It is neoliberalism itself that is on the ropes. Since Reagan every single administration (Bushes, Clinton, Obama) has been neoliberal in degrees.
Early roots of neoliberalism were laid in the 1970s, during the Jimmy Carter administration, with deregulation of the trucking, banking, and airline industries.[76][77][78] This trend continued into the 1980s, under the Reagan Administration, which included tax cuts, increased defense spending, financial deregulation and trade deficit expansion.[79] Likewise, concepts of supply-side economics, discussed by the Democrats in the 1970s, culminated in the 1980 Joint Economic Committee report, "Plugging in the Supply Side." This was picked up and advanced by the Reagan administration, with Congress following Reagan's basic proposal and cutting federal income taxes across the board by 25% in 1981.[80]
During the 1990s, the Clinton Administration also embraced neoliberalism[68] by supporting the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, continuing the deregulation of the financial sector through passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, and implementing cuts to the welfare state through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.[79][81][82] The neoliberalism of the Clinton Administration differs from that of Reagan, as the Clinton Administration purged neoliberalism of neoconservative positions on militarism, family values, opposition to multiculturalism and neglect of ecological issues.
You couldn't get elected in this country without being a neoliberal for the last 30 years. Bill Clinton got elected precisely because he was a relatively conservative Democrat from the south. The only reason nobody wants to identify as a neoliberal is because it has the word liberal in it and people want to get elected.
Saw a similar comment the other day about neoliberalism being a newfangled nonpartisan movement (not accusing you of saying that), but the populist movements are around because of its flaws.