Talk:New Democrats (United States)

POV

Can we try and replace the word moderate with something else here? Left of the GOP, right of the liberal wing etc. Moderate has a slippery POV to it. Marskell 08:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

As it stands now, however, the article is POV -- "neoliberal" and "centre-right"? Come on! --Thorsen 05:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is Conservative propaganda with nothing but innuendo to back it. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chupacerveza (talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

What are you on about??? Third way is being culturally far-left and economically neoliberal. 173.79.49.66 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Advert

This page needs work. It read like an Advert for the ND-PAC, so I have flagged it here in Discussion as such. The flag probably belongs on the article page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. The article must clearly distinguish the "loosely-organized faction within the Dem party" from the PAC created in 2006. For clarification, when referring to the PAC please use ND-PAC (after the first use, when it is spelled out). Change "traditional Democratic" to "1960s Democratic", because it is more accurate. (Reagan Democrats reacted against hippies, long hair, drugs, the anti-Vietnam protests, secularism, homosexuality, etc., which were not issues among New Deal Democrats -- the tradition.) "Clinton was a classic" should be "Clinton epitomized" (he can't be compared to a non-existing "classic" if he is the origin). In politics, the source of funding must always be identified -- this is the first rule of politics, cui bono. ~~

"most [liberal Democrats] would eventually admit ... that social programs should be more effective" -- this sounds like a sermon: no-one would suggest that social programs should be less effective. Initially flagged {sermon}, but that's not quite it, actually it's a Straw man, so redacted instead.

Disputed

Is there any real proof that the people on this list are actually "New Democrats"? My issue started with the fact that Christine Gregoire has advocated politically, in a social sense, very liberal politics. This goes against what being a "New Democrat" is all about. Has anyone actually looked into whether or not these people are what they are claimed to be in this list? Dante the Bard 16:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Membership in an organization does not always equal sharing beliefs with said organization. The DLC/New Democrats are a prime example. Jim Doyle's a member of the New Democrat Coalition as well, but he's pretty liberal. Vic Snyder is also fairly liberal, as is Debbie Stabenow (who had a liberal score somewhere in the 80's range from the National Journal in 2005, which is high). I think most of the members of the DLC/New Democrats are doing it to improve their image with the voters, not because they actually believe in most of the DLC/New Democrat's goals. 1ne 21:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then perhaps we should put that information into the article. I feel that to be objective, which would equal factual, we need to provide information that although these candidates are apart of a specific organization, the DLC, there are examples of members going against what the term "New Democrat" and the DLC believe. I won't be able to make any changes to the article right away, because I have real life obligations at the moment, but if you or someone else can make these changes sooner, that would be great. Otherwise, I will make the changes when I have the time. Dante the Bard 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have done an almost complete and bold rewrite of this article. For one I have removed all of the pov, the areas written like an advert and most of the unsubstantiated claims. I have added new information, all of which is well referenced and have written the article to make it understandable, adding subsections to make the article clearer. I have also expanded the lead to make it fit with the rest of the article. I have attempted to deal with all issues raised on the discussion and would like to point out that new democrats listed can all be found via the DLC sites and the New Democrat associated movements. Best. LordHarris 00:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

What do you think about merging this article with New Democrat Coalition? --Checco 18:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I support it. —Nightstallion 11:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I oppose a merge. "New Democrat" is a label claimed by several different groups to describe their political platform. The New Democrat Coalitions in the House and Senate are just two of these groups. The Democratic Leadership Council and NDN (formerly known as the New Democrat Network) are two others. If any of these groups doesn't justify an article of their own, I could see them being merged as a section into the New Democrat article, but the New Democrat article itself should not be merged into the article for any of these groups. (Also posted on Talk:New Democrat Coalition.) -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Kennedy?

Recently I attempted too delete the section that argues that Robert F. Kennedy was the first "New Democrat" simply because Bill Clinton wrote it in his book. However it's difficult too see how RFK fits in with any of the "New Democrat" platform.

