The Decline of Neoliberalism in the United States Is Irreversible

As a substitute for Keynesianism and a new form of capitalist development, neoliberalism gradually evolved from an economic paradigm into the dominant national economic model of the United States during the Reagan administration and was embraced and implemented by successive governments over the following three decades. With the establishment of U.S. global hegemony after the Cold War and the acceleration of globalization, neoliberalism—which champions free trade, free markets, and limited government—was elevated to a pedestal by the United States and Western countries and promoted worldwide as a “panacea.” History clearly did not end with the advent of the “Washington Consensus.” Faced with the systemic decay of neoliberalism and the various economic crises and social contradictions it has spawned, U.S. governments of different parties have deployed policy measures with divergent orientations in an attempt to salvage neoliberalism’s decline. However, whether through piecemeal repairs or wholesale sublation, the decline of neoliberalism in the United States is irreversible.

作为凯恩斯主义的替代品和资本主义发展的新样态，新自由主义在里根政府时期逐步从经济学范式演化为美国主导型的国家经济模式，并被其后三十年间的历届政府信奉与推行。随着冷战后美国全球霸权地位的确立和全球化进程的加速，推崇自由贸易、自由市场和有限政府的新自由主义被美西方国家推上神坛，并作为“救世良方”在全世界推广。历史显然并未因“华盛顿共识”的提出而终结。面对新自由主义的系统性衰败及其衍生出的各种经济危机与社会矛盾，不同政党的美国政府动用了取向各异的政策手段，试图挽救新自由主义的颓势。然而，无论是局部修补还是整体扬弃，新自由主义在美国的式微均不可逆转。

The Post-Financial-Crisis Reform of Neoliberalism

新自由主义的后金融危机改良

The 2008 world financial crisis triggered by the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis fully exposed the consequences of the unchecked expansion of financial capital under the neoliberal model. Confronted with a collapsing economy and rising unemployment, the Obama administration, which raised the banner of “change and hope,” was forced to adopt a series of interventionist bailout measures. While stimulating the economy, it also tightened regulatory oversight of financial capital, attempting to reform neoliberalism institutionally. Following the Democratic Party’s “big government tradition,” the Obama administration introduced staggering economic recovery and healthcare reform bills, seeking to help the United States emerge from the crisis through large-scale tax cuts, infrastructure investment, and expansion of the social safety net, while also alleviating the wealth polarization contradictions caused by neoliberalism.

美国地产次贷危机引发的2008年世界金融危机彻底暴露了新自由主义模式下金融资本无序扩张的恶果。面对濒临崩溃的经济和持续攀升的失业率，高举“变革与希望”大旗的奥巴马政府被迫采取一系列干预性的救市措施，在刺激经济的同时，加大对金融资本的监管力度，尝试从制度上对新自由主义进行改良。沿袭民主党“大政府传统”的奥巴马政府推出数额惊人的经济复苏法案和医改法案，希望通过大规模减税、基建投资和扩大社会福利网等手段，帮助美国走出危机，同时纾解新自由主义导致的贫富分化矛盾。

The series of measures introduced by the Obama administration to reform neoliberalism in response to the financial crisis did produce short-term positive effects in boosting the U.S. economy and effectively curbed the spread of the crisis. However, they failed to fundamentally resolve the deep-seated contradictions that triggered the crisis, particularly the monopoly of financial capital and the imbalance in wealth distribution. Ironically, Obama’s “bailout policies” effectively shifted the catastrophic consequences of the financial crisis onto the U.S. government and the public, while the culprits—the Wall Street financial giants—remained “too big to fail.” The Obama administration, enamored with the “wealth myth” of neoliberalism, only made corrections and reforms at the institutional surface. It not only failed to genuinely touch the interests of the financial elite but also could not resolve contradictions that strike at the soul of the United States, such as economic inequality and industrial hollowing-out. Instead, it sowed the seeds for the subsequent “Occupy Wall Street” movement and the rise of populism.

奥巴马政府为应对金融危机推出的一系列改良新自由主义的举措，短期内的确产生了提振美国经济的积极效应，也有效遏制了危机蔓延，但并未从根本上解决引发危机的深层次矛盾，尤其是金融资本垄断与财富分配失衡的问题。讽刺的是，奥巴马的“救市政策”实际上将金融危机的灾难性后果分摊给了美国政府与民众，而罪魁祸首华尔街金融巨头却仍“大而不倒”。奥巴马政府沉迷于新自由主义的“财富神话”，仅仅从制度表面对其修正与改良，不仅未真正触动金融权贵的利益，也无法解决经济不平等、产业空心化等触及美国灵魂的矛盾，反而为之后“占领华尔街”运动与民粹主义的崛起种下了祸根。

The Populist Variation of Neoliberalism

新自由主义的民粹主义变奏

Trump’s election as president in 2016 seemed surprising but was in fact the inevitable result of the long-term intensification of the neoliberal crisis. Neoliberalism enabled U.S. capital to achieve global expansion, but the accompanying outflow of manufacturing and deindustrialization turned large numbers of lower- and middle-class people into “victims of globalization.” Trump exploited their economic anxiety and identity crisis, raised the banner of anti-globalization, and rode the wave of populism into the White House. After taking office, Trump completely abandoned the globalization narrative of neoliberalism, promoting trade protectionism and economic nationalism under the banner of “America First,” and launching trade wars and tariff wars to shift domestic economic contradictions. The reason Trump discarded the rules of free trade like a worn-out shoe is that neoliberal globalization required the United States to pay more hegemonic benefits to maintain the so-called “liberal world order,” which in practice harmed U.S. hegemonic interests. Of course, Trump’s rejection of globalization does not mean he rejected the logic of global expansion by U.S. capital; rather, he sought to extract more benefits through the power of the hegemonic state.

