Bill Clinton, the 42nd president (1993–2001)

Barack Obama, the 44th president (2009–2017)

New Democrats, also known as centrist Democrats, Clinton Democrats or moderate Democrats, are a centrist ideological faction within the Democratic Party in the United States. As the Third Way faction of the party, they are seen as culturally liberal on social issues while being moderate or fiscally conservative on economic issues.^[1] New Democrats dominated the party from the late 1980s through the early-2010s,^[2] and continue to be a large coalition in the modern Democratic Party.^[3]

However, with the rise of progressivism with presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020, higher support for protectionism in the United States,^[4] and a general leftward shift of the Democratic Party since the 2010s, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) challenged the New Democrat Coalition (NDC) for the largest party plurality. As of April 2024, the seat margin between the two caucuses remains a source of contestation because almost thirty members of the NDC (and Blue Dog Coalition) self-signify as both Progressives and New Democrats. In 2020, the CPC tightened membership requirements and updated ideological as well as voting expectations for members. This restructuring diminished, but did not eliminate, the number of representatives who held seats in both caucuses, that is, as both "New Democrats" and "Progressives."^[5] With the notable exception of Sara Jacobs, delegates who currently hold seats in both caucuses were all born before 1979, with a supermajority born in, or well before, 1973. They also began their partisan careers on the eve of, or prior to, the presidency of Barack Obama.^[6][7][8][9]

Despite expansion of the CPC, even with stricter criteria for "Progressive" representation in Congress, the New Democrats' Progressive Policy Institute (established in 1989) persists into the present day, recently sponsoring "young pragmatists" at the rechristened Center for New Liberalism^[10] (formerly known as the Neoliberal Project) to "modernize progressive politics."^[11]

This article is part of a series on
Modern liberalism in the United States
Schools Progressivism Social liberalism American Left
Principles Egalitarianism Equal opportunity Environmentalism Harm Principle Internationalism Mixed economy Social democracy Social equality Social justice Welfare state
History Civil rights movement Fair Deal Great Society New Deal New Deal coalition New Democrats Progressive Era Square Deal Third Way Rockefeller Republicans
Intellectuals Abbott Addams Berle Carson Commager Croly Dewey Du Bois Dworkin Friedan Fukuyama Galbraith Harrington Hofstadter Hook Howe Kazin King Jr. Krugman Lippmann Nussbaum Rawls Reich Rorty Schlesinger Skinner Sontag Trilling Vidal
Politicians Abzug Bayh Bentsen Biden (Joe) Brown (Jerry) Brown (Pat) Bryan Buttigieg Carter Chase Smith Chisholm Church Clinton (Bill) Clinton (Hillary) Clyburn Conyers Cuomo (Andrew) Cuomo (Mario) Dean Feinstein Franken Goodell Gore Halpern Harris Hatfield Heinz Hill Hochul Hoyer Humphrey Jackson (Henry) Jackson (Jesse) Jeffords Johnson (Hiram) Johnson (Lyndon B.) Jordan Kefauver Kennedy (John) Kennedy (Robert) Kennedy (Ted) Kerry La Follette La Follette Jr. La Guardia Lewis Long McCarthy Milk Mondale Murphy Muskie Nelson Newsom Norris O'Malley O'Neill O'Rourke Obama (Barack) Pelosi Powell Reid Rockefeller Romney Roosevelt (Franklin) Roosevelt (Theodore) Schumer Specter Truman Wallace Warren Waters Wellstone Wilson Yarborough
Jurists Blackmun Brandeis Brennan Breyer Douglas Ginsburg Hughes Jackson (Ketanji Brown) Kagan Marshall Sotomayor Souter Stevens Warren (Earl) Williams
Activists Armstrong Biden (Jill) Chavez Du Bois Emhoff Ford Friedan Gompers Hamer Ireland Jackson (Jesse) King King Jr. Lerner MacFarlane McIlrath Miranda Murray Obama (Michelle) Randolph Reuther Roosevelt (Eleanor) Sharpton Steinem Trotter
Parties Active Democratic Party (1930s–present) Defunct Progressive Party 1912–1920 1924–1934 1948–1955) Rockefeller Republicans (1930s–1970s)
Think tanks Center for American Progress Center for Budget and Policy Priorities Demos Economic Policy Institute Roosevelt Institute Urban Institute
Other organizations AFL-CIO American Civil Liberties Union American Constitution Society American Humanist Association Americans United for Separation of Church and State Brennan Center For Justice Congress of Racial Equality Congressional Progressive Caucus Equal Justice Works Fair Fight Action NAACP NARAL National Organization for Women Our Revolution People for the American Way Southern Christian Leadership Conference Southern Center for Human Rights SNCC National Urban League
Media Journals The American Prospect The Atlantic Mother Jones The Nation The New Republic Rolling Stone Sojourners TV channels MSNBC Websites AlterNet Daily Kos Firedoglake HuffPost Salon Talking Points Memo ThinkProgress The Young Turks Other The Problem with Jon Stewart
See also Liberal bias in academia Liberal bias in the media Liberal theorists Liberalism in the United States
Liberalism portal United States portal
v t e