Kennedy never advocated for deregulation or free trade whereas Clinton pushed these policies. He voted for expanding the Great Society contrary too Bill Clinton's "welfare reform" bill in 1996 that eliminated a entire welfare agency. Indeed with regards too economic policy RFK and WJC couldn't be more different.

If anything, Kennedy can be called a anti-war liberal. But a "New Democrat" in the style of Bill Clinton? No, this is not accurate. Just because Clinton wants Bobby Kennedy too be the DLC poster child doesn't mean Wikipedia should allow it. Therefore I believe it should be deleted from this page. I'll be happy too get feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAS1957 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And I restored the passage. You might be right that RFK has been co-opted not only by Clinton, but by many others. However, it's noteworthy, even if you view it as self-serving, when a former president makes such an observation. It's not about Wikipedia 'allowing'; it's about including properly sourced content, rather than original research, per WP:NOR. If you can add published scholarship that challenges Clinton's assessment, please add it. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not a "observation" too give a opinion. Just because Bill Clinton served as President of the United States from 1993 too 2001 does not mean that his opinions are all "observations". And there is no other cited source as too why Kennedy should be called a "New Democrat" other than Clinton's book. It says WP:NOR that a "reliable source" must be used. Bill Clinton's book is a collection of his personal viewpoints rather than scholarly analysis. Unless you can find another source than Clinton's book, it should be deleted. TAS1957 (talk) 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've restored it again. It's cited, whereas you're employing original research. I'm concerned that you've started editing today, and seem to be looking for content to remove, based solely on your opinions. As I've written at my talk page, please read Wikipedia guidelines, and seek consensus before removing sourced content. To do otherwise won't work. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not given a single opinion in any page. It seems too me that your simply being unreasonable. You keep saying that I use "original research" which is a lie. I simply note due too the fact that there is nothing too back Clinton's claim it should be deleted or moved too Bill Clinton and Robert F. Kennedy. I see no reason why it should be on this article.TAS1957 (talk) 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've decided too end this thing fast so as a compromise I've titled the section title the section "Claims That Robert F. Kennedy Was a New Democrat". TAS1957 (talk) 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Some research reveals that the assessment has not been limited to Clinton, but has been offered by other scholars. I've added another source, a review of Clark's bio of RFK. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources from those critical of the statement? So far I have been unable too find any myself. TAS1957 (talk) 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Not yet. I'm logging off for a bit, but if you find anything....I suspect it's possible to find something critical of RFK's liberalism, much harder to find an argument with the 'ND' terminology as applied to him. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we add actual examples of New Democrats polciies

supposedly they are fiscal conservatives and social moderates but what actual policies reinforce this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur. The values outlined in the introductory paragraph are at odds with the specific policies enumerated under the section dedicated to President Clinton. This inconsistency contributes to the article's disorganized emanation; perhaps both the inconsistency and disorganization would be ameliorated or at least elucidated by a change in structure. Or, perhaps it is simply a loosely defined topic. If that is the case, the wording of the introduction should be changed to reflect that. Please, someone with the relevant expertise make the judgement and necessary change(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:New Democrats (United States)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I am a Canadian user of Wikipedia and I feel I must protest the choice of subject for this page. "New Democrat" in American usage is just a buzzword term for a faction in the the Democratic Party of the US, and what appears to be a temporary faction, at that. Yet this usage has been given precedence in the article on New Democrat (New Democrats), when the New Democratic Party (NDP), whose membership refer to themselves as New Democrat (New Democrats), is an important and powerful political party in Canada. The New Democrats in Canada have existed since 1960 and will remain an important political party well after the term "New Democrat" in its American usage attenuates to a historical trivia question. That being the case, I submit that the Canadian definition of the term is the most important one for encyclopedic coverage, over the American one. If Wikipedia is indeed an international effort and an internet encyclopedia for the world, then Amerocentric editorial policy (the American definition is most important simply because it's the American definition) has no place in the effort. My position may be biased by my own nationality, and I would invite other contributors from third party, non interested countries to weigh in on this. Again, though, I must reiterate, the definition of an established, ongoing, major political party in one nation is of greater import and should take precedence over a transitory polisci descriptive from another. 24.69.160.130 (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)ragged-gothic

