Neoliberalism Is Dead as a Political Label. Here’s What Replaces It.

No political movement marches under the banner of neoliberalism, yet the term dominates economic arguments from Washington to Paris. As populist factions on both the left and right wage war against global market structures, the seven-syllable label has collapsed into a rhetorical weapon rather than a coherent ideology. The result is a fractured political vocabulary that obscures what voters actually want: free enterprise stripped of unchecked corporate dominance.

The collapse of the term reflects a broader linguistic failure in modern politics. James Lloyd Dusenbury recently argued in the Wall Street Journal that foundational economic labels, including capitalism and communism, no longer map onto reality. Neoliberalism suffers from an even more acute identity crisis. Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy cannot pin down a single definition for it. During the 1980s and 1990s, when the Washington Consensus dictated global economic policy through deregulation and international trade agreements, the word described a specific governing philosophy championed by figures ranging from Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. Today, it functions almost exclusively as a pejorative.

This semantic drift creates distinct blind spots depending on who is speaking. When progressive populists deploy the word, they are typically targeting wealth concentration, billionaire influence, and the power of multinational corporations. When the nationalist right uses it, the target shifts to open-border immigration policies, technocratic governance, and multilateral trade pacts. Neither faction is actually attacking the concept of private business or voluntary exchange.

Gallup polling exposes the disconnect between academic jargon and public sentiment. Seventy-seven percent of Americans view free enterprise favorably, compared to just 55% for capitalism. The 22-point gap reveals that voters separate the mechanics of starting and running a business from the systemic baggage attached to capitalist theory. This distinction cuts across party lines. Among Democrats, often characterized as drifting toward socialism, 65% hold favorable views of both free enterprise and socialism, while only 35% say the same about capitalism. These voters do not view government safety nets and private markets as mutually exclusive.

The data also dismantles the assumption that Americans are rejecting markets entirely. Big business holds a 35% favorability rating, trailing socialism at 43%. Small business, meanwhile, commands near-universal approval at 95%. Gallup concluded that these numbers do not indicate a wholesale pivot away from markets. Instead, the public harbors deep skepticism toward concentrated corporate power while maintaining strong support for entrepreneurial activity, personal advancement, and consumer choice.

International political shifts underscore how toxic the neoliberal brand has become. French President Emmanuel Macron built his political identity on market-friendly reforms and labor flexibility, positioning himself as Europe’s leading pro-business centrist. He now leaves office deeply unpopular, with French voters increasingly turning to the far left and far right for alternatives. In Canada, Mark Carney, widely praised by American Democrats for his posture toward President Trump, faces attacks from the left precisely because critics have branded him a neoliberal. In both cases, the label operates as a disqualifier rather than a description of policy.

Retiring the word forces a necessary reckoning with actual governance. Voters face concrete choices that require precise language. Debating whether the United States should adopt Nordic-style welfare states—which themselves rely heavily on robust private sectors and high rates of entrepreneurship—demands specificity. Arguing over H-1B visa caps, the construction of data centers, or the expansion of health coverage requires naming those exact issues rather than hiding them behind a catch-all insult.

Market-based policies will continue to shape major economies regardless of what politicians call them. Even the European nations frequently cited by American progressives as post-neoliberal utopias operate fundamentally as market economies with extensive private enterprise and integrated global supply chains. A purely state-directed economy devoid of market mechanisms does not exist on any contemporary map.

The search for a successor vocabulary is already underway among policy researchers attempting to describe the current era of industrial strategy, tariff utilization, and targeted regulation without relying on Cold War-era binaries or 1990s trade doctrine.