Well, the shouting is over for a while -- haha I'm joking, politics will be big shouting FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE! -- but it's died down a bit, to deal with the backlog. Chief among the things that need dealing with is "neoliberalism", the question thereof. The term is everywhere; so, too, is the accusation, by liberals chiefly, that it has either no meaning, or means whatever you want it to. What's the truth? Well, I would suggest that the term "neoliberalism" is 1) hideously overused, but when correctly used, 2) indispensable to understanding the current situation (and with the proviso that what follows is only one of several ways into it).

What do we talk about when we talk about neoliberalism? Many of those who object to it do so the assumption that it is being used to describe a mere idea or body of arguments -- they wonder why "liberalism" will not serve equally as well. But neoliberalism doesn't primarily describe a set of ideas, but a historical period -- a set of interlocking events, institutions and conditions. Some of it has been driven by people with "classical" liberal beliefs, but it is far more than that.