Liberalism, as a political ideology, is based
on liberty and equality before the law. Historically, those in favor of liberalism
had exceptions on who could receive this liberty and equality, just not as many exceptions
as those to their political right. One integral component to liberalism is capitalism
– an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. “Classical liberal” philosophers stated
that since liberalism is all about freedom, then the market must be “free” as well,
even if that market makes others less free. This seems to be a contradiction because of
the social ills that capitalism causes like economic disparity, poverty and, I don't know,
the literal destruction of our environment that will cause our planet to be either inhospitable
or even uninhabitable by human beings. And it is a contradiction of sorts, but the
contradiction fluctuates here and there over the course of history. If liberalism were a numbered list of what
it is, capitalism would not always be the number one priority among all liberals. But capitalism is prioritized under the predominant
form of liberalism in the modern day: neoliberalism. And if you stick with me throughout the video,
I will be happy to explain further through the time-honored tradition of using a well-known,
mainstream example to make this easier to understand and a heck of a lot more palatable
than reading the works of David Harvey and other critics of neoliberalism. I am referring, of course, to Saturday Night
Live. Before we get to SNL, we have to understand
some basic definitions. You can't build a house without a foundation. I promise this part will only take a few minutes. In the United States, “liberalism” has
a noticeably different meaning than in much of the developed world. In the US, a “liberal” is anyone who is
to the left of conservatives. And since conservatives in the US are particularly
far-right compared to much of the developed world, a “liberal” is actually closer
to a centrist in terms of social issues and center-right in terms of economic issues,
at least by the standards of other developed nations. A US “liberal” politician or voter may
consider themselves on the opposite end of the political spectrum than a conservative,
but a more objective placement of liberals in the US by global standards is somewhere
in the center and perhaps even to the right. In Canada, the Liberal Party is well-known
as the centrist party with the Conservative Party to its political right and the New Democratic
Party to its political left. In the United Kingdom, the Liberal Democrats
are the centrist party with the Conservative Party to its right and Labour to its left. In much of the world, “liberalism” is
understood as centrist, which means in the US, the only two parties that hold any real
power are either conservative – the Republican Party – or centrist – the Democratic Party. “Liberalism” and “Conservatism” are
ideologies. An ideology is a system of ideas that form
the basis of a political belief or policy. All ideologies state facts but then use those
facts to come to different conclusions and to perform different actions. Example: black Americans outnumber white Americans
among the prison population. A left-wing examination of this fact would
note that black Americans are far more likely to be convicted of the exact same crime as
a white American. Also that generational wealth and other factors
have unfairly lead to black Americans being more impoverished than white Americans which
can sometimes lead to crime. Also, black Americans are policed more heavily
than white Americans, racism is a factor in policing, and that the prison pipeline is
the product of privatization of prisons. These factors would lead to the conclusion
that systemic racism has a hand in this discrepancy in prison populations, capitalism has a hand
in the exploding prison population in general, and that steps should be taken to drastically
change the criminal justice system. Conversely, a fascist would look at the prison
population and have that fact reinforce their belief in white supremacy and the genetic
inferiority of some people. Same fact, different conclusions based on
their ideologies. Liberalism, as an ideology, is opposed to
The Left because The Left opposes capitalism or is skeptical of the benefits of capitalism. “The Left” does not contain liberals. It contains socialists and other leftists. Whether socialists want to count democratic
socialists and social democrats among their numbers is another topic altogether, but suffice
it to say, the left rejects what liberalism has predominantly become – neoliberalism. Neoliberalism has a variety of definitions
and people argue over what exactly it means, but the best and simplest definition is that
it is the ideology that capitalism is an overall good and that social progress, historically
a liberal ideal, is best achieved through capitalism. In fact, neoliberalism as an ideology prioritizes
capitalism. Neoliberalism does not take far right social
