Uhm, you trust Wikileaks? Sorry, but anyone buying into that criminal right-wing effort led by a rapist is in no place to criticize the Democratic party or its nominee. Any organization (or Presidential candidate, for that matter) that is “above criticism” cannot be trusted as accountable. I’m all for government transparency, so if you are, too, you should seriously start asking yourself why Wikileaks keeps doing things that help Russian interests, or why it never targets the Republican party or its nominee.
UPDATE 8/9: Oh look, the Trump campaign’s admitted to communicating with Assange. It’s now entirely safe to say Wikileaks has Trump’s & Russian interests at heart, and not America’s or American citizens’ interests.
Anyway, your continued credibility problem aside, back to Neoliberalism:
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
Clinton opposes everything on this list of facets of Neoliberalism. Like I said, you’re buying into a mountain of nonsense and lies. You’re also simplifying things to fit your bias and agenda, rather than letting facts speak for themselves (like how you are super obviously biased against Clinton by mistrusting her for no valid reason and are not upholding a similar standard to any other candidate — kinda suspect giveaway right there).
For instance, I’m in favor of Free Trade agreements, because they are good for the world and global peace and prosperity, but I’m opposed to investor-state dispute settlement clauses, because those are generally horrible. If you think free trade agreements are therefore bad overall, your reductionist perspective prohibits useful or meaningful discourse towards getting better trade agreements. And if you think trade agreements are bad regardless of such details, then your lack of historical awareness for why we have them in the first place reveals a level of naïveté (or a terrifying penchant towards protectionism and/or isolationism) that just further compounds on my point that you’re lacking in credibility on this topic.
Besides, your list of “justifications” for why Clinton is supposedly a neoliberal is flawed at best and shows how little you seem to care about historical context. Why regurgitate old things she’s changed her mind on? Why not apply that same standard to other candidates? Why attack the only candidate who believes in science and facts, and not criticize the ones that pander to anti-science activists or downright proudly proclaim how little they believe in facts?
I guess my main concern with your position is that you are so readily willing to believe in lies about Clinton but not facts about other candidates that are far more problematic. But then, that would explain why you’re in support of one of the other candidates, though.
