A fatal inconsistency within neoliberalism

Interesting form of rhetoric.<p>1. Invent a blanket term for your opponent. 2. Ascribe extremism to their views (“they say free market, but they mean pro-business”) - tarring everyone with the same brush. 3. Arrogate moderate positions to yourself (“some free markets are OK”), thereby marginalising your opponent. 4. Argue that anyone who disagrees with your position is an &lt;insert-invented-term-&gt;; cementing the dichotomy and the marginalisation of your opponent.

Reagan and Thatcher were <i>conservatives</i>. Why is everyone trying to rebrand their ideology as something called &quot;neoliberalism&quot;? They were the arch enemies of what most people seem to call liberal, even in economic terms (social safety net, consumer and environmental protection, universal access to healthcare and education, etc). What is insufficient about the term &quot;conservative&quot;? What about their ideology close enough to liberal ideology to conflate the terms?

I have yet to hear of a natural, malevolent monopoly that formed without some kind of government protection to keep out competition (a.k.a. rent seeking), in the forms of direct government contracts, complex startup-averse regulations, government LICENSING, etc.