positions like arch-conservatives and fascists, but it still prioritizes capitalism over the
public good. It frames capitalism as serving the public
good through itself in a kind of circular logic. A politician does not even have to be a liberal
in order to further the ideology of neoliberalism. See: Ronald Reagan. Naturally, capitalism inequitably benefits
very few people over the vast majority of the world, but neoliberalism posits that the
good of the corporation is to the benefit of all, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Previous versions of liberalism imagined society
to be divided into distinct public and private spheres. The public sphere was the under the rule of
the state, and its role – at least on paper – was to ensure the legal rights and freedoms
of citizens through rule of law. The private sphere included the economy. Politics took shape around the line between
public and private, a kind of struggle over where to draw the line. Within liberalism, politics was a question
of how to define and uses and limits of the state within capitalism. Neoliberalism erases the line between public
and private and to create a society based on private market competition – capitalism. Neoliberalism adjusts the horizons of the
struggle between public and private. The state does not go away but is instead
reconstructed toward the new end of expanding private markets. Under neoliberalism, social progress occurs
but only incrementally because it can only be allowed if it's profitable. There is a reason why every US corporation
has begun taking advantage of pride month. A corporation is not a person no matter what
the Supreme Court says. So, a corporation did not have a come to Jesus
moment as it relates to treating the LGBT community with respect. Rather, the people within the corporation
crunched the numbers and concluded that courting the LGBT community is now more profitable
than not courting the LGBT community. That's not to say that Oreo tweeting support
for gay people is somehow a “bad thing.” It's promising and telling about our society
that this is no longer corporate suicide. However, it is an example of how our sluggish,
incremental social progress happens under neoliberalism and how social progress can
only be achieved when economically convenient. This also means that if the status quo is
economically convenient, then it must be maintained. Under neoliberalism, privatization of public
works and de-regulation are both permissible if they are profitable. Now, in fairness, some neoliberal politicians
are in favor of more safety regulations and less privatization than the far-right, but
that is only incrementally better than the worse alternative rather than an actual public
good. Also, while it is undoubtedly better that
important safety regulations exist than not exist, these regulations also exist to reinforce
the idea of capitalism among the populace as a public good, to draw contrast between
themselves as the erroneous “good capitalists” and divert attention from the ills of capitalism
as a system. Now, Saturday Night Live...remember Saturday
Night Live? This is an essay about Saturday Night Live. [coughs] SNL is a late-night variety show
with comedy sketches and musical acts. It was created by Lorne Michaels who was the
primary show runner from 1975 to 1980. He returned around 1985 and has been its show
runner and executive producer ever since. It airs on NBC, and its production company
is Broadway Video, owned by Michaels himself. If you listen to Donald Trump, you might mistake
SNL for a far-left television series with performers taking revolutionary or at least
firm stance against the status quo. But the truth is Broadway Video is a business,
and much like neoliberalism as an ideology, SNL is only as progressive or left-leaning
as a business will allow – not very. SNL pays lip service to progressive causes
while maintaining enough of the status quo to not alienate conservatives – either as
voters or viewers. This means that SNL will never directly challenge
capitalism and will often mine humor from conservative or even reactionary talking points
if it suits the show. The primary consideration under neoliberalism
is capitalism, and the primary consideration under capitalism is competition against other
competing entities for a greater share of the market with the end goal of monopoly. Thus, the primary consideration for SNL is
whether or not this show, idea, host or opinion will draw ratings and earn more advertising
money. Liberals might argue that this means SNL has
no ideology, but “I'm apolitical” is itself a political stance and usually a rather telling
one. Neoliberalism has become such a “default”
that it has become ideologically invisible. Much in the same way that I know how to drive
a car but don't know the names for all the parts or how to fix it, one can perform under
neoliberalism without even knowing the definition of the word or the larger systems in which
we are all participating. Neoliberalism pushes back against social progress
