse-engineer the neoliberal project and replace it with a new economic paradigm.The Hewlett Foundation was in some ways an unlikely motor for such an initiative. Created by the co-founder of Hewlett-Packard, it had concentrated more on issues of population and reproductive rights alongside environmental and cultural issues over the years. Kramer's pitch was more confrontational than most of their previous efforts. He was targeting the pituitary gland of the American body politic, proposing that a change in the ruling ideology at the source could reshape social life as a whole. Yet the board agreed. They committed $10 million to the first two years in 2018 and, in 2020, renewed with $50 million more.
Capitalism, democracy and protestantism seem to have survived a global plague and a land war in Europe rather easily.
MORE:
INTERVIEW: This war can save liberalism: Putin has shown us what the alternative looks like (Freddie Sayers spoke to Dr Fukuyama, 3/24/22, UnHerd)
Some people are seeing this war as further evidence of the demise of the liberal world order; you seem to see in it an opportunity?Vladimir Putin is at the centre of a global anti-liberal campaign waged by authoritarian great powers like Russia and China, but also by a number of populists that have arisen in democratic countries, like Viktor Orbán in Hungary or our Donald Trump. Putin said very explicitly that he thought liberalism was an obsolete doctrine. And a lot of conservatives in the United States have actually (they're backing away from it now) said they like Putin; they like the idea of a strongman that could cut through all the liberal nonsense they saw going on in their societies. With this invasion of another democratic country, Putin has created a certain amount of moral clarity. The biggest advantage of a liberal state is the fact that it's not authoritarian. It's not a dictatorship; it doesn't kill people; it doesn't invade neighbours. Putin's demonstrated what the alternative to liberalism is.So you see in this war the possibility of "a new birth of freedom". What do you mean by that?Well, I think that our liberal democracies have gotten very complacent over the last 30 years. After the fall of the former Soviet Union, we had this extended period of peace and prosperity. And I think that especially younger people who grew up in that world, where they didn't experience either the violent conflict of the twentieth century, or the dictatorship of a communist regime, began to take liberal democracy for granted. They assumed that this was simply the way the world was, and nobody could threaten that. And as a result, they weren't willing to actively defend democracy where it was under threat. And I think that's one of the reasons that Putin thought that he could get away with this invasion: because he thought that the United States is internally very divided, that Europe really doesn't believe in much of anything anymore. One of the nice things that has happened is the unity that's been expressed within the Nato alliance, especially in Germany, where they basically revised 40 years of Ostpolitik.
Posted by Orrin Judd at March 24, 2022 9:14 PM