2016年特朗普当选总统看似出人意料，实则是新自由主义危机长期激化的必然结果。新自由主义让美国资本实现了全球扩张，随之而来的制造业外流与去工业化却让大量中下层民众成为“全球化的受害者”。特朗普利用他们的经济焦虑与身份危机，高举反全球化大旗，借助民粹主义浪潮入主白宫。执政后的特朗普全面抛弃新自由主义的全球化叙事，以“美国优先”推动贸易保护主义和经济民族主义议程，发动贸易战和关税战以转嫁国内经济矛盾。特朗普之所以对自由贸易规则弃之如敝履，原因在于新自由主义全球化要求美国付出更多的霸权收益以维持所谓“自由世界秩序”，实质上却损害了美国的霸权利益。当然，特朗普否定全球化并非否定美国资本的全球扩张逻辑，而是试图通过霸权国力量攫取更多利益。

Furthermore, Trump’s domestic economic agenda not only continued the core tenets of neoliberalism but even further strengthened its policy orientation toward privatization, marketization, and deregulation. Trump launched the largest tax cut plan since Reagan, sharply reducing taxes for corporations and high-income individuals, once again relaxing government regulation of core sectors such as finance and energy, vigorously promoting the privatization of infrastructure, and cutting social welfare spending. In other words, Trump’s so-called “subversion” of neoliberalism was not thorough; his economic ideology did not truly break free from the mold of neoliberalism. Although the Trump administration’s economic agenda mixed populist and conservative elements, it still bore significant neoliberal characteristics, essentially serving big capital and big finance. The difference from Obama was that Trump cloaked neoliberalism in a populist “garment,” using “new wine in old bottles” to address its legitimacy problem. However, the populist variation of neoliberalism not only failed to ease the severe antagonisms in the U.S. economy and society but actually intensified old and new contradictions: tax cuts widened the wealth gap, and privatization and cuts in public spending inflicted heavy costs on the American people.

此外，特朗普的国内经济议程不仅延续了新自由主义的核心主张，甚至进一步强化了其私有化、市场化和去监管的政策导向。特朗普启动里根以来最大规模的减税计划，大幅削减企业和高收入人群的税赋，再次放宽政府对金融、能源等核心领域的监管，大力推动基础设施私有化，压缩社会福利支出。换言之，特朗普对新自由主义的所谓“颠覆”并不彻底，其经济意识形态未真正脱离新自由主义的窠臼。尽管特朗普政府的经济议程混合了民粹主义与保守主义元素，但仍具有显著的新自由主义特征，实质仍是为大资本、大金融服务。与奥巴马不同之处在于，特朗普为新自由主义披上了民粹主义的“外衣”，用“新瓶装旧酒”解决其合法性问题。然而，新自由主义的民粹主义变奏不仅未能舒缓美国经济社会的严重对立，反而激化了新旧矛盾：减税政策推动贫富差距持续扩大，私有化和公共支出削减更让美国民众付出了惨痛代价。

The Sublation of Neoliberalism by “Bidenomics”

“拜登经济学”对新自由主义的扬弃

Trump-style “America First” severely shook the global foundations of neoliberalism. Coupled with the heavy blow of the COVID-19 pandemic to American society and the real challenges of great-power competition, an increasing number of political elites began to reflect on the residual value of neoliberalism under the new circumstances. Unlike his predecessor, the Biden administration’s rejection of neoliberalism is evident. In April 2023, former U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s speech at the Brookings Institution marked the first time the U.S. government publicly acknowledged that neoliberalism was on the verge of bankruptcy. After fiercely attacking the “Washington Consensus” and putting forward the so-called “New Washington Consensus,” the Biden administration introduced “Bidenomics,” aimed at fundamentally and systematically adjusting the U.S. economic strategy. Its core lies in significantly strengthening government intervention in the economy, implementing large-scale infrastructure and environmental investments, protecting the middle class and the working class, while simultaneously strengthening the linkage between domestic and international economic policies. In a sense, “Bidenomics” and its vision of “Building Back Better” represent not only a rejection of neoliberalism but also a tribute to Roosevelt’s “New Deal” and a return to Keynesianism.