During the 1970s energy crisis, the United States faced stagflation, that is both increasing inflation and decreasing economic growth.^[12] The 1974 midterm elections, according to historian Brent Cebul, "are remembered for the arrival of the 'Watergate babies' in the House of Representatives, but the New Democrats’ first electoral wave was broader and deeper still...some western and northeastern officials like [Michael] Dukakis were dubbed Atari Democrats thanks to their veneration of new, entrepreneurial, high-technology sectors of the economy. This group, which included [Gary] Hart and California Governor Jerry Brown, also sometimes called themselves 'New Liberals' in an effort to signal their support for traditional liberal social values even as they pursued market-oriented and perhaps less bureaucratic ways of governing." Another "primary strand" could be found in "the South, often as self-consciously 'centrist' Democrats. Led by politicians like Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, the southern centrists echoed southern Democrats of the past in their skepticism for targeted welfare or antipoverty programs, and they also looked forward to stimulating the region's post-industrial and 'post-racial' future."^[13]

The Watergate Babies and Atari Democrats found a common thread in supply-side progressivism. Ideas stemming from consultation with "southern centrists" became "supply-side liberalism" that, according to Cebul, ultimately proved a fiscal illusion.^[14] Michael Dukakis and Jerry Brown, for instance, both appropriated property taxes to subsidize a given startup company in depressed industrial sectors. This subsidization transformed state tax revenue for public finance into venture capital. Once the first wave of startups achieved normal profit, then the tax burden for additional start-ups would shift from real estate investors and homeowners to the initial companies. Brown and Dukakis also planned to use revenue from the new taxable capital for "infrastructure and education." During the Carter and Reagan Administrations, voter tax revolts and the Volcker recession, coupled with uneven profit thresholds for taxing scaled-up companies, hastened the shift in tax burden to the entire first wave.^{[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]}

Even if absent from partisan politics for one or more election cycles, "supply-side liberals" could and did campaign to reconcile "job and tax generation with the market-oriented ethos of the 1980s" during reelection bids. Once back in office during the early 1980s recession in the United States, Dukakis and his cohort incrementally diverged from "supply-side liberalism" as it operated prior to the tax revolts. Beginning in 1982, for instance, Dukakis altered the role of his Massachusetts Technology Development Corporation (1978) from tax revenue distribution to "broker[ing] deals" between "high-tech companies and Boston-based venture capital firms." This gradual change diminished his own role in the ensuing Massachusetts Miracle, a cornerstone of his campaign during the 1988 United States presidential election. Conversely, 1980s changes later became key tenets of New Democrat platforms.^[22][23][24]

After the landslide defeats to the Republican Party led by Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was out of touch and in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance.^[25][26] The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists.^[27] Prominent Democratic politicians such as Senators Al Gore and Joe Biden (both future vice presidents, and Biden, a future president) participated in DLC affairs prior to their candidacies for the 1988 Democratic Party nomination.^[28] The DLC did not want the Democratic Party to be "simply posturing in the middle", and instead framed its ideas as "progressive" and as a "Third Way" to address the problems of its era. Examples of the DLC's policy initiatives can be found in The New American Choice Resolutions.^[28][29]

