In 30 years, We've moved from being moderate Democrats to -

[Caliman73]

43. Likely because "some party values" are not worth supporting.

Democrats used to support "nation building", not anymore. Now non-interventionism is the prevailing foreign policy approach.

With the problems in Vietnam, Central and South America, Iraq, and Afghanistan, with the military budget being so ridiculously large, and understanding that "Nation Building" is just a code word for imposition of our own ideas instead of actually helping nations to develop on their own. Some liberals do not want to be engaged in perpetual war.

Democrats (eg Howard Dean, President Carter) used to support tariffs as a way to encourage developing countries to do better by their people and the environment, not anymore. Now Democrats are free trade globalists.

Tariffs are okay in the short term, when trying to negotiate trade agreements and such, however the better solution is to have an industrial policy and sound trade agreements. Globalism is inevitable but that doesn't mean that you race to the bottom. Tariffs are not effective long term strategies for changing behavior, they have been meant primarily to protect domestic industries. Regulated free trade where people are not being exploited is the better strategy.

Democrats used to support free speech. Now some want to criminalize speech, and jail people under hate speech laws.

Simply not true. No one has ever supported absolute free speech. Objectionable views have been tolerated (I.E. Nazis marching in Skokie) however both conservatives and liberals have had their limits. Hate speech which terrorizes already vulnerable populations is not acceptable in a civilized nation. Also, the United States does not have "hate speech laws" so that is a moot point. There is a MAJOR difference between supporting social and financial consequences, or de-platforming people and making laws to criminalize speech.

Democrats used to support liberal pluralism, now it's slowly being supplanted by identity politics.

Democrats continue to support pluralism. Differing opinions and power centers in political systems IS pluralism. Talking about "identity politics" is buying into right wing framing. There have ALWAYS been identity politics, however the identity that was most represented in politics (and still is) is White Men. When you are the dominant majority and your particular view point has always been "the norm", then any other view point that demands respect, would likely seem like oppression. You see that with Christians whining about religious oppression too. Non-White people and women have been treated like 2nd class citizens in the United States for almost all of its history. LGBTQ people have been marginalized legally and socially. These groups coming out into the open and demanding full and equal respect is not Identity Politics. If the laws, systems, and society treated these groups equally, there would be no need to identify them and make those demands.