Last edited at 05:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 01:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Obama isn't a new democrat

He is the most leftist US president in Economics since the 1930's. He supports Gay Marriage. His policies toward Israel are the "coldest" ever. He does not believe in American Exceptionalism. The only reliable resource for being a 'new democrat' is that he said so (he also could have said 1+1 equals 3. so?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.244.21 (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

He also was not "fiscally conservative" at all despite this article repeatedly claiming that "New Democrats" are for that. Obama doubled the nations debt from 10 trillion to 20 trillion - that is not fiscally conservative at all, it is big spending. Bill Clinton also barely fits the bill as he simply was in the right place at the right time and rode the dot-com bubble when the internet began to come into popular use. The article reads more like propaganda and extremely biased POV for the Democratic party and not a real article at this point. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:BC54:6BD2:31DD:67DF (talk)

Article defines New Democrats inception a bit late

I realize the origin of political movements is open to debate and that sources can say varying things. But, I think that the article has it a bit late when it defines the movement as starting after 1988 and Post-DLC. In actuality, the movement probably began earlier--around the time of Gary Hart's "new ideas" presidential run against Walter Mondale in the 1984 primaries. New Democrats, by proper definition, would be the generation of Democrats who grew up under the influence the pragmatic/technocratic (i.e. moderate) form of liberalism of John F. Kennedy, who entered politics after Watergate and started to become a recognizable political force in the 1980s. Gary Hart, Timothy Worth, and Bruce Babbit would be the Western part of it. Paul Tsongas (and possibly John Kerry) would be the Northern part. Then, the DLC, Bill Clinton, and Sam Nunn would represent the southern part. I saw one thread above where someone even went as far to advocate that RFK was the first New Democrat--that might be stretching things a bit. JFK and RFK were of an older generation--but they clearly were the precursors. However, I would say the movement began slightly before the DLC/1988--right around '84. The DLC and Bill Clinton played critical roles in taking what had already become an insurgent movement in the party and propelling the it to the forefront. We could see if there are sources to pull us a little closer to '84. Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Sillyness...

It seems I'm not alone in thinking this article is bogus; starting from the very first comment: "POV." Etc, etc... Oversimplified; the article seemingly presumes all readers are also from Limbaughtomyville. (A common small-town, or small-minded unexamined assumption where self and "my world" are unknowingly injected into the vast unknown vacuum.)

Here are just a few of the keystone terms and presumptions that need to be crisply difined within the article's context, especially as these presumptions and ideas continually drift further into the unknown past and more deeply into the realm of politial anachronism and passé fad:

Quoting Section: Origins

"...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 .... spurred "centrist"...."

radical shift?? "centrist"?? This is not a partisan radio talk show nor Fox News with consensus presumptions with assumed related lockstep cheerleading. So,...such as? Definitions and examples? (Because these are such keystone and article-specific concepts, lazy-linking would not be appropriate.)

Likewise, "Third Way" and "New Democrat" (both obscure terms) seem to be blurred together. Suggest explicitly differentiating them. Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3D91:3408:6ECD:BF7A (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Well gee, Reagan won 49 of 50 states so yes, Dems believed they needed to change their messaging. Idk, do you think losing 49 of 50 states is good? And idk why you think bashing Fox News matters, its not like CNN or MSNBC are any better. The recent payouts given to the Covington Catholic Children by CNN and others for lying about them, who are children and it was done so for for political reasons no less, is proof of that. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:BC54:6BD2:31DD:67DF (talk)

Change photo

The photo which includes Obama is not neutral depiction of the DLC. Here is a better one that includes the DLC founder Mr. From along with Bill Clinton, the most notable New Democrat. It is more accurate than a photo of Obama who once said he was a New Democrat (but also said he was a progressive) and never joined the DLC was anti-Iraq War and who refused to drop out for HRC (the New Dem choice). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_From#/media/File:President_Clinton_meeting_with_advisers_on_Air_Force_One.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.203.197 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Obama a New Democrat??

