Has the Democratic Party moved to the left over the last 30 years & if so, do you see this development in a favorable or unfavorable light?

@ElwoodBlues I‘ve seen the research, I think it undersells how much the Democratic Party has shifted to the left of its previously held economic positions. As for the Republican Party, it‘s not that they‘ve become more right-wing per se, but that they‘ve turned into an anti-liberal, populist movement which is much more dangerous.

@CedricH Which economic positions are you referring to?

@ElwoodBlues Their core positions on regulations, industrial policy, unions, economic openness, trade & globalization, taxation, health care, debt and deficits, public spending and welfare programs. So virtually all of them.

@CedricH Over the 50 year span the Pew graph covers, Democrats have increased industrial regulations, supported unions less, supported more trade and globalization, supported or agreed with more tax cuts, supported more public spending and less welfare.

Elements of the democratic rightward lean include: Clinton negotiated a number of free & fair trade initiatives and reduced tariffs, signing a new WTO deal. Clinton fundamentally reformed welfare, adding work requirements and limiting time on welfare. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for all but the top 1% of earners.

Democrats increased regulations. Personally I support clean air, clean water, safe workplaces, and prevention of financial fraud, and I think that probably covers 90% of the Democrats' regulations.

@CedricH says And the ones I enumerated all shifted Democrats to the right. Clinton was a centrist democrat.


Be specific here; in what ways did Obama pivot away from Clintonomics? Not in welfare policy, and not in international trade policy. Obama went for a tax cut whereas Clinton increased taxes; that's a rightward shift. in what ways did Obama pivot to the left of Clinton??

@ElwoodBlues You seem to miss the essence of my argument. I agree with the Clinton policies you‘ve enumerated. That‘s the whole point of this poll. I want to find out how many participants have also come to realize that the Democratic Party has pivoted away from Clintonomics, first gradually and then suddenly

@ElwoodBlues That‘s an excellent question. First of all, Clinton worked on the ratification of NAFTA (passed on to him by the Bush administration) as soon as he entered office. Obama, on the other hand, imposed new AD/CV duties on China while not seeking TPA (trade promotion authority) until it was too late to politically pass either TPP or TITP. Though he was a Democratic President his own party claimed that they killed TPP. And while Clinton finalized the multilateral Uruguay Round which turned GATT into the WTO, Obama blocked the appointment of arbiters to the appeals panel of the WTO‘s Dispute Settlement Mechanism which was then continued under Trump and brought the organization to a standstill.

Clinton actually reduced spending on discretionary spending in a substantial way, balancing the budget while Obama did neither. Clinton didn’t pursue industrial policies because he realized they were efficient whereas Obama included them in the 2009 stimulus package.

Clinton deregulated the digital economy and the financial sector. Meanwhile, Obama passed the Dodd-Frank Act, re-regulating the financial industry, introduced new regulations on health care through the PPACA and imposed a litany of social regulations ranging from net neutrality, energy, the environment to labor issues. On the other hand, overall regulations declined under Clinton. They grew considerably under Obama.

As for taxation, Clinton temporarily raised taxes and then lowered them with a few exceptions before his second term ended. Obama only partially prolonged the Bush tax cuts which effectively let to some tax rate snap backs.

That being said, Obama was only gradually moving away from Clintonomics. Much of his shifts weren’t that problematic. The bing bang occurred after Obama had already left the scene.

@CedricH says Small potatoes. Also, Your imputation of motives about TPA (that requires Congressional approval) sounds oversimplified.

Actually, Obama reduced absolute gov't spending; the only president to do so in a very long time. This graph is const 2009 dollars.

So you're saying basically the leftward shift was resisting tRrumpism. I consider the resistance against tRrumpism to be holding position against a hard rightward shift.

BTW, tRrumpism doesn't fit any rational definition of conservatism; certainly not Burke's. I think it was unpatriotic NOT to resist tRrumpism, and I respect those republicans who sacrificed their political careers to oppose tRrumpism.

@ElwoodBlues Look at your own graph, public spending was clearly up in 2016 when Obama left from where it was in 2008 when he was elected. When you look at Clinton‘s two terms, however, you‘ll notice that he stabilized overal public spending between 1993 and 2000.

The motives were quite clear. He didn’t seek to renew TPA (which must be approved by Congress but has to be introduced by the executive) because he was catering to a more protectionist constituency. He thought he had the freedom to push for the agreements in his second term without having to be re-elected and while Congress was already controlled by the Republicans. That‘s a material shift on trade policy in terms of its results. TPP & TTIP would’ve had a considerable impact on international trade and investment.

And no, I‘m saying that by imitating Trump‘s populism and by adopting more positions of the new and powerful left-wing of the Democratic Party, Bidenomics has moved to the left in a way that has made Biden(along with the age and fitness) a liability for the Democrats. It is why Harris tries not to sell Bidenomics to the voters anymore. In any case, I think you‘re spot on. Resisting Trump is patriotic. I‘d rather do that in a more fiscally centrist Democratic Party which would in turn help them at the polling stations.

@CedricH Obama's spending cuts started in 2010. As you are aware, most of the budget of a president's first year is set by the previous admin; thus 2009 is a Bush budget. The only downward slope in the graph is during the Obama admin. Obama did cut absolute spending though not every year.

Still small potatoes.

Please be specific.

@ElwoodBlues You‘re misstating what the graph says. While Clinton stabilized public spending, it grew drastically under Obama. And that has only partially to do with the last year of the previous administration and more with an $800 billion stimulus in 2009 (passed by his administration) and yet another one of equal size in 2010 (passed by his administration) add to that the budgetary costs of Obamacare and you can see that what you falsely interpret as cuts, are simply fiscal years with less new public spending when the baseline of FY2008 is used as a reference point. Actual spending cuts would’ve brought total spending back to the trajectory before he entered office, instead fiscal policies during his two terms kept it elevated on a significantly higher level than the trendline prior to his Presidency would’ve suggested.

As for your small potatoes comment, I‘m afraid I can’t teach you how to measure potatoes correctly, but your dismissive attitude is somewhat ignorant to the importance of international trade and investment.

And to be specific on Biden‘s shift. He perpetuated Trump tariffs, introduced higher tariffs, didn’t even try to negotiate (or ratify) any new FTAs or WTO agreements, included restrictive Buy America requirements and inefficient local content rules in his bills, spent trillions on industrial policies, massively increased public debt and public spending, tried to spend even more than he already did, attempted to cancel student loan debt, undermined the consumer welfare standard through the FTC, issued a multitude of new regulations, tried to increase the minimum wage to $15/per hour and made attempts to sizeably enlarge the public welfare state. Attempted to pass rent control legislation and issued an eviction moratorium. Opted for a much larger and more inflationary stimulus bill than Obama did when the economy was already recovering in 2021.

@CedricH says Nope. Not at all. The rapid growth in the years 2002 thru 09 inclusive, that's Bush. That's Dick Cheney saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Which, BTW, is why increased spending & deficits is no longer a "leftwards" policy. Ever since Reagan, the right wing has excused their deficits via the myth of supply side. Obama is 2010 thru 2017 inclusive. Spending ramps down from Bush's 2009 TARP peak thru 2014.

Less spending == cuts.

It's true that Biden "increased public debt and public spending," but as I note above, that's a right-wing policy now as well.

And I'm glad he did. We've offshored more than enough production.

He cancelled debt for former students who had already paid for ten years and were in public service jobs. This is persuant to Bush's Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) law passed in 2007. It's hardly right-wing when Bush signed that into law.

Another good thing.

But not as big as Trump's stimulus, was it? You can't call Covid stimulus leftward when Trump initiated it.