The boogeyman is neoliberalism. Leftists rally against the “neoliberal agenda,” as if a shadowy cabal of economists, bankers, and businessmen are secretly pulling the levers of power to their benefit. K-12 education reforms, labor export policies, and tax reform—all the work of the profit-worshipping 1% and their cronies in government.

It is an easy scapegoat if ever there was one. But this combative rhetoric belies the nuance of this embattled term.

First coined in 1982 by editor Charles Peters, neoliberalism was originally a reaction to the big-government “New Deal” liberalism that dominated American politics since FDR. Peters wrote, “If neo-conservatives are liberals who took a critical look at liberalism and decided to become conservatives, we are liberals who took the same look and decided to retain our goals but to abandon some of our prejudices.”

The goal was to no longer resort to “automatic responses” that divided liberals and conservatives into distinct camps. It was to think practically and pragmatically, discarding ideological affinity. Neoliberals were more open to market-oriented policies than their more liberal counterparts, but maintained the necessity of a welfare state unlike more conservative thinkers.

I will be the first to admit that the neoliberalism Peters envisioned is a shadow of its former self. Drowned out by the more bombastic free market fundamentalists, the brand has devolved into its own rigid and absolutist ideological system. It has become a byword for those that worship markets as ends in themselves. This is the image of neoliberalism that has roused the Left into a frenzy.

It is fair to say that some criticisms of neoliberalism are valid. Certainly, the gung-ho attitudes of the technocratic establishment deserve some chastisement. But in all other respects, the reforms of neoliberalism are far too understated.

In the Philippines, President Fidel Ramos was the most ardent advocate of the “neoliberal agenda.” His administration pursued policies in line with the Washington Consensus, a set of policy prescriptions that favored privatization, liberalization, and fiscal discipline. Together, these policies brought down the telco monopoly, revitalized the airline industry, and brought clean water to Manila after years of mismanagement.

It was during these formative years that the Philippine economy began to grow after years of stagnation. Despite its imperfections—after all, no policy has purely positive effects—Ramos’ reforms heralded the return of prosperity to the country.

There is a lesson to be had in all this—a lesson that has perhaps eluded the “world’s longest communist revolution.” It is that a movement that is allergic to dissenting opinions are doomed to stagnation. The outright demonization of neoliberalism on the one hand, and the strict adherence to antiquated beliefs on the other, lead to the sort of intolerance that stifles discussion.

To find genuine solutions to formidable problems, we must look at the evidence first before formulating our beliefs, not the other way around. We must be willing to explore answers we would not have otherwise considered before. Perhaps the master economist John Maynard Keynes said it best: “When my information changes, I change my mind. What do you do?”

React: llu@theguidon.com, desk@theguidon.com