In the Caribbean and Latin America, Structural Adjustment Policies have been ubiquitously associated with neoliberalism. In this study, however, I use the term ‘neoconservatism’ to describe the philosophy as opposed to the economic policy behind Structural Adjustment (SA). Why is ‘neoconservatism’ proposed as a more appropriate term to describe the underlying philosophy associated with SA than ‘neoliberalism’? I think it is important to clarify this position from the outset so that the implications of that distinction are clearly understood.
Although the terms neoliberalism has been used in many different contexts, in this study neoliberalism is taken to be the advocating of economic liberalization, free trade and free markets. It emphasizes deregulation, and the role of the private sector in the economy. Today it is sometimes called ‘market fundamentalism’, which focuses more on the economic aspect of the idea. Neoliberalism, according to Philip Mirowski, came into being as a rethinking of classical liberalism’s postulate that the market would naturally and inevitably bring about the classical liberal state where human nature would be led to adopt the guiding hand of the market because of its clear insight into market forces and the role of the invisible hand (Mirowski and Plehwe, 2009). In other words, classical liberals thought that human nature would incline society towards the adoption of free markets. Neoliberals thought that the adoption of free markets would have to be constructed and helped into being rather than coming about naturally. Neoliberals therefore created a program of steps to bring about the adoption of free markets.
The Mont Perelin Society (which included Freidrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman among its founders) enunciated six principles to help in this construction of this ideal society. Among them:
- “Methods of establishing the rule of law and assuring its development so that individuals and groups are not in a position to encroach upon the freedom of others and private rights are not allowed to become a basis of predatory power” a 5. “Methods of combating the misuse of history for the furtherance of creeds hostile to liberty” 6. “The problem of creating an international order conducive to the safeguarding of peace and liberty and permitting the establishment of harmonious international economic relations”. (Hartwell 1995, 41-42)
Neoliberalism can be considered an economic weltanschauung that postulates the view that when markets are liberalized and government intervention in the economy is minimized a train of events that result in democratic freedom or liberty is set into motion and this presents an optimal situation for economic growth. In other words, to transform a society we can introduce economic liberalization and one of the consequences will be political liberalization, the dynamic between economic and political liberalization maximizes both economic growth and political freedom. The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) defines neoliberalism as a “view of the world based on the belief that the optimal economic system is achieved by giving free reign to market participants, privatization, minimal restrictions on international trade, and the shrinking of government intervention in the economy. Critics argue that neoliberal policies prioritize corporate profits over the welfare of the working majority and society at large” (AFSC 2011, 7)
Neoconservatism, on the other hand, postulates that the political supersedes the economic. A focus on economic realities, therefore, could possibly contradict political objectives. In the final analysis one has to choose whether the political is of a higher value than the economic otherwise, if presented with a choice, one could conceivable negate political objectives in favor of economic objectives. The neoconservative critique of ‘neoliberal’ thinking would be that in pursuit of its economic objectives, one could place economic interests above that of American interests; say for example, placing free trade above American “nationalism”, or investing in an enemy country because it is profitable.
Neoconservatives focus on American interests, on the “new nationalism”, on keeping America as the most powerful nation in the world, and on essentially the building of an American Empire to safeguard American national security in an increasingly hostile world. Professor Tyler McHaley says this about neoconservatism:
“The underpinnings of this ideology began decades ago when former followers of Trotsky and Strauss transformed into liberal Democrats of the1940s and 1950s. A view of strong national defense in the face of communism and, eventually, potentially threatening Third World governments distanced the views of older Democratic Party stalwarts from what was viewed as the radical leftist threat of the liberal Democrats in the 1960s and 1970s.” (McHaley Tyler 2009).
In An American Agenda: Leo Strauss, Nietzsche and Neoconservatism (Naranjit 2008, 84-87) it was recounted how the New Right in America was able to carry out the process of ‘fusion’ by bringing together the three strands of conservatism, namely libertarianism, social conservatism and foreign policy hawkishness into one unifying agenda. At the forefront of this process were the neoconservatives, who, it can be argued, followed a Straussian philosophy with regard to combating nihilism. The defense of ‘public orthodoxy’ as defined by the values of Middle America was the way to fight off the ‘centaurs at the gate’ and the threatening danger of the values of the counterculture. Bringing together the three strands of conservatism was the method of defending ‘public orthodoxy’. Those believing in the need to minimize government intervention in the economy and the efficacy of the market could be classified as belonging to one of the strands of conservatism, i.e. libertarianism. Neoconservatism was able to incorporate market fundamentalism into it’s more encompassing and comprehensive philosophy.
The philosophy of Darryl Naranjit 