that is deemed unprofitable, not yet profitable or too radical, and pushes back against economic
progress that grants granter power to the people and less power to corporations. Let's look at some of the ways that SNL does
these two things, the ways that SNL reinforces a neoliberal ideology among its audience. In 2015, Larry David guest starred and played
Bernie Sanders, and the takeaway from the sketch was this: [So far left, it could never
be elected.] Neoliberal media doesn't hold up a big banner
and say “We love capitalism” but instead engages with topics related to capitalism
uncritically. In 2018, Steve Carell guest hosted and played
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos in a sketch meant to lift up Bezos and poke fun at Donald Trump. Prior to the sketch, Bezos dominated the headlines
after Amazon announced it would open up headquarters in Queens, New York and Crystal City, Virginia. New Yorkers protested the move, as a similar
Amazon HQ in Seattle helped drive up rent prices for locals and exacerbate income equality. Another concern was that all of the money
the city was giving to Amazon amounted to “corporate welfare” and could be better
used for public services and people in need. Not to mention the fact that Amazon is owned
by the wealthiest businessman in the world and does not require this corporate welfare
to continue his business and the fact that Amazon is a viciously anti-union corporation
that has been consistently criticized for the way it treats its workers. The SNL sketch completely ignored this, glossed
over New Yorkers' concerns and focused on presenting the image of the “good capitalist”
over Trump, the bad capitalist. When the deal between New York and Amazon
fell through, Colin Jost remarked that regardless of what anyone thought of Amazon, this deal
would have created jobs. Yes, but investing the money into new jobs
instead of Jeff Bezos' pockets would do that, too, COLIN. SNL will, far more often than not, reinforce
the status quo of capitalism and the profit motive. SNL is no stranger to reactionary social positions
as well, like when Colin Jost blamed the Trump victory on there being more than two genders. No, COLIN. Trump won because of voter suppression, a
less than exciting opponent, a massive media push to shine a spotlight on Trump including
your own show, COLIN, and an electoral system that can allow someone who received the vast
majority of votes to still “lose” to a less popular candidate. It is not the fault of people who are now
just beginning to be treated like human beings. I get that it's a joke, but it's also transphobic,
COLIN. This is actually something that SNL does all
the time. It reinforces a neoliberal status quo, not
a left-wing or even a progressive position. There are frequent examples of dismissing
“identity politics” and intersectionality. Here are some examples. SNL traffics in homophobia so long as that
homophobia is directed at someone they don't like. Of course, the homophobia will not affect
the person they don't like, they are far too powerful, so the homophobia will actually
affect the most vulnerable people. SNL makes Trump and Vladimir Putin out to
be secret lovers. The false idea that all or most homophobes
are gay lays the blame of homophobia on LGBT people. It is blaming a group of people for their
own subjugation. Under this false idea, the only people discriminating
against “the gays” are “the gays” – it shifts the blame to the victims of
homophobia and discrimination rather than the perpetrators of homophobia and discrimination. These are only a few examples from the most
recent season. This has been going on for decades. But SNL has done something far worse and an
even clearer example of neoliberalism – profit as priority over all else. On November 7, 2015 – roughly a year before
election day – Donald Trump hosted Saturday Night Live. The decision to allow Trump to host was met
with incredible criticism from the left and from garden variety liberals. This was following Trump's fear-mongering
remarks about Mexicans coming into the country to rape and murder us but before his fear-mongering
remarks about calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” It is not unusual for politicians to appear
on SNL. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin and countless others
have appeared for cameos and one-off sketches. However, it is unusual for politicians to
host the show. John McCain has done it twice in 2002 and
2008, Jesse Jackson did it once in 1984 during his presidential campaign, and that's about
it. There are over 800 episodes of SNL, and those
few are about the only examples. Trump hosted SNL before during the run of
The Apprentice, but this was long before his campaign. SNL undoubtedly believed that the controversy
would draw ratings, and they were correct in that assumption. Neoliberalism prioritizes earnings and maintaining
capitalism above all other concerns. That means that genuine concerns about Trump's
appearance further legitimizing a racist demagogue to the American public and concerns about
