Traditional Keynesian models, like the IS-LM one, were discarded as they lack micro-foundations. They were also subject to the Lucas critique (in the sense that one cannot properly estimate a macroeconomic model if the parameters respond to changes in monetary/fiscal policy).
The recent statements by Eugene Fama, Nobel Laureate in Economics (by the way, the actual title is Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel), on the fact that Quantitative Easing is neutral have puzzled many. According to him, “QE doesn’t do much”. When analyzed from the perspective of current debates in macroeconomics, this view is rather hard to be categorized, since no serious approach I know of really thinks about QE in these terms.
Quite surprisingly, although there is so much talk about the liquidity trap and its close concept, the zero lower bound (see the definition of liquidity trap), the criticism of these concepts is rather thin. This is even more puzzling since the liquidity trap concept is known for a long time, ever since Keynes proposed it (Rhodes did not find any mention of it in the work By Keynes).
The ideas of Austrian economic school are becoming more popular. However when you look at the current debates in macroeconomics (especially the academic ones) you will barely find any place for Austrian school ideas. Although most of today academic macroeconomics can be thought of as Keynesian (Greg Mankiw thinks that the old debate between freshwater and saltwater macroeconomics is dead), and although many old ideas have been successfully used recently (like Pigou’s theory of business cycle), there hardly is any place for Austrian ideas.