I was, to put it mildly, surprised to see Barack Obama listed as a New Democrat here. The listing cites one source: An article on a speech that Obama gave to a group of New Democrats in which he self-identified as a New Democrat. I also see another source elsewhere in the article (https://www.salon.com/control/2012/10/30/obama_last_of_the_new_democrats/) in which the writer described Obama as a New Democrat. These are thin threads upon which to hang this categorization. I have to say, though, that thin sourcing isn't the only problem I have with the characterization. It seems to me that the characterization may be a misguided form of revisionist history in which a 2020 lens is being applied to an earlier time. Given that Republicans have become (on most issues) more conservative and Democrats more liberal over the past decade, Obama's positions may appear center-left now. When he ran in 2008, however, Hillary Clinton was the New Democratic candidate and Obama ran to her left. Also, I don't believe Obama's first two years in office fits the New Democrats' idea of a moderate, centrist, consensus-based approach to policy and governance. I have tagged this listing as dubious. SunCrow (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. But perhaps his self-identification is enough?Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Biden and Harris

In response to the edit war over whether to include Biden and Harris, are there any reliable sources describing them as New Democrats? I see for every other listed person, we have a clear source. Perhaps that could end the disruptive editing. POLITANVM ^talk 06:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was kind of wondering the same thing. Biden? Maybe. Harris? I'm not sure I've seen that anywhere.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the case can be made for Biden. Joe Biden has three sources that describe him as either centrist or a moderate:

• PolitiFact does say "By a variety of measures, Biden’s record has been that of a moderate Democrat."
• The Independent has an opinion piece warning Biden against centrism, but doesn't actually use any of the terms bolded in this Wikipedia articles lead. I'm not even sure it should be used at Joe Biden.
• The LA Times doesn't explicitly say any of the bolded terms, but does say "For Biden, however, the choice involves a calculated risk based on the belief that most of the party’s progressive activists are so motivated to oust Trump that they will not flag in support for the ticket, even if he didn’t reach for an ideological complement to his centrist brand like Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts."

The entry for Kamala Harris never uses the terms "centrist" or "moderate." My proposal for this page is to keep Joe Biden with the PolitiFact reference and remove Kamala Harris. C.J. Griffin, Liz, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, NicoAlberti1, Jem1121, LordVesuvius, does this change look right to you? Are there any sources for keeping Harris on this page? POLITANVM ^talk 18:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think your proposed changes are acceptable for now. Harris can be re-added if/when sources are found confirming she is a centrist or moderate.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Jem1121 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems fair. Although the sock may have had a point. Multiple sources have pointed out that Biden had become much more progressive after winning the primary: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a great example of how edit warring is self-sabotaging. The sourcing for Biden being a New Democrat seems to be sparse. To further the case for removing Biden from the list, he wasn't a member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition. It's confusing for us to have him listed under both President and Vice President, but not Senate. Also, Clinton and Obama both have thorough sources and entire sections justifying their inclusion. I'm willing to keep Biden, but I think there's a stronger case for removing him from the list altogether, until he self identifies as a "New Democrat" or better sourcing appears. I don't have access to JSTOR, but is there anything in that reference? POLITANVM ^talk 21:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Politanvm, Here's what the reference says on Biden