In 1989, the "New Democrat" label was briefly used by a progressive reformist group including Gary Hart and Eugene McCarthy.^[30] That same year, Will Marshall founded the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) as a think tank to formulate a new common platform for Yellow Dogs, Atari Democrats, and Watergate Babies. In 1990, the DLC renamed its bi-monthly magazine from The Mainstream Democrat to The New Democrat.^[31] The PPI, in conjunction with Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and the DLC, subsequently introduced tentative precepts collected in a New Orleans Declaration. By 1992, "New Democrats" had become more widely associated with this Declaration as well as Democratic partisans who entwined presidential hopeful Jesse Jackson's variant of Rainbow/PUSH with the Sister Souljah moment.^[32][33]

Aspirations for "supply-side liberalism" had been rebuffed by voters and state auditors alike. According to Cebul, the rechristened "New Democrats" espoused "a reflexive veneration of the market as the essential underwriter of social progress." They first sought to accelerate capital and money coursing through a post-industrial economy. The PPI and DLC forecasted financial deregulation and tax cuts as avenues to facilitate the expansion of scaleup companies invested in computational and internet technology. These companies would provide the venture capital necessary to pave over ailing industrial regions with post-industrial start-ups. The role of government was to remove any perceived obstacles. Heeding the lessons of tax resistance, the New Democrat think tank and leadership council also aimed to reduce the federal deficit and interest rates, while expanding the mortgage-backed security industry and credit market for a real estate sector that had roundly rejected property taxes. The voters who had stymied "supply side liberalism" would become a New Democrat vanguard.^{[34] [35]}

Bill Clinton, the DLC chairman who referred to the PPI as his "idea mill", faced a peculiar dilemma. He had to somehow circumvent voter preconceptions of financial deregulatory laws and capital gains tax reductions as antithetical to "social progress", while concurrently accepting the duty of the largest party plurality, namely to advance the mid- to late twentieth-century Democratic partisan goal of "social progress." Cebul and additional scholars conclude that the DLC as well as PPI, and Clinton more specifically, offered a possible solution: cast the "the poor as unrealized entrepreneurs and impoverished communities as untapped 'new markets' ", ostensibly combining financial deregulation with claims for "social progress" in syncretic politics. After the 1988 elections that perpetuated the Reagan era, this did not seem such a controversial goal for a new national Democratic Party leader.^[36]

Clinton needed new frameworks for political economy, society, and culture, both to implement and sustain his proposed solution. He sought de jure and de facto advisors that would, in turn, move beyond syncretic politics to accomplish aspects of this vision. First he had to run for President and New Democrats had to take seats in Congress. Clinton stepped down as DLC chairman and prepared for a campaign.^[37] The 1992 presidential election occurred shortly after the end of the Cold War, at a time when faith in capitalism and internationalism were at their height, providing an opportunity for Bill Clinton to focus on domestic policy.^[38]

Bill Clinton became the Democratic politician most identified with the New Democrats due to his promise of welfare reform in the 1992 United States presidential campaign, his 1992 promise of a middle-class tax cut and his 1993 expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor.^[26] New Democrat successes under Clinton, underpinned by the writings of Anthony Giddens on the duality of structure, maintained a unity of opposites that became the hallmark of the Third Way. New Democrats subsequently aligned with Joseph Schumpeter's innovation economics and creative destruction as revolution in order to sustain their budding framework for a post-industrial political economy.^[39]

New Democrats are often regarded to have inspired Tony Blair in the United Kingdom and his policies within the Labour Party as New Labour, as well as prompting the continental conflation of Third Way approaches to social democracy with previous notions of democratic socialism. The two were often used interchangeably by political scientists and fostered popular conceptions of democratic socialism as a social democratic variant of libertarian socialism.^[40]

