I’ve been bearish on Sen. Warren’s 2020 chances around here largely because she started the race on the awkward ground of personal identity rather than being the class warrior that first got her elected in 2012. Well-the class warrior is back and she ain’t pullin any punches.
Whether it’s campaigning among and winning over ‘deplorables’ or her recent surges in the polls , the campaign may finally be seeing a Warren moment. With the first debate around the corner, her campaign is climbing at the right moment. My doubts about the general election are still there-but she is also starting to turn those around too.
Just look at this beautiful speech where she reframes the potent Trumpian themes of economic populism, economic nationalism, and economic patriotism and turns the tables against the corporate class his actual policies are actually enabling.
“Sure, these companies wave the flag — but they have no loyalty or allegiance to America,” Warren wrote. “These ‘American’ companies show only one real loyalty: to the short-term interests of their shareholders, a third of whom are foreign investors.”
Shades of FDR’s economic royalists speech in these remarks.
She tells Tom Friedman, Bill Clinton, and yes Barack Obama to shove it on trade:
“[G]lobalization isn’t some mysterious force whose effects are inevitable and beyond our control,” Warren wrote in her Medium post. “No — America chose to pursue a trade policy that prioritized the interests of capital over the interests of American workers.”
Rather than calling Trump voters deplorable or unnecessary, she is reaching out with an olive branch instead of a clench fist. Letting them know that she not only feels their pain but he is making it far much worse.
Warren has argued that Trump’s populist rhetoric did not translate into action — that his administration appointed industry insiders rather than reformers, and that his signature tax-cut package increased profits of the companies he was lambasting for moving operations overseas. She also came out firmly against Trump’s renegotiated trade deal with Mexico and Canada, dubbing it “NAFTA 2.0” in a speech last November.
Unlike Bernie who is all class all the time, Warren has also consistently been the most rhetorically aligned with Black Lives Matter. The only Democrat consistently talking about Russian interference and laying out a viable foreign policy alternative to Trumpism and interventionism alike.
Too many armchair pundits, including this one, made the mistake of dismissing Warren 2020 as Hillary 2016 2.0. I will proudly eat my humble pie if she keeps up this fight. This is the Warren I voted for in 2012. This is the Warren I wanted to run in 2016. This is the Warren who could earn my vote this year.
Christopher says
The Warren you are seeing never left.
SomervilleTom says
My only concern is that I think America needs “Populist Warren” in the Senate for the next twenty or thirty years. Even if she wins the Oval Office, she will be out of office by 2028.
I think that her agenda — an agenda that I completely and enthusiastically support — will take MUCH longer than eight years to accomplish. One of the major lessons we learned from Barack Obama is that no single President can accomplish big change today.
jconway says
Maybe. I’m glad she’s running and shaping the policy discussion in this direction. The sad reality is that it will be hard to advance her ambitious plans in the Senate regardless of whether she’s the President or just a Senator.
More reason some of the emerging 2020 also rans in purple states should consider running for Senate instead. Castro, Beto, Bullock, and Hickenlooper come to mind. Abrams should reconsider running in Georgia.
SomervilleTom says
I love the way her campaign forces these issues to be front-and-center.
Win or lose, her proposals are concrete, laser-focused, and built on rock-solid foundations. Her focus on policy makes her stand out in the crowd, and increases the likelihood that these proposals may eventually find their way into government policy — whether or not she wins the nomination and/or the general election that follows.
There is a selfless commitment to values and principle in all this that is a striking contrast to the rest of the Democratic field.
johntmay says
Yup, this is what I have said from the start about her candidacy, and it looks like she’s doing it. Trump wiped the floor with his opponents in the Republican Party by attacking the Republican Party and the Democrats. He refused to kiss the ring of the Bush family. Now I am not suggesting, even for a split second, that Warren be so brash, but she must not be afraid to tell us the truth, that Obama and Clinton screwed the working class, as have so many Democrats over the years.
I’ve spoken with a few Trump voters, some Republicans, and when I bring up the fact that Warren would have put some of the Wall Street bankers in jail, that she is going after the corrupt corporate owners, that she is not looking to “play nice” with the established Democratic Party social order, they like what they are hearing. These are the things Trump told them he would do,but of course, he did not.
Mark L. Bail says
I support Elizabeth Warren for President.