"At its founding in 1985, few saw the DLC's time horizons extending beyond 1988 when it was assumed the Democrats would have a good chance to retake the White House. If the DLC was to be successful in changing the image of the party, the proof would come during the 1988 nomination process. If it was not to be successful, most assumed the DLC would fade away. Several potential candidates associated themselves extensively with the DLC in the years leading up to 1988, most prominent among them Robb and Nunn, who were thought to be the strongest moderate candidates. Indeed, the DLC was seen by many as little more than a stalking horse for a Nunn or Robb candidacy, but in the end,neither ran. Gephardt, Babbitt, Gore, and Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) all participated in DLC affairs prior to their runs for the 1988 nomination.40 Their association with the DLC "helped with prestige and money, and helped make the organization seem vital and attractive," but their performance disappointed the DLC and seemed to confirm perceptions that a moderate could not win the nomination. 41 Of the DLC-associated candidates, only the inexperienced Gore ran openly as a moderate. Biden and Gephardt ran campaigns to the left of where the DLC would have preferred them to be. Babbitt ran on "new ideas," but they were not ideas developed within the DLC. From assessed the first four years..." Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d - that seems to make the case that he wouldn't have been classified as a New Democrat, right? I'm not a particular expert in Democratic politics, but being to the left of the DLC seems to suggest that he wasn't. POLITANVM ^talk 03:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Politanvm, That seems to be my understanding of the paragraph. Additionally, this was written in 1995. Biden has certainly become more progressive since then (check out the sources I cited up above). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to New Democrats (United States). Per consensus, and create dab at basename. – robertsky (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

---

New Democrats → Centrist Democrat – New Democrat is a 1990s term which is too limiting to describe the centrist Democrats before the 1990s. Plumber (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since multiple RSs describe a group of Democrats that emerged (in the 80/90's time frame) as "New Democrats"...it makes sense to have a article under that name. This was a significant movement that re-shaped the party.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Politics has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support any move This doesn't seem that this is the primary topic for 'New Democrats'—blindlynx 20:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose There are centrist democrats who don't identify as New Democrats and aren't in the New Democrat Coalition--i.e. Jared Golden, Mary Pelota, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez are the current 3 leaders of the centrist Blue Dog Coalition, who are cultural liberals and fiscal conservatives. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Rename to something this means members of the New Democratic Party and not la faction of the Democratic Party without a disambiguator -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Dang, I thought this terminology belonged entirely to Canada's NDP. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  Doesn't it? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Why not rename to New Democrats (United States)? Do we think this 90s US political term is the primary topic, when it can also mean a member of the New Democratic Party? -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agrée with Earl Sndrew’s suggestion, particularly since this appears to be a 30 year old dated term in US political discourse. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose New Democrats → Centrist Democrat, second Earl Andrew, support renaming (or moving) New Democrats → New Democrats (United States). Who or what defined, and defines, centrism in the U.S. is my principal concern. Also, for disambiguation purposes, I use United States...Congressional New Democrats, preface New Democrats with "Bill Clinton and...", or use "U.S. New Democrats." The history of Maoist ideas, New Democracy Party of China, New Democracy (Greece) Canada's NDP, France's LND, etc., are all important. "New Democrats" in U.S. partisan contexts began to more widely circulate with the DLC's March 1990 ad campaign. Content falling between the George McGovern 1972 presidential campaign and the 1985 DLC can potentially move into a separate article or in, e.g., the Watergate Babies article, if necessary. Per above, background sections for today's New Democrat Coalition (30% more page views than ND), intl. Third Way (3X page views than ND), Blue Dog critics of Clinton's first term, etc., should be considered as well. Bustamove1 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I support renaming the article to "New Democrats (United States)," as suggested by Earl Andrew. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Move to New Democrats (United States), provided New Democrats is then disambiguated. After about a month or two there will be data on toolforge:WikiNav about how many clicks each article gets from the disambiguation page, at which point there would be more information to decide if there is a WP:PTOPIC by WP:PT1. I also searched Google Scholar for "New Democrats" for some indication of WP:PT2 and more of the relevant results seemed to be about the United States. SilverLocust 💬 09:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Good call on WikiNav. The present-day New Democrat Coalition frequently appeared in my Google search for "New Democrats." China, et al., use different search engines. Bustamove1 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carter a New Democrat?