Clinton presented himself as a centrist candidate to draw White middle-class voters who had left the Democratic Party for the Republican Party. Until 2016 and even after, the Third Way defined and dominated notions of centrism in U.S. partisan politics. In 1990, Clinton became the DLC chair. Under his leadership, the DLC founded two-dozen chapters and created a base of support.^[28] Running as a New Democrat, Clinton won the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections.^[41] Some political analysts like Kenneth Baer contended the DLC embodied the spirit of Truman-Kennedy era Democrats and were vital to the Democratic party's resurgence after the presidential election losses of liberals George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis.^[42][43]

Legislation signed into domestic law with bipartisan support under President Clinton includes:

• The North American Free Trade Agreement, a core international agreement signed during Bush Administration without NAALC/NAAEC and required Congressional approval for implementation. It is still largely in effect via the succeeding USMCA and proposed IPEF.
• The Don't Ask, Don't Tell ban on openly gay people serving in the Armed Forces (repealed in 2010).
• The Defense of Marriage Act that prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. (It was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 and repealed in 2022, the latter with support from 24% of the Congressional GOP).
• The Religious Freedom Restoration Act federal religious discrimination statute.
• The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, sometimes referred to as the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill.^[44]

New Democrats dialectically adopted GOP proposals and platforms during the campaigns for the 1992 congressional/state elections and 1992 United States presidential election. Below are subsequent congressional legislative authorships and voting percentages. Please note that both the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act became law three months before the 1996 congressional/state elections and 1996 United States presidential election.

Legislative Authorship

• 1996 Defense of Marriage Act: Bob Barr (R-GA) (GOP introduction)
• 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act: John Kasich (R-OH) with Ideas/Provisions from Clinton's 1994 proposal
• 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act: John Kasich (R-OH) with Ideas/Provisions from New Democrats
• 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: Phil Gramm (R-TX), Jim Leach (R-IA), and Thomas Bliley (R-VA) with Ideas/Provisions from New Democrats

Congressional Democrat Voting Percentages

• 1996 Defense of Marriage Act: 64% Dem Representatives support & 72% Dem Senators support
• 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act: 50% Dem Representatives support & 53% Dem Senators support
• 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act: 80% Dem Representatives support & 82% Dem Senators support
• 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: 75% Dem Representatives support & 84% Dem Senators support

The Clinton administration, supported by congressional New Democrats, was responsible for proposing and passing the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which increased Medicare taxes for taxpayers with annual incomes over $135,000, yet also reduced Medicare spending and benefits across all tax brackets. Congressional Republicans demanded even deeper cuts to Medicare, but Clinton twice vetoed their bills. The Clinton administration in turn taxed individuals earning annual incomes over $115,000, but also defined taxable "small business" earnings as less than approximately $10 million in annual gross revenue, with tax brackets for high-gross incorporated businesses beginning at that number. According to the Clinton Foundation, the revised brackets and categories increased taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers within these new brackets,^[45] while cutting taxes on 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses. "Small businesses" and taxpayer classifications were reconfigured by these new tax brackets.^[46] Again, according to the Clinton Foundation, these brackets raised the top marginal tax rate from 31% to 40%. Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years through the implementation of spending restraints.

Bill Clinton's promise of welfare reform was passed in the form of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. Prior to 2018, critics such as Yascha Mounk contended that Clinton's arguments for the virtues of "negative" notions of "personal responsibility [New Orleans Declaration: 'individual responsibility']," propounded within DLC circles during the 1980s, stemmed more from Ronald Reagan's specific conception of "accountability" than any "positive notion of responsibility."^{[47][4]: 116} Additional critics distinguish the New Democrat idea of "personal responsibility" from arguments over the extent of limitations on government, if any, in platforms that advance social responsibility. The 1996 United States presidential election, the temporary relegation of Hillary Clinton to the global promotion of microcredit (argued by Claremont McKenna College historian Lily Geismer),^[48] partisan compromises over this act, conflicts within the Democratic Party, as well as the act's multivalent consequences, all contributed to deliberations over passage and execution of the PRWORA.^[49]

