Recently, the term "neoliberalism" seems to be undergoing a kind of evolution. In the past half century (i.e. during my lifetime), "neoliberalism" seems to have been a negative term used by people, mostly on the left, to define an opposition they don't like. Lately, however, some people have been trying to "reclaim" the term as defining their own position. Interestingly, I find this redefinition somewhat appealing. It seems to be a kind of "liberalism with libertarian tendencies" and/or "libertarianism with liberal tendencies" which actually hoves somewhat to where I am, politically, myself.
One recent self-identified "neoliberal" that I ran across is Sam Bowman (I don't really know who that is – some economist maybe?). For the most part I am close to that defintion. Interestingly, I think Hillary Clinton is, too. Many Bernie Sandersites have called Clinton "neoliberal" despectively, but in fact, she might call herself neoliberal if identifying with Bowman's definition.
I think what Bowman leaves out entirely, but which is critical to my understanding of both the historical conception of "neoliberalism" as well as why I think I don't quite match the concept, is on the issue of militarism and/or interventionism. I am not a pacifist, but I am not really in favor of militarism, even the "trying to save the failed-state-du-jour" variety common nowadays.
My biggest disappointment with Obama and biggest ambivalence about Hillary Clinton is in this realm. I think that this lacuna with respect to militarism in historical neoliberalism is its overlap with what was called "neocolonialism" when I was vaguely marxist, in college. And just as then, when it comes to such things, I am very much anti-interventionist.
If I stick only with Bowman's defnition, I could be a neoliberal. But I refuse the term because of that unmentioned neocolonial affiliation. Both traditional liberals and traditional libertarians would also be unconfortable with it, I think.
[daily log: sweating]