My Revert [6] was itself reverted. The change had to do with Jimmy Carter being thrown in as a "New Democrat". That term almost exclusively describes the re-imagining of the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton and the DLC....years after Carter left office. The added source (i.e. 'Reaganland....') doesn't support this change (at least as far as I can tell). It does make Carter out to be a moderate....but at no point is he called a "New Democrat". I think the change I made should stand unless there is a RS saying otherwise. Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

No sources exist to back up the claim Jimmy Carter is a New Democrat. Accordingly, this change should be reverted. Toa Nidhiki05 05:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Most Watergate Babies who backed Carter went on to become U.S. New Dems or otherwise supported them. There were continuities between Babies and the NDs, but also substantial changes after the tax revolts, in both monikers and platforms. Bustamove1 (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

First Wave?

This whole paragraph needs to be either sourced or removed. Not one RS citation backs any "first wave" of New Democrats. #17 & 18 are RS, but mention nothing about a "first wave". #19 & 20 are links to organizations not on our RS list. #21 doesn't mention any so-called "first wave". A lot of this "first wave" stuff is being used to call people like Michael Dukakis "New Democrats". (See this edit. [7]) With all respect, it is nonsense.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not contribute to any of the subsection "wave" headings and only partially to the content. But, due to your previous opposition to another editor's successfully requested move (see archived January discussion), I deleted the "wave" headings and moved remaining content to the previous and subsequent subsections. Any more substantial reorganization of the "History" section may or may not require a submitted proposal.

In addition, please note that one historian (Brent Cebul) in the "Further Reading" section does classify Michael Dukakis as a "New Democrat." The five-year period between the establishment of the DLC (1985) and the New Orleans Declaration is considered transitional in prevailing historiography---and hence quite debatable, at least at this time. The "History" sources are from peer-reviewed academic history journals, books, and policy periodicals. Thank you for your continuing contributions. Bustamove1 (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The source you added is about the only one I've ever seen call Michael Dukakis a "New Democrat". But I don't dispute it is a RS. I may work up a good summary of what other sources say on this point over the next day or so. Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

By all means.

As you undoubtedly already know, Robert Fleeger's Brutal Campaign (2023) and Lily Geismer's writings (and book passages on) Dukakis skirt the "New Democrat" categorical debate (i.e., emic vs. etic) and instead concur that he was an "Atari Democrat" entertaining platforms of, and courting, sunbelt/southeast Democrats who later became "New Democrats." These premises and contentions usually conclude with Bill Clinton making the formal nomination for Dukakis at the 1988 Democratic National Convention. Historians such as Glenda Gilmore and Thomas Sugrue label Dukakis a "centrist", prior to the NOD. I would engage with all four, but you can take your own path, of course. Ping me if you plan on reorganization or substantial changes, if so inclined. Bustamove1 (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The question is: was he a "New Democrat"? (There have been a lot of centrist Democrats in the party post-George McGovern's '72 run.....are they all "New Democrats"?) I've rarely seen that term applied to Dukakis. And most of those historians aren't the most notable. Bill Clinton was a DLC chairman (an organization I recall Dukakis having next to nothing to do with), and ran as a New Democrat bragging that he (among other things) enforced the death penalty in Arkansas (need anyone be reminded of Dukakis's stance on that?). So all this is a bit hard to swallow. Just randomly looking around.... James T. Patterson (about as notable as it gets for a historian) says Dukakis was "a liberal on most issues" (in 'Restless Giant...', p.220). Michael Lind also refers to him as a liberal in 'Up from Conservatism'. In fact, Dukakis himself accepted the "liberal" label. [8] So yes, I think this is a fairly questionable addition. Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't usually engage in the Dukakis as a "New Democrat" debate. He was certainly an "Atari Democrat"...again, according to the prevailing historiography (see above). Most scholars, including my post-2019 sources as well as those who authored your 1996 and 2005 publications, also contend that he was a pre-DLC "liberal"---hence, for example, the title of Cebul's article. The same applies to pre-NOD "centrists", i.e., there were changes and continuities in the history of "liberalism" and "centrism" (as there are today). Likewise, you were correct about differences between Clinton and Dukakis in 1988. Historians, though, still seek to explain why Clinton not only endorsed Dukakis, but also why Clinton could make the 1988 nomination himself (presumably with the backing of the DLC, per your arguments).

