Once upon a time, Lina Khan was seen as the hope of a burgeoning consensus, uniting both sides of the political divide in altering America’s economic future. The old stance of unabashed approval toward massive corporations, fostered during Bush and Obama’s times, was supposedly on its way out. This new supposed shift heralded a boost in industrialization, a bolstering of state capacities, and enforcing restrictions on market prowess that allowed the rich to flex their muscles over the common workers and consumers. This ‘post-neoliberalist’ vision, however, now rings quite hollow, with Khan herself at the forefront of reprising the same old tune under a different banner.
As it turns out, Khan’s fears are now that the corporations that had capitalized on progressivist ideas, such as ‘woke’ culture and ESG (environmental, social, and governance) principles, to cement their grip on the market, are now conveniently switching horses mid-race to maintain their dominance. Interestingly, they are doing so with none other than the very ‘anti-woke’ positions that counter these values. All of this while members of the Trumpian camp seem quite content to turn a blind eye.
Joe Biden and his administration, with Khan as the chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), cashed in on this trend and continued to reinforce this ‘post-neoliberalist’ status quo. Khan, in her position, revived the long-sleeping FTC, which had been bewitched by Reagan-era refrains declaring the infallibility of corporations. However, the resulting -apparently warranted- actions taken under Khan’s leadership seemed rather part of the same pattern.
Khan led a charge against companies incorrectly branding their foreign-produced goods ‘Made in USA’, waged war on Facebook over its monopolistic practices, and took a firm stand against non-compete clauses used by employees. Despite these draconian measures, one might wonder why she failed to note the irony of these actions, all too emblematic of the very market dominance the ‘post-neoliberalist’ movement was supposedly against.
As Donald Trump embarked on his second term, one could have expected some divergence from Biden-styled policies. However, disappointingly, there appeared to be a strong undercurrent pushing for continued adherence to Biden’s course. The nomination of Gail Slater to head the Department of Justice’s antitrust unit underscored this strange continuity, much to the chagrin of Republicans and Democrats alike, who viewed her as a kindred spirit to Khan’s ideologies.
Khan seems to believe that the only way to achieve the realignment towards economic populism and commit to it would be by upsetting the rich and powerful. In light of Khan’s argument, it appears Republicans might need to pick up the pace in learning how to wrestle control from big businesses, who are conveniently employing the ‘anti-woke’ shield to ward off regulatory scrutiny.
Khan finds it both interesting and somewhat absurd that companies tend to make certain commitments only to capitulate at the first hurdle, thereby undermining their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) projects. Usually, this happens right when ‘troubling mergers’ come under scrutiny and need approval. She seemingly fails to consider the potential implications and contradictions of her own position within the context of the post-neoliberal agenda.
Throwing shade on the Biden administration, Khan acknowledges the Democrats’ failure to secure a steady footing among working-class voters in the last elections. According to Khan, this was not due to poor policy but simply a lack of time. The Biden administration’s excuse for Kamala Harris’ noticeable failure, according to Khan, was rising living costs that people were increasingly concerned about.
Khan justified the surge in pricing during the pandemic to supply-chain issues, which she claimed were legitimate. Yet, when these issues were resolved, prices curiously didn’t fall as they should have. The veiled insinuations about companies exploiting the situation to inflate prices adds a sour note to the whole narrative.
Khan feels that the deep roots of neoliberalism pose a significant challenge for post-neoliberalism to uproot quickly. A convenient position, one might argue, for those in power to rest on their laurels and continue with business as usual under the Biden rule, without a substantial commitment to the change they pledged.
While some of the old guard continue to staunchly back the ‘Abundance’ project, even Khan accepts a portion of their logic. ‘To the extent that there are arguments about making government more effective, more efficient, absolutely, let’s do that.’ However, she is quick to draw the line, tying improved effectiveness and efficiency to tackling monopolies and oligarchic power.
In a somewhat tragic irony, the brunt of this self-inflicted damage from bureaucratic overcomplications and deliberate slowdowns of economic governance falls on none other than the largest companies themselves. Yet again, it seems strange that Khan does not acknowledge this as a byproduct of the very neoliberal tendencies she claims to combat.
Rather predictably, Khan finds her ideologies reflected in the likes of independent union organizer Dan Osborn, Bernie Sanders’ protegé Abdul El-Sayed, progressive candidate Nathan Sage, and socialist hopeful Zohran Mamdani. All of whom, regrettably, seem hell-bent on driving the same flawed narrative.
In final analysis, Khan’s perspective paints a worrying picture for the future of ‘post-neoliberalism’. As the Trump supporters veer away from robust antitrust, protection entitlements, and friendliness with organized labor, the fate of the post-neoliberal vision seemingly hinges on the internal conflicts within the Democratic Party.
It is incredibly clear that under Biden’s leadership, a departure from the existing economic norms seems unlikely. Biden, with the likes of Khan in his control room, seems to have done little more than repackage the same old wine of neoliberal principles in a shiny new ‘post-neoliberal’ bottle.
It would appear that the ‘post-neoliberalist’ agenda, in its existing form, is nothing more than a charade, where the rich continue to pull the strings, while the ‘common man’ is left to grapple with inflating prices and slimming opportunities. The change promised by Biden’s leadership, unfortunately, still seems a distant dream.
The post Khan & Biden: Peddling the Old Wine of Neoliberalism in a ‘Post-Neoliberal’ Bottle appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
