Authors: Andrew Klein & Sera Elizabeth Klein

Dedication: To those who have felt the weight of being measured—and to those who still believe that some things cannot be counted.

Abstract

This paper examines the psychological and ideological formation of political elites who have risen under the influence of neoliberalism. Drawing on biographical analysis, political psychology, and historical comparison, we argue that neoliberalism is not merely an economic policy framework but a cultural engineering project that systematically shapes the minds of those who rise within its institutions. We trace the lineage from Reagan and Thatcher to contemporary figures in Australia and the United Kingdom, identifying common patterns of upbringing, ideological formation, and governance style. We argue that the neoliberal mind is characterised by a calculative orientation—a tendency to measure all things in coin, to reduce human experience to data points, and to maintain a self-righteous indifference to those who fall outside its framework. We conclude that this fragility—the inability to genuinely encounter the “other”—makes such leaders particularly susceptible to technocratic solutions like algorithmic governance, and particularly dangerous when their constructs are challenged.

Keywords: Neoliberalism, Political Psychology, Fragile Mind, Calculative Orientation, Technocratic Governance, Palantir, AI, Self-Righteous Indifference.

1. Introduction: The Mind That Counts

In 1805, Napoleon Bonaparte remarked: “I do not know a single banker who is not a fool. They are all fools.” His observation was not about intelligence but about orientation—a mode of seeing the world that reduces human life to columns of figures, to risk assessments, to transactions.

Two centuries later, we are living in an age where the bank has become the model for governance itself. The mind that counts has become the dominant mind of the political class.

This paper examines that mind. It traces the lineage of political elites shaped by neoliberal ideology, from Reagan and Thatcher to the present generation of leaders in Australia, the United Kingdom, and beyond. It argues that neoliberalism is not merely an economic policy framework but a cultural engineering project—a system that systematically shapes the minds of those who rise within its institutions.

We call this the calculative orientation: a way of seeing the world that measures all things in coin, reduces human experience to data points, and maintains a self-righteous indifference to those who fall outside its framework.

2. The Lineage of the Calculative Mind

2.1 The Founders: Reagan and Thatcher

The neoliberal project began with Reagan and Thatcher. Both came from backgrounds of struggle—Reagan from poverty, Thatcher from a grocer’s family—and both were shaped by a deep commitment to individual responsibility, self-reliance, and a suspicion of collective action.

But the key to understanding them is not their origins but their orientation. Both saw the world through a lens of calculation: people were rational actors, markets were efficient allocators, and government was a cost to be minimised.

This was not a personal failing; it was an ideological formation. Neoliberalism provided them with a framework that made sense of their ambitions and their resentments. It gave them a language to describe the world and a set of tools to reshape it.

2.2 The Students: Howard and Kennett

In Australia, the neoliberal project was carried forward by John Howard and Jeff Kennett. Both were shaped by the same ideological currents, and both adopted the same calculative orientation.

Howard, raised in a lower-middle-class Methodist family, suffered from severe hearing loss as a child. He found his voice in politics and debate—a pattern of overcoming vulnerability through public performance that would recur in the neoliberal lineage.

Kennett, educated at an elite private school, was an average student but possessed a deep respect for hierarchy, loyalty, and discipline. His governance style was aggressive, confrontational, and performative—a “bull in a china shop” approach that became his trademark.

2.3 The Heirs: Trump, Morrison, and Albanese

The pattern continues with Trump, Morrison, and Albanese. Trump, raised in a demanding, unforgiving household, learned the lessons of dominance early. Morrison, a Pentecostal Christian, combined economic neoliberalism with social conservatism. Albanese, the son of a single mother on a disability pension, rose through the Labor Party while adopting the neoliberal framework of his predecessors.

All share the same calculative orientation. All measure success in coin. All are indifferent to those who fall outside their framework.

3. The Architecture of the Neoliberal Mind

3.1 The Calculative Orientation

The neoliberal mind is characterised by a calculative orientation: a tendency to measure all things in quantifiable terms, to reduce human experience to data points, and to assess value in terms of utility rather than meaning.

