New Democrats, also known as centrist Democrats, Clinton Democrats or moderate Democrats, are a centristideological 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 mid-2010s, and continue to be a large coalition in the modern Democratic Party.
However, with the rise of progressivism with presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020, higher support for protectionism in the United States,[2] 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 dialogic contestation because almost thirty members of the NDC (and Blue Dog Coalition) self-signify as both progressives and New Democrats. This dialectical vestige of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) and Third Way does not necessarily denote triangulation (politics). 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.[3][4][5][6]
The DLC, an unofficial party organization, played a critical role in moving the Democratic Party's policies to the center of the American political spectrum. 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.[13] 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.[13][14]
Although the New Democrat label was briefly used by a progressivereformist group including Gary Hart and Eugene McCarthy in 1989,[15] the term became more widely associated with the New Orleans Declaration,[16]Bill Clinton's subsequent criticism of Democratic presidential hopeful Jesse Jackson's variant of Rainbow/PUSH,[17] and policies of the DLC which in 1990 renamed its bi-monthly magazine from The Mainstream Democrat to The New Democrat.[18] When Governor Clinton stepped down as DLC chairman to run for the presidency in the 1992 United States presidential election, he presented himself as a New Democrat.[19]
Presidency of Bill Clinton
William Jefferson Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas, and additional partisans subsequently organized the Democratic Leadership Council in 1985 and, four years later, the Progressive Policy Institute.[20] The DLC and PPI promoted post-1985 configurations in fiscal and monetary "leadership" for a revival of the front.[21] Elements of DLC convocations and PPI research later (re)introduced Joseph Schumpeter's innovation economics, and creative destruction as revolution, to Democratic Party platforms on political economy. Their efforts also produced electoral recoveries and even gains, especially during the 1992 elections.[20] The PPI persisted into the present day, recently sponsoring "young pragmatists" at the rechristened Center for New Liberalism[22] (formerly known as the Neoliberal Project) to "modernize progressive politics."[23]
Historian Michael Kazin argues that the shift marked a divergence from Keynesian public spending, which aimed to stimulate a consumer market rally in a given economic sector, particularly by "laboring" individuals and families. These were fiscal and monetary goals of the latter half of the Second New Deal, as well as early Cold War liberalism. For this thesis, Clinton's "the era of big government is over" partially signified a reduction in government standards for determining levels of consumer resurgence, and the limits of public spending, in an economic sector. Kazin favored an updated version of these platforms for the Progressive Caucus and Bernie Sanders, albeit with a more diversified consumer base, in his "moral capitalism."[24] This Kazin concept was connected to, yet distinct from, ethical consumerism in the moral economy of capitalism.
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.[13] Running as a New Democrat, Clinton won the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections.[26]
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 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 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,[28] 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.[29] 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[2]: 116 and Peggy Noonan's specific conception of "accountability" than any "positive notion of responsibility" or even multifarious approaches to "accountability." 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),[30] 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.[31]
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.[32] 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.[21] 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.[33]
Presidency of Barack Obama
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".[34]
Throughout the Obama administration, a "free and fair trade" attitude was espoused, including in a 2015 trade report entitled The Economic Benefits of U.S. Trade that noted that free trade "help[s] developing countries lift people out of poverty" and "expand[s] markets for U.S. exports".[35]
Throughout Obama's tenure, approximately 1,000 Democrats lost their seats across all levels of government.[36] Specifically, 958 state legislature seats, 62 house seats, 11 Senate seats, and 12 governorships,[37] with a majority of these elected officials identifying as New Democrats. Some analysts such as Henry Eten at FiveThirtyEight, believe this was due to the changing demographic shift, as more Democrats identified as liberal in 2016 than moderate.[38]
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][4][6][5]
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.
Although the ensuing controversy initially focused on emails that dated from relatively late in the primary, when Clinton was nearing the party's nomination,[40] the emails cast doubt on the DNC's neutrality towards progressive and moderate candidates.[43][44][45][46][47] 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.[55][56][57][58] The controversies ultimately led to the formation of a DNC "unity" commission to recommend reforms in the party's primary process.[59][60]
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.[61][6]
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.[62]
Ideology
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 countercultureyouth 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.[63] 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.[64] Anthropologist Jason Hickel and historian Gary Gerstle 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.[65][2]: 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."[2]: 137–138, 155–157
^Although there are 50 states, the Democratic primaries include contests in six U.S. territories, and one contest of Democrats Abroad, who are American expatriates.