Democratic partisan criticism of the first Clinton administration as well as the formation of the Blue Dog Coalition, particularly in response to proposals and actions by the First Lady, followed 1994 congressional New Democrat losses in the southeast and west coast.^[50] Bill Clinton's reassertion as a New Democrat during the 1996 presidential elections, and passage of the PRWORA, contributed to the founding of the New Democrat Coalition, reaffirming Clintonian Democrats as New Democrats.^[34] As of August 2023, 23% of the New Democrat Coalition have become simultaneous members of, or declared an intention to vote for more proposals by, the Congressional Progressive Caucus. A number of these delegates, most notably Shri Thanedar, faced backlash from pundits and constituents alike, as evidence surfaced of alleged involvement in post-2016 attempts to rally neoconservatism.^[51]

In March 2009, Barack Obama, said in a meeting with the New Democrat Coalition that he was a "New Democrat" and a "pro-growth Democrat", that he "supports free and fair trade" and that he was "very concerned about a return to protectionism."^[52]

The Obama Administration espoused "free and fair trade" ideas. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) proponents postponed TPP drafting after Obama became President, only to commence "formal" Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2010, after Executive Office (EO) disclosure of an endorsement, albeit with Obama's proposed revisions on, for instance, intellectual property. Early drafts of Executive Order 13609, "Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation", buttressed the TPP deliberations with the premise that "inadequate cooperation and consultation" had been caused by "excessive red tape" for "businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises operating near the border."^[53] In the final draft, Obama regulatory advisors applied the Executive Order to all such "enterprises", in the absence of regional and tax bracket classifications, operating within "North America and beyond."^[54][55] Three years later, the Obama EO released 'The Economic Benefits of U.S. Trade' (2015), a signatory framework for prospective drafts of the TPP and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). According to the Obama EO, free trade "help[s] developing countries lift people out of poverty" and "expand[s] markets for U.S. exports."^[56]

Throughout Obama's tenure, approximately 1,000 Democrats lost their seats across all levels of government.^[57] Specifically, 958 state legislature seats, 62 house seats, 11 Senate seats, and 12 governorships,^[58] with a majority of these elected officials identifying as New Democrats. Some analysts such as Harry Enten at FiveThirtyEight, believe this was due to the changing demographic shift, as more Democrats identified as liberal in 2016 than moderate.^[59] Consequently, many pundits believed that Obama's tenure marked an end of the New Democrats' dominance in the party, although the faction still remains an important part of the party's big tent.^[3] Obama signed the draft Trans-Pacific Partnership, yet subsequently declared his "Economic Benefits of Free Trade" framework as "dead" prior to the lame-duck session of Congress, in anticipation of bipartisan opposition to TPP ratification.^[60]

Historian Gary Gerstle argues that support for neoliberalism declined in the United States in both parties in 2016, with both Trumpism and progressivism opposing central tenets of neoliberalism. For example, Trump and Sanders both opposed the Transatlantic Pacific Partnership during the 2016 United States presidential election. President Trump then refused to sign any draft TPP, precluding further revisions to garner U.S. participation.^[4] In contrast, Trump initially indicated willingness to continue TTIP negotiations with substantial changes.^[61] On the eve of the COVID-19 pandemic, the TTIP dissolved into trade disputes between the European Union (EU) and the Trump Administration. Trump's approach to curbing the pandemic became the focus of EU delegate concerns, superseding the unresolved trade conflicts.^[62]

Despite this, New Democrats have continued to be a large coalition within the big tent of the Democratic Party.^[63] The New Democrat Coalition had 103 members after the 2018 House elections, and has maintained at least 90 members as of 2023.^[64]

Ahead of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, many New Democrats were backing the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, the wife of former New Democrat president, Bill Clinton who served as a senator from New York during the 2000s and as Barack Obama's Secretary of State during the early 2010s. Originally considered to be an expected nominee, Clinton faced an unexpected challenge from Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders, whose campaign garnered the support of progressive and younger Democrats. Ultimately, Clinton won 34 of the 57^[a] contests, compared to Sanders' 23, and garnered about 55 percent of the vote. Nevertheless, commentators saw the primary as a decline in the strength of New Democrats in the party, and an increasing influence of progressive Democrats within the party.