helping a campaign that would make this man leader of the free world went ignored in favor
of a short-term ratings boost. The Trump host episode in 2015 was easily
one of the worst that SNL ever presented. Trump could not act, which meant that nearly
all his sketches navigating their way around this by having him almost always face directly
into the camera so he could surreptitiously read the cue cards. Worse than that, the sketches that featured
Trump could only be mildly critical of him. Trump famously eschews any real criticism. His Comedy Central Roast years prior was apparently
knee-capped by orders to stay away from certain sensitive subjects. Without a doubt, some writers and performers
were uncomfortable with both the decision to allow him to host and the decision to make
light of his failings rather than sincerely criticize him, but as in all cases, the workers
and management are defined by unbalanced power dynamics. Kate McKinnon is not as powerful as Lorne
Michaels. Let's go through all of the segments that
featured Trump. The monologue started off with Trump congratulating
himself on his wealth and, for some reason, his looks, then transitioned into mocking
Rosie O'Donnell and doubling-down in his statements about her looks. Then we had a series of unfunny Trump impersonations,
interrupted by SNL completely dismissing criticism against their show. Larry David played a malcontent in the audience,
completely taking the wind out of the protest by mocking it. Next was a sketch about Trump as President,
a dark portent of things to come, that made light criticism against Trump's outrageous
and dogwhistle racist claims of making America great again. They made a joke about the ludicrous idea
of Omarosa becoming part of the Trump administration a couple years prior to Trump actually doing
that. Ivanka Trump, the real one, made an appearance
and received NO applause whatsoever for her unannounced guest spot. Again, the joke is supposed to be that Trump
has his daughter have influence in his administration, and then two years later, he literally did
that. This sketch is even worse in retrospect. Ivanka said her lines, and the room grew ten
degrees colder. Hey, you know how Donald Trump is a terrible
racist whose very words have incited violence against Hispanic immigrants? Well, that's just another border wall joke
for SNL. Isn't it funny? Our host is a racist monster with blood on
his hands! The next sketch is the various SNL cast members
learning about Trump's mean tweets about them. The same platform that has seen Donald Trump
radicalize his followers. Then they made light of Trump's “birtherism”
– a racist campaign against the United States' first African-American president. None of this is actually mocking Trump. It's a roast – poking gentle fun for the
purpose of praising someone rather than sincerely deriding them. The rest was part embarrassing and part vile. The episode did a lot to humanize Trump to
the American public. All his worst features, his racism, his sexism,
his insensitivity, his bad policies – the gravity of what he wanted to say and do to
the country was taken out. Criticism against him was deflated. Once it's a joke, it's not serious anymore. That's not to say that SNL was solely responsible
for getting Donald Trump elected. That would be ridiculous...but his guest host
spot was symptomatic of neoliberal media that saw Trump not as a genuine threat but as a
ratings winner. Donald Trump was given significantly more
media coverage than any of his Republican opponents in the primary. By some estimates, he was given $2 billion
worth of free advertising by the news media. Trump was ratings, and that was all that mattered. Every rally, every speech, every slip-up,
every tweet was given an unbalanced amount of attention by the media. Donald Trump was a celebrity, one who said
inflammatory things that, in a better world, would have made the media dismiss him and
focus on more serious candidates. But we don't live in a better world. We live in a neoliberal world. We live in a world in which it's OK for SNL
to give this man an hour and a half to promote his campaign for president. We live in a world in which Jimmy Fallon can
have a completely friendly, charitable interview with a racist demogogue because it meant ratings. We live in a world where the media will spotlight
anyone who might cause a stir and create ratings. Donald Trump did not get elected because of
pronouns, COLIN. He got elected because it was profitable to
give him that much attention and to treat him like a serious politician. He got elected because of neoliberalism. One charge against SNL by the Republican Party
and Donald Trump specifically is that the late night program has a radical leftist agenda
for consistently mocking Trump himself even after he helped them pull in strong ratings
for his guest host spot. The unceasing mockery and open opposition
by the cast toward Donald Trump might seem unusual to some, but this does not a leftist
agenda make. Mockery of Trump on SNL is not the result