More pressing for editorial purposes: if you wish to delete all "Atari Democrats", "Watergate Babies", etc., from the "Origins" section, or the entire section itself, I suggest that you submit a formal proposal. I wouldn't necessarily be against it, but "Background" is a staple of the MOS. Peace out, Bustamove1 (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not looking to delete anything now (without more input from other editors)....but I do want to respond to this Clinton-endorsed-Dukakis stuff. That's not particularly persuasive. In '92 (for example) Ted Kennedy (the "liberal lion" of the Senate) endorsed Clinton. The vast majority of the time, people will line up behind their party. Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. You may or may not wish to check out the Electoral history of Bill Clinton, including Pres. campaign prep in IA and NH, as well the sudden withdrawal and Dukakis endorsement. The historiographical question is what happened between the first and second weeks of July 1987, not discounting family issues. It's also fine not to comment. Peace, Bustamove1 (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Problems with first paragraph of “Origins” subsection

The first paragraph of the "origins" subsection is poorly written. There are several vague terms (e.g. 'liberal', 'illusory', 'centrism', etc.) in quotations. Putting such terms in quotations is unhelpful; concepts such as "illusory supply-side progressivism", "private start-up investors", and "tax revolts" are either well-defined or they are not. If they are well-defined concepts, then they should be explained explicitly and their purpose for being included in this paragraph should be plain to the reader. If not, such concepts should be omitted, as their inclusion serves only to obfuscate the issue and confuse the reader.

Personally, I would recommend just deleting this first paragraph. The following paragraph provides me with a much better understanding of the origins of the New Democratic movement. It describes well a cause (the Democrats were getting creamed in elections in the 80s) and an effect (there was an ideological shift in the Democratic Party). JosiahRFoster (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I discerned dual and interconnected opinions that I will address here:

1. Many, if not most, historians, sociologists, and political scientists argue that your "getting creamed in elections in the 80s" began in the late 1970s, not solely during the Reagan Administration. According to studies cited in the subsection and by editors in other sections, the causes were fiscal, monetary, and factional---the effect became inter-partisan primarily after establishment of the DLC. In addition, all secondary sources in the first paragraph were published after 2015. If you prefer updated sources initially published more than a decade ago, or have a source that can undermine one or more of the cited monographs as prevailing historiography, please ping me posthaste. Publications by Brent Cebul, for instance, were cited in article subsections by previous editors, prior to my first edit.

2. Ideas quoted in the first paragraph, from "illusion" to "tax revolts", derived from the titles of secondary sources cited in this subsection and by other editors, elsewhere in the article. These ideas also served as topical headings for Wikipedia articles. I don't believe any of the Wikipedia entries are undergoing comprehensive revisions, but they may do so in the future. At any rate, I subsequently converted the secondary source title quotes to these internal-links, employed for a variety of purposes (for transparency: WP:LINKDD). I further provided brief elucidation of ideas that weren't found in Wikipedia article headings, even if found in corresponding article content (WP:GOODFAITH).

Good luck!

. Bustamove1 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and your work on this. The intention of the original comment was not to dispute the factuality of the section, in fact I very much appreciate the high quality sources and inline citations.

I am getting at something more fundamental-- the Origins section is providing too much information and is obfuscating the fundamental facts the reader needs. I also don't see an obvious connection between the facts listed and the ideology of later New Democrats. This is something that is obviously clear in your mind, but it has not found its way into the article. I find that this is a common problem on Wikipedia; an article provides a large volume of arcane, often irrelevant details while attempting to mediate several different scholarly opinions at once.

