Good lord, the Greenberg piece is nonsensical. It simply doesn't do to call an opinion wrongheaded and then attempt to debunk it by pointing to personal vibes while ignoring concrete policies.
Ronald Reagan indeed resembles Bill Clinton (and vice versa) because they did exactly the same thing. Did either one provide new public services, such as healthcare? No. Did they both cut taxes to the rich? Yes.
In Europe we don't get confused, as Greenberg clearly does, about what 'neoliberalism' means - red or blue can (and do) practice it. Though of course that's the whole point of using the term - that 'liberal' and 'conservative' are just wings of the same neoliberal machine serving the wealthy. Understanding that means moving beyond both of these empty vibe-packets towards concrete policies that reverse the Reagan-Thatcher neoliberal movement.
This is false. Clinton raised the top tax rate from 31% to 39.6%, added a 36% tax bracket, raised corporate taxes, increased taxes on higher earning social security recipients, and made a number of other changes.
"Did either one provide new public services, such as healthcare?"
In the case of Clinton, it wasn't for lack of trying - his healthcare plan ("Hillarycare") couldn't make it through congress (his bill to raise taxes was 50-50, with Al Gore casting the tiebreaking vote). After 1994, the republican wave, there was a R majority in both the house and the senate.
Clinton did manage to pass a bill increasing healthcare portability (HIPAA) and a bill increasing child healthcare coverage (CHIP).
But I find it just bizarre to pretend to see no difference between Reagan and Clinton. Or to conflate Clinton's inability to pass healthcare legislation with a lack of desire to pass healthcare legislation.
Obama was only able to pass Obamacare by one vote in the senate, and did it just before *he* lost his D majority in Congress.
I don’t pretend to see no difference between Reagan and Clinton - I literally cannot see a difference between them. Though you indeed point to a tax increase for the wealthy, I’m not certain how that was implemented, with what cut-outs and so on. I imagine with Larry Summers at the helm there were plenty of exemptions.
The bottom line is that during Clinton’s admin, income inequality increased by 12%. The rigorous balanced-budget constraint meant that social spending was down overall in this period.
This is replicated in all the G7 and European countries where similar neoliberal policies prevailed in the post-Reagan/Thatcher era.
Income inequality continued to rise, and marginalized communities often found themselves left behind. The welfare reforms implemented during his presidency have faced scrutiny for exacerbating poverty and limiting access to necessary social services.
As for “wanting” to pass healthcare legislation but failing to do so, by now we are very familiar with how Democrats use a stooge or two to sabotage their own social spending bills and point at the scapegoat as the problem, rather than the lack of will in their own party to provide services.
The same goes with the massive watering-down that was the Obamacare ACA, they “had to” reduce the scope of the plan because of opposition. The fact is, if Democrats had the will to pass comprehensive healthcare legislation, they would have done so, just as they overcome budgetary limitations to vote for massive military spending for the US and Israel.
Interesting to think about whether what the cost/benefit would be if they were willing to try harder to plug into the digital/social space -- make more essays free, try to get traction on social, etc. Would that cost them their soul, in some indefinable way? Would it work even if they tried? It does feel to me like a noble but doomed endeavor but maybe would lose its nobility if it tried too hard not to be doomed?
Excellent article, thank you. I’m a huge fan of Liberties (yes, I’m 63), a magazine I was introduced to by a friend three years ago. That friend is a year older than I am, so yes, it does seem to attract mostly older readers. Wieseltier recently led an intellectually stimulating eight-week Zoom seminar on Maimonides, which required weekly readings from The Guide for the Perplexed; the final session was this past Sunday. Among the attendees were David Remnick, Mark Lilla, and many other public intellectuals, cultural critics, and religious scholars.
One interesting and ironic note about Celeste Marcus—who, in my view, is a very good writer and is meant to be a draw for younger readers. She accused the writer and podcaster Yascha Mounk of raping her, and he was subsequently fired from The Atlantic, the same magazine that fired Wieseltier. I’m not sure whether the rape accusations were dismissed; she had been Mounk’s girlfriend and was in bed with him when the alleged rape occurred. There is an interesting article about the case in Quillette: https://quillette.com/2024/03/20/toward-ruin-or-recovery-celeste-marcus-liberties-journal-yascha-mounk-feminist-metoo/.
liberties attracts a crowd of bloviating would-be intellectuals with zero convictions who love to hear themselves talk, which DC has in spades
If I still lived in DC, I would surely hate Liberties. But the view from SF is more charming.
Neoliberalism, liberal Zionism, and decent culture writing, yeah, seems like Marty Peretz era New Republic.
Wondered where all the liberal supporters of the Iraq war went and looking at the list of contributors found most of them!