of far-left politics but of neoliberalism, as was mockery of previous presidents. The mockery is performed across both parties
because of the economic incentive to do so, a neoliberal concern. The President of the United States is always
the most famous figure in the country. Lampooning famous figures draws in viewers
more than lampooning barely known figures due to recognition and familiarity. Remember, the primary consideration for SNL
is whether or not this will draw ratings and earn more advertising money – not whether
or not it will help someone get elected or removed from office. In the late 80's and early 90's, Dana Carvey
performed an exaggerated impersonation of then president George H.W. Bush. His hand gestures and clownish facial expressions
did not resemble Bush, but this caricature of Bush became what many thought of when they
thought of Bush. This sketch is about the early days of the
Gulf War, and while there is a whiff of anti-imperialist leftism in the sketch when Carvey references
the failure of Vietnam, it's never explored. Carvey quickly pivots to his Bush catchphrase
– “wouldn't be prudent” – and then goes on a comical tirade about receiving Christmas
gifts from other countries to help support the war. The real George H.W. Bush ran a racist campaign
to become president, committed a horrific war crimes, refused to cooperate with the
Iran-Contra special counsel, continued Reagan's policy of allowing AIDS to continue unchecked
and ramped up the racist war on drugs. SNL's portrayal of Bush Sr, however, made
him a lovably goofy figure. His portrayal was endearing, so much so that
the subject of this mockery made an appearance on SNL that received wide acclaim. It's not in the financial interest of SNL
to bring up Bush's war crimes. It's not as easy to get a cheap laugh from
that. Bill Clinton was portrayed by Phil Hartman
and later Darrel Hammond throughout the Clinton administration. The real Bill Clinton helped bring about mass
incarceration of people of color in America. SNL's portrayal of Clinton was that of a horny
doofus. The primary consideration was not to get Clinton
impeached. It was to make money off of Clinton's embarrassing
scandal but not rock the boat too hard in such a way that would alienate viewers. Left-wing concerns about Clinton's neoliberalism
and racist endorsement of the 1994 federal crime bill were ignored and instead replaced
with only playful mockery of Clinton as merely an amorous trouble-maker that men could relate
to. The impersonation of Barack Obama is not remembered
as fondly or even as well because there isn't much that's inherently funny about him. However, Obama's portrayal on SNL does highlight
the difference between the political right's criticism of this president and the left's
criticism. The right's criticism of Obama was full of
lies, that he was foreign born or that Obamacare would install “death panels” in place
of doctors. The right's cheap shots were usually about
inconsequential things like Grey Poupon and the color of his suits. Criticism of Obama from the right was laughable
and that became the only funny thing about Obama for SNL. Criticism from the left, that Obama further
escalated the war on terror which has resulted in untold civilian casualties, was ignored. Obama's bog standard neoliberalism was ignored
because it would mean SNL turning the mirror against itself. SNL has always poked fun at politicians, and
while the mockery of Donald Trump is both more frequent and pointed, this has less to
do with an emboldened radical leftist agenda by Lorne Michaels of all people and more to
do with the fact that there is significantly more material for the neoliberal SNL machine
with which to craft and perform said mockery. Ratings for SNL have increased during the
Trump administration in no small part due to the comical portrayal of Trump, which means
those with financial interests in SNL have no objections to a Trump presidency. The George H.W. Bush impersonation by Dana
Carvey had to reach cartoonish exaggeration in order to make fun of a plain-spoken, unenthusiastic
President who was more immune to gaffes – whereas the impersonation of Trump requires little,
if any embellishment. Many Trump sketches are mere verbatim recitations
of the Donald's own words in new context. None of these impersonations do much, if anything,
to hurt the president. If anything, they humanize the president or
turn him into such a cartoon character that he no longer seems threatening. Pop culture portrayals of sitting presidents
and other politicians have an affect on how the public at large sees that figure. Take Sarah Palin, for instance, a politician
whose career will forever be connected to her impersonation by Tina Fey on SNL. Fey later recognized that this humanized Palin,
softened her image and made her arch-conservative politics less threatening instead of more
threatening. Fey even addressed this in an episode of 30
Rock in which Tracy Morgan's character makes the Republican more electable. SNL's inclusion of Donald Trump as a frequently
