[aaron-lebo]

What's different about this from "Third Way" politics?

Clinton (Bill) was a Third Way neoliberal who basically believed what you and that blog post are saying. Clinton (Hillary) saw those policies defeated 2 years ago.

[S]omething different and distinct from liberal capitalism with its unswerving belief in the merits of the free market and democratic socialism with its demand management and obsession with the state. The Third Way is in favour of growth, entrepreneurship, enterprise and wealth creation but it is also in favour of greater social justice and it sees the state playing a major role in bringing this about. So in the words of... Anthony Giddens of the LSE the Third Way rejects top down socialism as it rejects traditional neo liberalism. — Report from the BBC, 1999,

It seems they are discovering a 30 year old term and blogging about it. What's been rehabilitated?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

It's probably different in degrees, but let's be realistic, nothing has been rehabilitated nor is anything new being said.

[lhnz]

Who do you believe is rediscovering a 30 year old term here?

Have you heard of the Adam Smith Institute?

It is a neoliberal think-tank and over the years many of its policies have been adopted by the UK.

That blog post was written by the executive director.

> The inability to come up with a new interesting term (or acknowledge the history behind the existing term) doesn't portend great things.

Quoting your previous deleted post here.

Are you aware that the meanings they're assigning to the term, are actually in line with what was meant when it was first used at the Walter Lippmann Colloquium in 1938?

[aaron-lebo]

Who do you believe is discovering a 30 year old term here?

You claimed that that blog post "rehabilitates" the term. I'm saying that the general beliefs that the author describes are well-trod ground within neoliberalism. He's describing himself as a third way neoliberal with slightly more libertarian tendencies.

Have you heard of the Adam Smith Institute?

It is a neoliberal think-tank and over the years many of its policies have been adopted by the UK.

That blog post was written by the executive director.

It'd be more impressive without the credentials because it reads like a random blogger.

Are you aware that the meanings they're assigning to the term, is actually in line with what was meant when it was first used at the Walter Lippmann Colloquium in 1938?

His blog post mentioned rejecting dogmatism. Calling back to 1938 as the "real definition" is very dogmatic. Since then the 1980s through 2016 have happened in the US, all associated with neoliberalism.

Just saying, like the other post, that a blog post and a Reddit post with 120 upvotes hardly change the general meaning of a term.

[lhnz]

The point isn't to wow you with credentials. The point is that your previous insistence that this definition isn't correct or common is absurd.

That post rehabilitated neoliberalism. There is now a community of people that use the term this way. Many have tens of thousands of followers on Twitter. Memes are created by its fans. CEOs of huge startups drop-in to do AMAs, etc.

To say that there has been no change in how the term is used or perceived over the last few years is utterly ridiculous.

[aaron-lebo]

The point isn't to wow you with credentials. The point is that your previous insistence that this definition isn't correct or common is absurd.

In other words, an argument from authority.

To say that there has been no change in how the term is used or perceived over the last few year is utterly ridiculous.

You may be in an echo chamber because in politics and academics this rehabilitation is not known about.

Can't disagree with you that there may be a change in how it's been viewed, but to state that the "post rehabilitated neoliberalism" is equally if not more utterly ridiculous. Not to one up you, but please realize that. You're talking a Medium blog post vs how hundreds of millions of people view the term (whether they know what it is or not).

[lhnz]

Argument by authority isn't fallacious in this instance.

If you are powerful and interconnected with government then the way that you use political terms has a large impact on their meaning.

One of the most powerful think-tanks in the world uses the term this way. That has a real world impact.

Given this, your insistence that "in politics and academics this rehabilitation is not known about" is absurd.

You are right that millions of people probably have no idea or still have a negative opinion of globalisation, etc, however I do not think that this is mutually exclusive with it being rehabilitated in some circles and notably so.