John Fease

Community columnist

“Most scholars tend to agree that neoliberalism is broadly defined as the extension of competitive markets into all areas of life, including the economy, politics and society.” — The Handbook of Neoliberalism

Perhaps the greatest surrender to the neoliberal framing of our story was Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton’s declaration that “It’s the economy, stupid,” when he ran in 1992.

This momentous shift said, it’s not what is “right.” It’s ultimately about what makes economic sense. This statement came to define the Democratic Party, and does to this day. It had already defined the Republican Party. It’s not too long a leap to suggest that this shift in world view by the Democrats lead to the birth of the Tea Party, which took up the challenge and ratcheted it up to a new level, where “heartlessness” became the new benchmark.

As long as the Democrats are viewed as the real opponent of the Republican Party, the confusion regarding what really matters will continue, and people will not see a legitimate alternative to dealing with things like health care (including mental health), mass incarceration, poverty, foreign relations, climate change and so much more. Until the progressive movement defines itself in an alternative framing of the issues, it cannot be clearly differentiated from the Democratic Party. I have struggled for months over seeing clearly why I cannot embrace the values and arguments of the Democratic Party. This was the epiphany for me. This is why there seems to be no way forward with the existing two-party system.

At the recent Madison Action Day, sponsored by Wisdom, an interdenominational human rights organization in Wisconsin, I was struck by the fact that the ultimate argument made to legislators was usually an economic one. Dealing with those who are found guilty of a crime in a particular way “made economic sense.” “For every dollar we spend on alternative methods to incarceration, we recover two dollars,” was one argument. There was the supporting material to point out that it was also the humane and moral thing to do, but ultimately it was dollars that mattered. That’s because the majority has come to accept the rules, and neither of the two major parties disagrees that “it’s the economy (stupid).”

Progressives must break away from the Democratic Party’s embrace of the neoliberal model. We must insist on a higher ground. We must work to bring a shift of world view to the debate. Surely, members of both parties who abandon the neoliberal party line are welcome “to the party.” But that, I think, must be the requirement.

Bernie Sanders refused to allow his arguments to be framed within the neoliberal criteria, though he didn’t specifically argue the criteria. In their effort to insist on such a framing, his opponents (and even most of his supporters, who didn’t consciously consider the framing narrative) called him a “socialist.” Surely, in a neoliberal world, where our schools have taught students their framing story within the neoliberal model, this is what ultimately defines people and policy. “I like a lot of the things Bernie says, but he’s a socialist!” And we all “know” that to be a socialist is the ultimate error. You can be heartless and cruel, but if you’re a capitalist, you can be forgiven. Not so, the compassionate socialist.

Dare we hope for a rebirth of the “Wisconsin Progressives” — around the country?

John Fease is an Appleton resident. He can be reached at jrfease@ymail.com.