Ahead of the formal announcement of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks published the Democratic National Committee email leak, in which DNC operatives, many of whom were New Democrats, seemed to deride Bernie Sanders' campaign^[65] and discuss ways to advance Clinton's nomination,^[66] leading to the resignation of DNC chair, and New Democrat member, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other implicated officials. The leak was allegedly part of an operation by the Russian government to undermine Hillary Clinton.^[67][68]

Although the ensuing controversy initially focused on emails that dated from relatively late in the primary, when Clinton was nearing the party's nomination,^[66] the emails cast doubt on the DNC's neutrality towards progressive and moderate candidates.^{[69][70][71][72][73]} This was evidenced by alleged bias in the scheduling and conduct of the debates,^[b] as well as controversial DNC–Clinton agreements regarding financial arrangements and control over policy and hiring decisions.^[c] Other media commentators have disputed the significance of the emails, arguing that the DNC's internal preference for Clinton was not historically unusual and didn't affect the primary enough to sway the outcome.^{[81][82][83][84]} The controversies ultimately led to the formation of a DNC "unity" commission to recommend reforms in the party's primary process.^[85][86]

The winner of the 2020 United States presidential election was Joe Biden, who served as vice president under Barack Obama. Although Biden has not explicitly self-identified as a New Democrat, Biden identifies as a moderate Democrat and opposes some progressive positions.^[87] During his presidency, Biden has broken with New Democrat policies on some issues, such as spending and free trade.^[88]

In the 2020 United States House of Representatives elections, 13 Democrats lost their seats. All thirteen Democrats that lost their seats had won in the 2018 mid-term elections. Of those 13 members, 10 of them were New Democrats. During the 117th United States Congress, the New Democrat Coalition lost its status as the largest ideological coalition in favor of the more left leaning Congressional Progressive Caucus. The CPC was founded in 1991, but only began catching up and eventually surpassed the New Democrat Coalition in the 2010s.^[89][9]

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been characterized by some as the end of the Post–Cold War era and internationalism.^[90] Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 shortly after the Dissolution of the Soviet Union, when New Democrats were at the peak of their influence.

As of December 2023, Biden has largely maintained Trump's protectionist trade policies, and has not negotiated any new free trade agreements. Labor unions, an important constituency for Biden’s re-election, opposed removing Trump's tariffs.^[91] The PPI pressured the Biden Administration to revoke Obama's "dead" position and join the TPP.^[92] Instead, the Biden Executive Office negotiated and initiated the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF). The 2024 United States presidential election, as well as partisan dissent in participating member-states, forestalled further implementation and ratification of the IPEF.^[93]

Biden withdrew from the 2024 United States presidential election on July 21, 2024.^[94][95]

According to Dylan Loewe, New Democrats tend to identify as fiscally moderate-to-conservative and socially liberal.^[1]

Columnist Michael Lind argued that neoliberalism for New Democrats was the "highest stage" of left liberalism. The counterculture youth of the 1960s became more fiscally conservative in the 1970s and 1980s but retained their cultural liberalism. Many leading New Democrats, including Bill Clinton, and Gary Hart, started out in the George McGovern wing of the Democratic Party and gradually moved toward the right on economic and military policy.^[96] According to historian Walter Scheidel, both major political parties shifted towards promoting free-market capitalism in the 1970s, with Republicans moving further to the political right than Democrats to the political left. He noted that Democrats played a significant role in the financial deregulation of the 1990s.^[97] Gerstle and anthropologist Jason Hickel contended that the neoliberal policies of the Reagan era were carried forward by the Clinton administration, forming a new economic consensus which crossed party lines.^{[98][4]: 137–138, 155–157} According to Gerstle, "across his two terms, Clinton may have done more to free markets from regulation than even Reagan himself had done."^{[4]: 137–138, 155–157}

