[closeparen]

/r/neoliberal holds that particular regulatory and redistribution schemes have costs and benefits, and favors market interventions to the extent that they contribute to a technocratic optimization of general welfare. This alienates both those who dogmatically oppose any intervention in the economy, and those who support interventions which are more emotionally satisfying than effective.

This doesn't fit neatly under any other label as far as I can tell, least of all "neoliberal." It's most closely aligned with centre-left policy, though from a very different value system (more utilitarian than about uniting the working class against their evil overlords).

[dragonwriter]

> This doesn't fit neatly under any other label as far as I can tell, least of all "neoliberal."

This limited interventionism with a market core (both the general orientation and the specific degree of intervention preferred) is pretty much dead-on Clintonian Third Wayism, which is the most significant manifestation of the Democratic side of the late 20th Century “neoliberal consensus”, which in turn is essentially the defining instance of “neoliberalism” in its modern US political usage.

[closeparen]

In the modern US political usage (and Wikipedia), neoliberalism refers to Reagan and Thatcher rather than Clinton. Yes, yes, they are "basically the same" from a revolutionary socialist perspective, but still.

[dragonwriter]

> In the modern US political usage (and Wikipedia), neoliberalism refers to Reagan and Thatcher rather than Clinton.

In modern US political usage (I'm not really concerned about Wikipedia) it refers to all of those (and not just those individual figures, but to large swathes of both major parties in the US, particularly in 1980s and 1990s—and similarly often both ruling and major opposition parties in much of the West); there is a reason that there was much talk of a neoliberal consensus in that time period, and to a lesser extent since.