Liberals, Turgut Özal fans, and customers

Politics is primarily concerned with who will govern and how, who will be governed and how, which classes and social segments will benefit from the use of resources, from whom and how taxes are collected and for whom those taxes are primarily used, and who receives what share of the national income. For liberals and neoliberals, however, what matters is who consumes what and how much. This is why they love the customer, not the citizen. Those who cannot consume—the poor, the unemployed, the oppressed—are seen as a burden on society. They must be cast off. For this reason, neoliberalism is the pinnacle of barbarism and reactionism. 

Since the beginning of the 20th century, in the West, the term liberal democracy has brought to mind values, principles, and concepts that correspond to a certain stage in human history, even if they are not sufficient and do not provide a remedy for class inequalities. Human rights, free and fair elections, the rule of law, separation of powers, freedom of thought, expression, and the press, freedom of association, freedom of religion and conscience, and the right to property are the first that come to mind. The existence of checks and balances against power, the effectiveness and functionality of the press as the "fourth estate" alongside constitutional institutions, and the equality of citizens before the law are also among the first to be considered in this context. People have natural, fundamental, irrevocable, inalienable, and non-waivable rights derived from being human. It is believed that governments respect, guarantee, and accept these rights.   

In order to make sound inferences regarding rights, law, justice, and equality that serve the public interest and the benefit of the people, one must necessarily consider class conditions, look at the circumstances of the period, and always ask the question "WHICH?" 

For example, if multi-party elections are held in a country, that country is generally accepted as a democratic one. But if, in that country where multi-party elections are held, women do not have the right to vote and be elected (a situation that persisted for years in France, Switzerland, and Japan), meaning half of the society cannot go to the ballot box or be elected, can that country really be called a democracy just because free elections are held and a multi-party system exists? 

For example, the USA is a democracy. The US Constitution is also considered one of the fundamental texts on this subject. But in the USA, the right of Black citizens to vote remained on paper, even though they received this right in 1870. It was not implemented in practice. It was obstructed in various ways. Until the Voting Rights Act of 1965, they could not effectively exercise their right to vote and be elected. Not only at the ballot box, but also in public transport, in parks, in social life, and in schools, they faced discrimination simply because of their skin color and were seen as second-class citizens.         

In summary, in the eyes of liberals who see economic inequality as normal, and neoliberals who replace citizen and class politics with identity politics, the desirable figure is not the conscious citizen or the organized laborer, but the consumption-obsessed customer. 

That is why one should never forget the words of Turgut Özal, who has many admirers on both the left and the right: "I love the rich."