Individuals, ticks and anti-liberalism – NRC

The wonderful thing about this time is that the merits of liberalism are rarely mentioned. People prefer to repeat the cliché that most modern discomfort arises from it. Such a statement that is never completely correct, but also not completely incorrect: after 9/11, the credit crisis, corona and the Allowances affair, it is difficult to say that the liberal victory has only brought highlights.

Nevertheless, the anti-liberal sentiment of the moment is not without its drawbacks. Numerous academics get their teeth into the alleged source, ‘neoliberalism’. A vague concept, certainly here: this country never had a significant party that presented a ‘neoliberal Netherlands’ as an ideal to the voter.

It is not always clear to critics what they mean. Last year Ewald Engelen published a flaming book against the ‘neoliberal slumber’, AWAKE!, only to note on page 70 that neoliberalism ‘means something different to everyone’. Another renowned scholar on this theme, Merijn Oudenampsen, defined neoliberalism last year in NRC as ‘a policy based on the principle that society should be ordered as much as possible according to the market mechanism’. Viewed in this way, a CO₂levy on business or the introduction of sugar tax also neoliberalism, and I don’t know if they would agree with Shell or Unilever.

In addition, the advancing anti-liberalism seems to me to be a slightly larger issue. Xi and Putin are more committed to their own freedom and interventionist ambitions than to citizens’ freedoms. Trump cares more about his own election gains than about fair elections for his country. Big Tech values ​​market dominance more than the privacy of its customers. Anti-liberalism is also on the rise in the House. Most recent example: FVD attaches more importance to curtailing abortion rights than to women’s rights.

And I don’t see a direct connection, but it is noticeable that people here also classify others in the public debate more carelessly. As if color, gender, ticks, country of birth, peerage, whatever, are by definition relevant. Discrimination exists, so you sometimes get the attention, but not as an automaticity.

Because the more people generalize and normalize, the more they deprive others of their individuality. Their own talents, qualities, shortcomings, life choices – their own lives.

So of course there can be criticisms of liberalism, or of neoliberalism (whatever it turns out to be) – but one would hope in these anti-liberal times that people judge others for what they do and what they can do. Not based on some hackneyed group characteristic.