特朗普式“美国优先”严重动摇了新自由主义的全球根基，加之新冠疫情对美国社会的沉重打击和大国竞争的现实挑战，越来越多的政治精英开始反思新形势下新自由主义的剩余价值。不同于其前任，拜登政府对新自由主义的否定是显而易见的。美国前国家安全事务助理杰克·沙利文2023年4月在布鲁金斯学会的发言标志着美国政府首次公开承认新自由主义已濒临破产。在猛烈抨击“华盛顿共识”并抛出所谓“新华盛顿共识”之后，拜登政府推出了旨在根本性和系统性调整美国经济方略的“拜登经济学”，其核心在于大幅加强政府对经济的干预，大规模实施基建和环保投资，保护中产阶级和工人阶级，同时加强国内外经济政策联动。在某种意义上，“拜登经济学”及其“重建美好未来”的构想，不仅是对新自由主义的摈弃，也是对罗斯福“新政”的致敬，更是凯恩斯主义的回归。

“Bidenomics” undoubtedly stands in stark contrast to the neoliberal economic paradigm that opposes government intervention. In the view of the Biden administration, although the private sector and markets remain key drivers of economic growth and innovation, they alone cannot achieve more important national goals. Therefore, it is necessary to rely more on and utilize the power of government, allowing the “visible hand” to play a greater role. In other words, although “Bidenomics” is built on the basis of a comprehensive sublation of neoliberalism, the Biden administration has not completely denied the free market mechanism, nor does it advocate for “pure free trade.” Instead, while acknowledging the importance of capital markets, it more pragmatically practices a concept of “limited liberalism” to better address the challenges of the U.S. economy and the realities of geopolitical competition. Regardless, the introduction of the “New Washington Consensus” and “Bidenomics” means that the pace of neoliberalism’s exit from the stage is accelerating.

“拜登经济学”无疑与新自由主义反对政府干预的经济范式形成鲜明对比。在拜登政府看来，尽管私营部门与市场仍是经济增长与创新的关键驱动，但单靠它们无法实现更重要的国家目标，因此必须更多依靠和运用政府的力量，让“看得见的手”发挥更大作用。换言之，尽管“拜登经济学”建立在对新自由主义全面扬弃的基础之上，但拜登政府并没有完全否定自由市场机制，也不指望“纯粹的自由贸易”，而是在承认资本市场重要性的前提下，更务实地践行一种“有限自由主义”的理念，以更好地应对美国经济的挑战与地缘政治竞争的现实。无论如何，“新华盛顿共识”和“拜登经济学”的出台，意味着新自由主义下台退场的步伐愈发加快。

The Historical Endgame of Neoliberalism

新自由主义的历史终局

Looking at the various crises that have occurred in the United States in recent years, although their manifestations differ, their roots are deeply intertwined with the ills of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is essentially social Darwinism, aimed at maximizing efficiency and profit rather than social fairness and people’s well-being. Therefore, it is fundamentally unable to resolve long-accumulated contradictions such as wealth polarization, social fragmentation, and industrial hollowing-out. Whether it is the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, both have recognized that neoliberalism’s problems are too deep-seated to reverse. In the Trump era, when populism and conservatism dominate the United States, any attempt to reform or transform neoliberalism will ultimately be futile, precisely because neoliberalism can no longer adapt to the development of the times or the needs of the U.S. ruling class. In the final analysis, the decline of neoliberalism is the inevitable result of the ever-intensifying and unresolved inherent contradictions of capitalism.

纵观近年来美国发生的种种危机，尽管表现形式各有不同，但根源上都与新自由主义的弊端牵连甚深。新自由主义本质上是社会达尔文主义，旨在追求效率与利益的最大化，而非社会公平与人民福祉，因此根源上无法解决贫富分化、社会撕裂和产业空心化等长期累积的矛盾。无论民主党还是共和党，都已认识到新自由主义的积重难返。在民粹主义和保守主义主导美国的特朗普时代，任何改良和改造新自由主义的尝试终将无功而返，皆因新自由主义已无法适应时代发展与美国统治阶级的需要。归根结底，新自由主义的式微是资本主义固有矛盾不断凸显而不得其解的必然结果。

In fact, no matter what "ism" it is labeled with, the fundamental goal of the U.S. government is to protect its national interests and global hegemony, while simultaneously ensuring the returns of capital worldwide. Neoliberalism is merely a tool for the United States to achieve its objectives—used when convenient, discarded when not. Under the cyclical law [1]1 The "cyclical law" (周期律) here refers to the historical pattern of rise and fall in political systems, often invoked in Chinese Marxist discourse to describe the inevitable decline of capitalist systems. of the inevitable decline of capitalism, neoliberalism has completed its stage-specific mission, and its end is a historical necessity.

事实上，不论冠以什么“主义”，美国政府的根本目标是护持其国家利益和全球霸权，同时确保资本在全球的收益。新自由主义只是美国实现其目标的一种工具，所谓“合则用，不合则弃”。在资本主义必将衰败的周期律作用下，新自由主义已完成其阶段性使命，走向终结是历史的必然。

(The author is an associate professor at the School of International Relations, Sichuan International Studies University)

（作者系四川外国语大学国际关系学院副教授）