Historian Michael Kazin argues that New Democrat fiscal and monetary ideas marked a divergence from U.S. fiscal variants of Keynesian public spending. Keynesian economics aimed to stimulate individual and group consumption of goods and services in a given economic sector, until monetary circulation crossed a predetermined sector threshold for contraction in economic liberalism. This U.S. iteration of Keynesianism, coupled with budget deficits, began during the latter half of the Second New Deal and became a hallmark of early Cold War liberalism.^[99]

In contrast, Clinton's "the era of big government is over" marked a more global shift to a new neoclassical synthesis, culminating in the post-war displacement of Keynesianism with creative destruction and various approaches to the service-commodity goods continuum in a post-industrial economy.^[100] New Democrat monetary ideas aligned with easy money policy and the Greenspan put from the Reagan Administration, resulting in Clinton's reappointment of Alan Greenspan as Chair of the Federal Reserve. For "moral capitalism", Kazin favored U.S interpretations of New Keynesian economics in Progressive Caucus platforms, albeit with a more diversified consumer base.^[101]

The 2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, as well as Barack Obama's 2010 endorsement of the Volcker Rule, evinced a trend away from this New Democrat shift and concomitant tax brackets. During the COVID-19 pandemic and everything bubble, fiscal and monetary stimuli, as well as targeting in monetary policy to curb inflation, came under public and scholarly scrutiny. Debates focused on whether pandemic policymaking should be regarded solely as "COVID-Keynesianism", with more flexibility in deficit spending, or an advancement in the connected, yet distinct, trend. The latter would add a sustained expansion of financial regulatory authority to address any adverse effects of windfall profits, substantial price gouging, and artificial scarcity on the US economy.^{[102][103][104]} The 2021–2023 inflation surge has called called into question the efficacy of increased federal spending and deficits.^{[105][106][107]}

New Democrats have faced criticism from those further to the left. In a 2017 BBC interview, Noam Chomsky said that "the Democrats gave up on the working class forty years ago".^[108][109] In his 2020 presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders said that "the Democratic Party has become a party of the coastal elites,^[110] folks who have a lot of money, upper-middle-class people".^[111]

Political analyst Thomas Frank asserted that the Democratic Party began to represent the interests of the professional class rather than the working class.^[112]

The Democratic Leadership Council, the organization that produced such figures as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman and Terry McAuliffe, has long been pushing the party to forget blue-collar voters and concentrate instead on recruiting affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues. The larger interests that the DLC wants desperately to court are corporations, capable of generating campaign contributions far outweighing anything raised by organized labor. The way to collect the votes and -- more important -- the money of these coveted constituencies, "New Democrats" think, is to stand rock-solid on, say, the pro-choice position while making endless concessions on economic issues, on welfare, NAFTA, Social Security, labor law, privatization, deregulation and the rest of it.

— Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas? (2004), p. 243

In Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? (2016), Frank was one of the few analysts who foresaw that Donald Trump could win the 2016 United States presidential election, attributing it to New Democrats alienating working class voters.^[113][114]

1. Bill Clinton^[115] (former)
2. Barack Obama^[116] (former)
3. Joe Biden^[117][118]

1. Al Gore^[28] (former)
2. Joe Biden^[119] (former)

1. Andy Beshear^[148]
2. John Carney^[141]
3. Roy Cooper^[149]
4. Laura Kelly^[150]
5. Janet Mills^[151][152]
6. Gavin Newsom^[153]
7. Josh Shapiro^[154]

• Blue Grit
• Labor Right
• New Labour
• New Democrat Coalition
• Problem Solvers Caucus
• Radical centrism
• Rockefeller Republican

• Cebul, Brent (July 2019). "Supply-Side Liberalism: Fiscal Crisis, Post-Industrial Policy, and the Rise of the New Democrats". Modern American History. 2 (02). Cambridge University Press: 139–164. doi:10.1017/mah.2019.9. S2CID 199294170.
• Zengerle, Jason (June 29, 2022). "The Vanishing Moderate Democrat". The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved July 15, 2022.

• About the New Democrat movement, DLC