Let me give a suggestion for a revision, and since you are much more knowledgeable about the facts I would appreciate if you critiqued it.

"The economic ideology of the New Democrats originated during the 1970s energy crisis. To confront the challenge of stagflation, an economic state of simultaneous high inflation and slow economic growth, economic(?) centrism and supply-side progressivism gained prominence in the Democratic party. Elements of these ideas coalesced into an ideology historian Brent Cebul termed 'supply-side liberalism', which emphasizes increasing the abundance of and access to goods and services. Governors Michael Dukakis and Jerry Brown were early proponents of this economic ideology. During the late 1970s(?), both appropriated state tax funds to subsidize startup companies in depressed industrial sectors, hence transforming public finance into venture capital. Although these policies contributed to mixed(?) economic results, fiscal illusion, voter tax resistance, and uneven profit thresholds resulted in poor electoral returns for democrats. Despite this political setback, revisions to supply-side liberalism throughout the 1980s, particularly under Dukakis, became key tenets of the New Democratic platform."

Here are some notes that explain my thinking during the revision:

• In my opinion, the reader does not have sufficient background to understand the significance of the groups "Yellow Dog", "Atari", and "Watergate Baby" democrats. You say that a common thread developed between these groups, but the article does not explain what that is. I have removed these details, which in my opinion are extraneous.
• The article supply-side progressivism claims that the term "supply-side liberalism" originated with Miles Kimball.
• There are a number of other details that are not relevant, including Dukakis' political journey. I have removed them.

JosiahRFoster (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the prompt response. To be clear, I'm not necessarily more knowledgeable on this topic than you are or anyone else. I am well-versed in the historiography, scholarship in connected fields, and primary sources, for a variety of reasons. Per my previous response, continual requests for clarification as a rhetorical strategy can be addressed, in some measure, with internal links. Your "arcane" signifiers are the titles and topics of internal articles by other editors.

• For "Watergate Babies" and "Atari Democrats", I replaced the recommended paraphrasing with direct secondary source quotes. These quotations should be accurate. You appear to find the source base acceptable, so I'll eschew WP:DEPRECATED.
• Reviewers of Cebul's book deploy "supply-side liberalism" and "supply-side progressivism" interchangeably. In that context, discussions of "centrism" are notably absent. Iterations of "supply-side liberalism" shaped state political economy before and after the tax revolts.
• There are various schools of thought on "supply-side liberalism." Whether these approaches and their progenitors (mal)appropriated Kimball's contribution is a subject of scholarly inquiry. I'm completely fine with moving all of the Dukakis content to another article (it was a recent add).

In regards to your paragraph, I didn't contribute to the first sentence and only a small amount to the second, so I won't engage with either, for brevity. For the rest: you're borrowing phrases and sentences from the supply-side progressivism lead (and, of course, my startup/venture capital and last sentences). The politics of abundance may or may not be relevant, but "supply-side liberalism" was post-industrial, quite explicitly. "Goods and services" is insufficient, so you must include further evidence and explanation (not that "service sector" only is correct for the continuum). If you choose to copy even a sentence or two from another article and designate it as your own curated content, despite WP:NOTSOURCE, I suggest attributing the internal article for WP:ATTREQ. An internal link to the copied sentence(s) should be situated in an edit summary, not in the body text. A template is available at WP:PATT. For my own "uneven profit thresholds", I inferred that you readily understood all of it. Users, on the other hand, likely won't, if extracted from contexts and explanation. On that note, normal profit, which you're undoubtedly familiar with, is a category usually applied in microeconomics, as is normal good, etc. I respect any possible concerns about "normal."

At any rate, given my edits today, your paragraph and my responses are not as pertinent to the discussion. I'll reflect more on further courses of action over the next week or two. If you have any additional thoughts, let me know. Bustamove1 (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)