Neo? Alt? WTH?
We see a lot of references to neo-this and alt-that in news coverage and opinion pieces. Neo-liberal. Neo-Nazi. Alt-right. Alt-left. The prefix “neo” indicates that something is new and different. The prefix “alt” implies that the term in question is an alternative to something else. In some cases, those prefixed terms actually mean a new turn on, or alternative to, an existing thing. In a few instances it may be a word invention that has no examples in reality. It seems that in other cases, these are rebranding tactics to make things that are unpopular, repugnant and/or troglodytic sound more palatable and acceptable.
Are individuals and groups just hanging new labels on old, ugly and denounced ideas? If media and publications are assisting in this rebranding of things when they refer to them with these terms, why? If establishment sources blithely go along with this, aren’t they complicit in helping bad-faith actors, especially hate groups, successfully appear to be just “average, everyday people” with certain concerns? It is one thing to actually offer something new, fresh or different, but quite another to manipulate language to do things, like distance yourself from existing labels identified with hate for example, while still sharing all of the characteristics of the original.
First: Neo-Nazi or just Nazi? I looked at a few references and I see a distinction without a real difference. Merriam-Webster shows the following definitions. Nazi: one who espouses the beliefs and policies of the German Nazis. Neo-Nazi: a member of a group espousing the programs and policies of Hitler's Nazis. Huh? The member of the second group shares all of the same traits as the first? What makes them “neo” and not just plain, old, run-of-the-mill Nazis? Is it because they are not walking around in uniforms the Germans used in WWII? Maybe they are referred to as Neo-Nazi because they are not old enough to need the aid of a cane to carry their hate for Jews, Roma and people of color around. If one walks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi, acts like a Nazi and idolizes Nazis, they’re a Nazi. There’s nothing new about them. If that describes you, own it.
Alt-right is another one I am tired of seeing and cannot understand what purpose it serves. Alt-right, according to Merriam-Webster means: a right-wing, primarily online political movement or grouping based in the U.S. whose members reject mainstream conservative politics and espouse extremist beliefs and policies typically centered on ideas of white nationalism. Ok, they’re people with an online presence who strongly identify with white nationalists. Again, per Merriam-Webster, a white nationalist: one of a group of militant white people who espouse white supremacy.
In essence, the people being called alt-right are nothing more than racist extremists on the internet subscribing to the ideology of white supremacy. This label is just another cover. Racism and white supremacy have been present on our planet for at least 400 years. This so-called “alt” is not an alternative to anything. The term alt-right is merely an effort to identify in a way that makes you seem different, while holding the same antiquated ideas that many widely renounce and see as hateful and backward. If you subscribe to racism and white supremacy, have the courage of your convictions and own it. Don’t rename yourself something else to escape the general scorn of supporting an idea that many feel is nonsensical and obsolete.
Back to neo. What is a neo-liberal? I see this term quite a bit, especially in discussions of economically political concerns. First, how does one define liberal? That depends. If speaking in a social sense, you generally mean a philosophy that supports individual rights and freedoms to pursue one’s own desires, possess personal property and the right to be governed only with consent. In more recent American politics, it is the support for more social services provided by the government for the country’s residents.
In economics, generally speaking, liberal is the right to pursue economic improvement with minimal government intervention, ala laissez-faire or free-market capitalism. Given the general consensus of a few different reference sources, a neo-liberal is one who subscribes to low, or no, government funding of social services and minimal, or no, government regulation in financial and labor markets. Essentially, it sounds very similar, maybe identical, to the laissez-faire and free-market economic theories of economic liberalism.
So, why not just say you’re a free-market capitalist? Most would say they know what that term means. Is it because, many people who aren’t already wealthy, have watched unregulated or deregulated markets work in ways that don’t work in their favor and won’t like you and your ideas? Again, if you think this idea is good, claim it. Don’t hide your support under terminology that vaguely intimates it is for individual liberation, when in actuality it is a push for business and trade players to be unrestrained by regulation or oversight in their transactions.
There are more terms like this but you get the point. To further beat to death an old joke based in a homophone, are these semantics or some antics? Communication requires language. Successful communication requires language that has common meaning we all agree on. Inventing more new terms to refer to the same old ideas isn’t helping us communicate; if anything, it is purposely causing confusion and making it harder.
In a contrasting musical example, neo-soul and alternative rock were terms coined to describe new turns on something established. Both took aspects of classic soul and rock, added something new and produced a distinctive sound that hearkened to the old but had its own unique identity. These other terms, in my opinion, don’t do that. More often than not, they are a new coat of paint to cover old, blistered, corroded ideas, to try and make them look new and attractive. Many of these rusted, broken-down concepts should be left to the weathering effects of time, complete their disintegration and ultimate consumption of the unattractive and unloved husks they have become. The effort and energy rejuvenating them is wasted and would be better spent on building and developing truly new ideas that promise real progress.
A Monarch Butterfly exiting its chrysalis. Due to deforestation its winter grounds in Mexico are being destroyed and this iconic insect is now endangered. I've collected hundreds of the worms from roadside milkweeds before the local municipalities made the effort to cut them down with their massive bush hogs. I gave them fresh milkweeds on a daily basis and watched them mature and go through the metamorphic process. One of the true wonders of nature. Something my mother taught me as a child in the meadows of Southern Ontario.
I think "neo-liberal" is different from those other two. It strikes me as a name that acknowledges the semantic drift from the original meaning you mentioned to the second meaning you mentioned (so that now using the original term to identify free-market supporters would be confusing). If anything, it's mostly used as a pejorative by their political opponents, even with what I feel is an attempt for the "neo" prefix to connote some relation to neo-nazis (i.e. the prefix itself is now negatively polarized).