recurring character may do more to both humanize and normalize the president, portraying him
as just another in a long line of presidential impersonations, thereby legitimizing him to
the audience. Admittedly, the options here are few. They could choose not to address the elephant
in the room for four to eight years, but that could have its own problems. The third option could be to openly portray
Trump as a monster and not as comic relief. The sketches could still be funny, but the
humor could be darker and more pointed. This has probably never been considered. SNL goes to great lengths to avoid anything
resembling real satire. The idea that Alec Baldwin's now famous impersonation
of Donald Trump hurts the Trump presidency is not backed up by the history of how SNL's
impersonations generally soften the image of politicians or the history of how SNL chooses
its targets – whoever happens to be in the White House. Trump as a recurring character on SNL is OK'ed
by Lorne Michaels for the same reason he wanted Trump as the guest host: because the primary
consideration centers around capitalism. Any other consequences are secondary or even
ignored. Once again, based on some of the sketches,
many of the SNL writers and cast probably legitimately dislike Trump, but that doesn't
make SNL a left-wing show. It just means the SNL writers represent most
of America, based on all available polling. Trump is objectively unpopular. SNL isn't going hard on Trump because Lorne
Michaels thinks it's in the nation's best interest. Michaels donates to the Republican Party and
has previously stated that Republicans can “take a joke” better than Democrats. Trump and SNL benefit from one another. SNL benefited from the ratings of the Trump
host episode and the increased ratings during its Trump impersonation era. Trump benefited from how SNL normalized and
legitimized him during the host episode and because it now allows Trump a talking point
every Saturday night or Sunday morning; that he is under attack by the “liberal media”
and “Hollywood” – two common refrains that galvanize his base and want to protect
him. SNL makes self-satisfied liberals laugh harmlessly
at Trump and makes conservatives want to defend “dear leader” even more. Lorne Michaels might even hope that Trump
gets re-elected, as it would allow the highly-rated Trump sketches to continue. Baldwin claims that he's done playing Trump
– we'll see about that – but even if someone else takes on the role, SNL and Trump will
both still benefit from the mockery on the late night show. It's a symbiotic relationship. Now, having heard all this, some might respond
by saying “Well, of course the state and corporations put profits before everything
else. You're not telling me anything I don't already
know.” OK, but remember when I said that different
ideologies use the same facts to come to separate conclusions and solutions? Both the state and corporations work together
under the philosophy of neoliberalism to put the profit motive before every other consideration
– regardless of the consequences. Do you think it should be that way or do you
think it should not be that way? The point is not that it's happening. The point is...shouldn't we oppose it? And how? I certainly don't have all the answers. Neoliberalism is now a global hegemony – a
dominant idea and system, and it's going to take a lot to fix the world. We can start by at least recognizing it when
it's right in front of us – by supporting movements, direct action and even politicians
who are skeptical of neoliberalism – by engaging with this ideology critically instead
of uncritically – and by dismissing this hegemony as “natural” when it is most
certainly unnatural and allowing ourselves to believe in the potential for a better world.
I'm surprised the video didn't reference one of the most directly anti-capitalist segments ever aired as part of SNL and how it was only broadcast once and then edited out of subsequent reruns: Conspiracy Theory Rock. The segment points out how all broadcast networks, including NBC, were (and still are) owned by mega corporations, how the networks conveniently don't report corporate malfeasance, how the corporations get tax breaks and federal contracts and how the profits from them are turned back into support for political candidates, and how buying the sponsored products on these networks supports this whole cycle. (Note that that was aired in 1998!) According to a Snopes article on the segment it was never officially "banned", and it has subsequently appeared on an SNL DVD collection, but I really don't buy Lorne Micheal's line in that article that it was edited out of reruns because it wasn't funny.
Musical guest Zoe Blade!
Interesting, the AfD got A LOT of free advertisement here in germany for the same reason.
I posted this in /r/neoliberal, and they're so incompetent that they can't defend their ideological position.
Pathetic worshipers of Mammon!
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/daqjj9/saturday_neoliberalism_renegade_cut/