*Marty Perez vibes intensify*
It certainly doesn't attract readers incapable of forming coherent thoughts. That's old world for you.
proving my point
Good lord, the Greenberg piece is nonsensical. It simply doesn't do to call an opinion wrongheaded and then attempt to debunk it by pointing to personal vibes while ignoring concrete policies.
Ronald Reagan indeed resembles Bill Clinton (and vice versa) because they did exactly the same thing. Did either one provide new public services, such as healthcare? No. Did they both cut taxes to the rich? Yes.
In Europe we don't get confused, as Greenberg clearly does, about what 'neoliberalism' means - red or blue can (and do) practice it. Though of course that's the whole point of using the term - that 'liberal' and 'conservative' are just wings of the same neoliberal machine serving the wealthy. Understanding that means moving beyond both of these empty vibe-packets towards concrete policies that reverse the Reagan-Thatcher neoliberal movement.
"Did they both cut taxes to the rich? Yes."
This is false. Clinton raised the top tax rate from 31% to 39.6%, added a 36% tax bracket, raised corporate taxes, increased taxes on higher earning social security recipients, and made a number of other changes.
"Did either one provide new public services, such as healthcare?"
In the case of Clinton, it wasn't for lack of trying - his healthcare plan ("Hillarycare") couldn't make it through congress (his bill to raise taxes was 50-50, with Al Gore casting the tiebreaking vote). After 1994, the republican wave, there was a R majority in both the house and the senate.
Clinton did manage to pass a bill increasing healthcare portability (HIPAA) and a bill increasing child healthcare coverage (CHIP).
But I find it just bizarre to pretend to see no difference between Reagan and Clinton. Or to conflate Clinton's inability to pass healthcare legislation with a lack of desire to pass healthcare legislation.
Obama was only able to pass Obamacare by one vote in the senate, and did it just before *he* lost his D majority in Congress.
I don’t pretend to see no difference between Reagan and Clinton - I literally cannot see a difference between them. Though you indeed point to a tax increase for the wealthy, I’m not certain how that was implemented, with what cut-outs and so on. I imagine with Larry Summers at the helm there were plenty of exemptions.
The bottom line is that during Clinton’s admin, income inequality increased by 12%. The rigorous balanced-budget constraint meant that social spending was down overall in this period.
This is replicated in all the G7 and European countries where similar neoliberal policies prevailed in the post-Reagan/Thatcher era.
Income inequality continued to rise, and marginalized communities often found themselves left behind. The welfare reforms implemented during his presidency have faced scrutiny for exacerbating poverty and limiting access to necessary social services.
As for “wanting” to pass healthcare legislation but failing to do so, by now we are very familiar with how Democrats use a stooge or two to sabotage their own social spending bills and point at the scapegoat as the problem, rather than the lack of will in their own party to provide services.
The same goes with the massive watering-down that was the Obamacare ACA, they “had to” reduce the scope of the plan because of opposition. The fact is, if Democrats had the will to pass comprehensive healthcare legislation, they would have done so, just as they overcome budgetary limitations to vote for massive military spending for the US and Israel.
https://worldhistoryjournal.com/2025/10/21/bill-clinton-presidency/#Fiscal_Policies_and_Budget_Surpluses
Interesting to think about whether what the cost/benefit would be if they were willing to try harder to plug into the digital/social space -- make more essays free, try to get traction on social, etc. Would that cost them their soul, in some indefinable way? Would it work even if they tried? It does feel to me like a noble but doomed endeavor but maybe would lose its nobility if it tried too hard not to be doomed?
Excellent article, thank you. I’m a huge fan of Liberties (yes, I’m 63), a magazine I was introduced to by a friend three years ago. That friend is a year older than I am, so yes, it does seem to attract mostly older readers. Wieseltier recently led an intellectually stimulating eight-week Zoom seminar on Maimonides, which required weekly readings from The Guide for the Perplexed; the final session was this past Sunday. Among the attendees were David Remnick, Mark Lilla, and many other public intellectuals, cultural critics, and religious scholars.
One interesting and ironic note about Celeste Marcus—who, in my view, is a very good writer and is meant to be a draw for younger readers. She accused the writer and podcaster Yascha Mounk of raping her, and he was subsequently fired from The Atlantic, the same magazine that fired Wieseltier. I’m not sure whether the rape accusations were dismissed; she had been Mounk’s girlfriend and was in bed with him when the alleged rape occurred. There is an interesting article about the case in Quillette: https://quillette.com/2024/03/20/toward-ruin-or-recovery-celeste-marcus-liberties-journal-yascha-mounk-feminist-metoo/.
Keep up the good work!