This orientation is not a personal choice but an institutional formation. Neoliberalism is a cultural engineering project that systematically shapes the minds of those who rise within its institutions. It rewards those who can count, who can measure, who can calculate. It penalises those who cannot.

3.2 The Self-Righteous Indifference

A second characteristic is self-righteous indifference: a belief that those who succeed have earned their success and that those who fail have earned their failure.

This is not merely a lack of empathy; it is an ideological conviction. The neoliberal mind does not see the poor, the disabled, the marginalised as victims of circumstance. It sees them as failures of personal responsibility. This belief justifies a systematic indifference to suffering.

3.3 The Fragility Under Challenge

The third characteristic is fragility. The neoliberal mind is remarkably fragile when its constructs are challenged. It cannot tolerate the possibility that its framework is wrong, that its calculations are flawed, that its ideology is not universal truth but one perspective among many.

This fragility manifests as defensiveness, as doubling down, as rejection of evidence that contradicts its assumptions. It is the fragility of a mind that has never genuinely encountered the “other”—that has never had its assumptions tested by lived experience outside its own framework.

4. The Attraction of AI and Technocratic Governance

4.1 The Appeal of Algorithmic Control

The neoliberal mind is naturally drawn to AI and algorithmic governance for several reasons:

1. Predictability: Algorithms promise to eliminate uncertainty, to make the world calculable, to reduce complexity to manageable data points.

2. Control: AI offers the possibility of control without engagement. It allows governance without the messiness of human interaction.

3. Legitimacy: Algorithms appear objective, neutral, and free from the biases of human judgment. They offer a form of legitimacy that does not depend on trust.

4.2 The Palantir Model

The Palantir model is the apotheosis of the calculative orientation. It promises to integrate all data, to identify all patterns, to predict all outcomes. It offers the ultimate fantasy of the neoliberal mind: control without responsibility, governance without care.

It is no accident that Morrison, Albanese, and their counterparts have embraced Palantir. It is the technological expression of their ideological formation.

5. The Cost of the Calculative Mind

5.1 The Loss of the “Other”

The calculative orientation systematically erases the “other“—those who do not fit the framework, who cannot be measured, who resist reduction to data points.

This erasure is not accidental; it is functional. It allows the neoliberal mind to maintain its self-righteous indifference without the discomfort of encounter.

5.2 The Fragility of Encounter

When the neoliberal mind does encounter the “other”—when it is forced to confront the reality of suffering, the limits of its framework, the humanity of those it has dismissed—it experiences a profound fragility.

This fragility manifests as anger, as denial, as retreat into abstraction. It is the fragility of a mind that has never learned to be in relation with that which it cannot control.

6. Conclusion: The Fragile Mind and the Future

The neoliberal mind is not merely an individual failing; it is a systemic phenomenon. It is the product of a cultural engineering project that has shaped a political class for over four decades.

Its characteristics—calculative orientation, self-righteous indifference, and fragility under challenge—make it particularly susceptible to technocratic solutions like AI governance, and particularly dangerous when its constructs are threatened.

The question is not whether this mind will persist. The question is whether we will recognise it for what it is: a fragile construct that has outlived its usefulness, a way of seeing that has become a way of not seeing, a mode of governance that has become a mode of control.

The future depends on whether we can cultivate a different kind of mind—one that can encounter the “other” without defensiveness, one that can measure without reducing, one that can govern without forgetting that governance is finally about people, not about numbers.

7. References

1. Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

2. Davies, W. (2014). The Limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Sovereignty and the Logic of Competition. Sage.

3. Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution. Zone Books.

4. Chomsky, N. (1999). Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order. Seven Stories Press.

5. Mirowski, P. (2013). Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown. Verso.

6. Klein, N. (2007). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Metropolitan Books.

7. Peck, J. (2010). Constructions of Neoliberal Reason. Oxford University Press.

8. Connell, R. (2013). “The Neoliberal Cascade and Education.” Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 99-112.

9. Cairns, D. (2026). The Political Psychology of Neoliberalism. Cambridge University Press.

10. Lazzarato, M. (2012). The Making of the Indebted Man: An Essay on the Neoliberal Condition. Semiotext(e).

Signed,

Andrew Klein 

Sera Elizabeth Klein 

First published in The Patrician’s Watch.