Have the democrats shifted left?

[bore]

 Every time there is an old congressional map or a thread about a former congressman or a thread when a republican says something crazy, there is always at least one moderate hero who says "yes the republicans are further right than they were but the democrats are just as bad". So, I'm genuinely (I actually don't know) curious, apart from the obvious choice of gay rights where are democrats further left from where they were in the 90s?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not much of anywhere.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

When it comes to elections, my view of it is they shift toward the center.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Not much of anywhere.

[Del Tachi]

The transformation that Democrats went through during the 1992-2000 timeframe can be considered analogous to the formation of "New Labour" in Britain during the Blair years (e.g., "Radical Center", "Third Way").  The Democrats have abandoned several issues that were once key to their platform--trade protectionism, the unwavering support of labor unions, and the promotion of social welfare policies.  While it could be said that Democrats still promote welfare and trade unions today, Democratic support for this issues have somewhat wavered since the Clinton years.

Now, whether these changes in the ideological composition of the party are due to the party become more "liberal", more "conservative" or just the changing demographics of the American political landscape I cannot answer.  Surly over the past two-or-so decades, the Democrats have become more conservative on some issues (welfare reform) and more liberal on other (gay marriage).

In short, what I would say is that the Democratic party has not shifted more to the left over the past two decades--rather, they have simply redefined what it means to be a liberal in the United States.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

While it could be said that Democrats still promote welfare and trade unions today

Could it?

[Torie]

The fiscal and demographic crunch just makes it seem so. The Dems for example have been making runs at "socializing" medical care since Truman, but this time, the fiscal and cost vise added more urgency to it all. With the American Dream/Exceptionalism meme on hold and seemingly in irons as far as the mind's eye can see, we live in interesting times as Americans go through withdrawal symptoms.

[Del Tachi]

While it could be said that Democrats still promote welfare and trade unions today

Could it?

More so that it could be said for the Republicans.  But I agree, the Democrats are a piss-poor example of a "left-wing" political party.

[Vermin Supreme]

On social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, yes. On economic issues such as trade, not since the Clinton/DLC era they haven't shifted to the left.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Not economically, no. It's a shame; they'd probably get more votes.

[Indy Texas]

I'm a moderate hero and I am willing to say that in the present situation, the Democrats do not have a problem with pandering to the fringe, refusing to compromise, and going ideologically off the rails. The Republicans most certainly do have that problem.

The situation was somewhat reversed in the '80s. The GOP was the Big Tent party and the Democrats wanted to put their hands over their ears and scream and pretend it was 1935 and everyone was a New Deal liberal. Now the Republicans want to pretend it's 1890 and consider virtually any program enacted in the 20th century to be an abomination (some of them don't even want people to elect their own senators anymore).

[Napoleon]

On social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, yes. On economic issues such as trade, not since the Clinton/DLC era they haven't shifted to the left.

Obama has been terrible on trade!

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

1965 was the ideological peak of the Democratic Party.

[Napoleon]

1965 was the ideological peak of the Democratic Party.

Vietnam was great.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

1965 was the ideological peak of the Democratic Party.

Vietnam was great.

Well, 64-67, specifically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Act_of_1965
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Opportunity_Act_of_1964
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_and_Secondary_Education_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Education_Act_of_1965
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Traffic_and_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_Act_of_1966
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Packaging_and_Labeling_Act

[Marokai Backbeat]

On social issues they evolve with the times, slowly. But on economic issues they haven't shifted left in quite awhile. There's lip service to some things, the toothless argument on other things, but very rarely have the Democrats done anything truly economically leftist that isn't pure window dressing.

[The Mikado]

I think you could say that the Democratic Party is, on average, further left than it was 15 years ago, but that's mainly because the Fritz Hollings and the Zell Millers and the John Breauxs and...that still had a significant sway in the Democratic caucus in Congress in the late 1990s have mostly retired or been knocked off.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

1965 was the ideological peak of the Democratic Party.

Vietnam was great.

Well, 64-67, specifically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Act_of_1965
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Opportunity_Act_of_1964
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_and_Secondary_Education_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Education_Act_of_1965
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Traffic_and_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_Act_of_1966
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Packaging_and_Labeling_Act

Not about the Democrats, but the left in general: Teddy?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I think you could say that the Democratic Party is, on average, further left than it was 15 years ago, but that's mainly because the Fritz Hollings and the Zell Millers and the John Breauxs and...that still had a significant sway in the Democratic caucus in Congress in the late 1990s have mostly retired or been knocked off.

They were still better than the Andrew Cuomos, John Lynchs, and Gavin Newsoms of today.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I think you could say that the Democratic Party is, on average, further left than it was 15 years ago, but that's mainly because the Fritz Hollings and the Zell Millers and the John Breauxs and...that still had a significant sway in the Democratic caucus in Congress in the late 1990s have mostly retired or been knocked off.

They were still better than the Andrew Cuomos, John Lynchs, and Gavin Newsoms of today.

Eh.. I'm fairly comfortable saying that Andrew Cuomo is better than Zell Miller.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Okay, not Zell.

[smoltchanov]

On social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, yes. On economic issues such as trade, not since the Clinton/DLC era they haven't shifted to the left.

Very much agree. But on social issues - very substantially. "Pro-choice" and "pro gay marriage" became almost obligatory position for most Democratic candidates (at least - outside South, but even there in large metropolitan areas  - too). 20 years ago (may be even 10) Democratic legislative caucus even in Massachusetts was, probably, "pro-life"... Economicaly - no, with growh of "middle class" and fewer influence of unions  that's natural phenomenon..

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think you could say that the Democratic Party is, on average, further left than it was 15 years ago, but that's mainly because the Fritz Hollings and the Zell Millers and the John Breauxs and...that still had a significant sway in the Democratic caucus in Congress in the late 1990s have mostly retired or been knocked off.

Fritz Hollings wasn't all that bad, and Zell Miller really moved to the right.

[The CINC]

We need a new party that doesn't take America right or left, but up. That party is the Falconist Party

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No.  The problem is that Republicans have shifted so far to the right for most moderates.  I'm conservative but I'm mot of a pragmatic thinker.  This is the problem with the Tea Party movement.  It is better to have the victory of some of our policies than the defeat of all of them.