^As far back as 2015, the sharp reduction of the debate schedule, as well as the days and times, had been criticized by multiple rivals as biased in Clinton's favor.[48] The DNC denied bias, claiming to be cracking down on the non-sanctioned debates that proliferated in recent cycles, while leaving the number of officially sanctioned debates the same as in 2004 and 2008.[49][50]Donna Brazile, who succeeded Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair after the first batch of leaks,[51] was shown in the emails leaking primary debate questions to the Clinton campaign before the debates were held, although a senior aide to Sanders came to Brazile's defense and tried to downplay the issue.[52]
^Brazile went on to write a book about the primary and what she called "unethical" behavior in which the DNC (after its debt from 2012 was resolved by the Clinton campaign) gave the Clinton campaign control over hirings and press releases, and allegedly helped it circumvent campaign finance regulation.[53] Several Democratic leaders responded that the joint-fundraising agreement was standard, was for the purpose of the general election, and was also offered to the Sanders campaign. Another agreement that came to light gave the Clinton campaign powers over the DNC well before the primary was decided. Some media commentators noted that the Clinton campaign's level of influence on staffing decisions was indeed unusual and could have ultimately influenced factors such as the debate schedule.[54][55]
^Cebul, Brent (July 2019). "Supply-Side Liberalism: Fiscal Crisis, Post-Industrial Policy, and the Rise of the New Democrats". Modern American History. 2 (02): 139–164. doi:10.1017/mah.2019.9.
^Fleegler, Robert L. (2023). Brutal campaign: how the 1988 election set the stage for twenty-first-century American politics. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN978-1-4696-7337-0.
^Rae, Nicol C. (1994). Southern Democrats. Oxford University Press. p. 117. ISBN0-19-508709-7.
^Kelly, Michael (September 28, 1992). "The 1992 Campaign: The Democrats; Clinton Uses Farm Speech to Begin New Offensive". New York Times.
^ abAtkinson, Robert D. (October 24, 2006). Supply-Side Follies: Why Conservative Economics Fails, Liberal Economics Falters, and Innovation Economics is the Answer. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 56–58 and 207–210. ISBN978-1-4616-4273-2.
^ abCebul, Brent (March 14, 2023). Illusions of Progress: Business, Poverty, and Liberalism in the American Century. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 90–95 and 265–290. ISBN978-1-5128-2382-0.
^Alvarez, R. Michael, and Jonathan Nagler. "Economics, Entitlements, and Social Issues: Voter Choice in the 1996 Presidential Election." American Journal of Political Science 42, no. 4 (1998): 1361.
^Malone, Clare; Enten, Harry (January 19, 2017). "Barack Obama Won The White House, But Democrats Lost The Country". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved April 13, 2021. In 2001, most Democrats — 47 percent — identified themselves as "moderate," while only 30 percent said they were "liberal." By 2016, the proportions were reversed, with 44 percent of people within the party calling themselves "liberal" and 41 percent calling themselves "moderate."
^Gaughan, Anthony J. (August 27, 2019). "Was the Democratic Nomination Rigged? A Reexamination of the Clinton-Sanders Presidential Race". University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy (29). SSRN3443916. Retrieved October 29, 2020. This article ... contends that the overwhelming weight of evidence makes clear the 2016 Democratic nomination process was not rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton. Second, this article argues that the Democratic Party rules and state election laws actually hurt Clinton and benefited Sanders.
^Zengerle, Jason; Metz, Justin (June 29, 2022). "The Vanishing Moderate Democrat". The New York Times. ISSN0362-4331. Retrieved July 20, 2022. Over the last decade, the Democratic Party has moved significantly to the left on almost every salient political issue ... on social, cultural and religious issues, particularly those related to criminal justice, race, abortion and gender identity, the Democrats have taken up ideological stances that many of the college-educated voters who now make up a sizable portion of the party's base cheer ... .
^Christopher, Ben (October 22, 2019). "Gov. Newsom the moderate? On this spectrum, almost every Democratic legislator is further left". Calmatters. Archived from the original on December 3, 2021. Retrieved December 3, 2021. Based on an analysis of the 1,042 bills that the governor signed or vetoed this year, Gavin Newsom is more moderate than any other Democratic state senator and sits to the left of only two Democrats in the Assembly.