She cares enough, she’s smart enough, and she has the right policies.
When I asked myself if I would support Warren if she were a man, the answer was yes. I don’t want to fall for the “electability” trap again.
jconway says
That’s the right question to ask and it’s one that led me to the post. I am still undecided since it is just way too early in the process, but I have to admit she seems like she is the most ready to be a progressive President on day 1. I cannot say that about any of her competitors, even the ones I like such as Buttigieg and Bernie.
Christopher says
Why would you even ask that question? Each person should be taken on his/her own merits. I’m sure my opinion wouldn’t change if she were a man either, but it never occurred to me to even consider it.
SomervilleTom says
I think it’s important to ask that question because pretty much the entire mainstream media torpedoed the campaign of Ms. Clinton by applying sexist criteria (like “electability”) that were not applied to male candidates before or after.
There is a wealth of recent sociological research data that shows that most Americans DO react differently to the same statements from male and female candidates based on their gender (cf The Consequences of Explicit and Implicit Gender Attitudes and Candidate Quality in the Calculations of Voters). It closely parallels similar research done regarding gender bias in hiring.
Men who aggressively proclaim what they will do are lauded as “leaders”. Women who do the same are attacked as “shrill”. And so on.
The New York Times is particularly offensive in this regard, by the way. Their coverage of the 2016 Clinton campaign was abysmal, and they are starting on the wrong foot today with Ms. Warren, especially in contrast to their obvious preference for Mr. Biden.
Christopher says
Seems to me Warren is getting all kinds of praise for being the candidate who “has a plan for that”. The likability/electability question is asked of men all the time too, usually phrased as would you want to have a beer with him. It’s stupid regardless since we’re trying to elect our President, not our BFF.
SomervilleTom says
I invite you to read today’s New York Times piece, a typical example of the implicit bias against women. In particular, I draw your attention to the concluding paragraph of the piece (emphasis mine):
Elizabeth Warren is the intellectual giant of the current political scene. To distill her campaign down to “she’s a woman” is a canonical example of patronizing sexism.
jconway says
I won’t excuse sexism for people thinking that, but an unfortunate side effect of blaming (accurately though not exclusively) racism and sexism for Hillary’s defeat has been that many progressive voters who would want a candidate of color or a non male candidate now feel cautious about nominating one. .
My own wife, a progressive woman of color, said ‘well its probably gotta be a white guy”. I think if this were another open election or if the incumbent were not so loathsome that defensiveness would not be there. I do think Hillary’s defeat has made it harder to dislodge.
jconway says
I’m with you by the way that policy and experience matters far more than gender or racial identity in my selection. In fact, my move to Warren has been because of her emphasis on policy and her moving away from breaking the glass ceiling.
SomervilleTom says
I hear you. It’s a VERY tough problem, as evidenced by its persistence.
@”well its probably gotta be a white guy”
If we can tie this to Hillary Clinton in 2016, then why aren’t we saying “well its probably gotta be a black guy” after 2008 and 2012?
Interestingly, the barrier that I see leans the other way — if we want to win in 2020, then it’s probably got to be another black man. Sadly, I don’t think a black woman will make much difference, because I think sexism is — if anything — more, rather than less, pronounced among communities of color. I hope I’m wrong about that.
I think that the 2020 race is unlikely to be as exquisitely sensitive to urban minority voters in MI, WI, and PA as the 2016 race was. That sensitivity was in no small part due to the softness of support for Ms. Clinton in the rest of the electorate. We will hopefully not have another October Surprise from the FBI in 2020.
I think Ms. Warren is better liked by progressive voters in the rest of America than Ms. Clinton was. Ms. Warren has not had to overcome decades of relentless and groundless personal attacks from the rabid right and therefore the media (and even too many Democrats).
I think and hope that at least some “heartland” voters have learned that ignorance, bigotry, misogyny, and outright dishonesty really ARE disastrous in a President of either party.
I think we will not eliminate sexism and racism for the 2020 campaign, and probably not for the 2024 campaign. I think we therefore have an obligation to be sensitive to these issues and handle them as they come up.
I think Ms. Warren handled the entire Native American thing better than other candidates have handled some of their similar blunders. I don’t think we have to worry about credible accusers stepping forward with complaints of inappropriate touching by Ms. Warren.
Christopher says
My first choice this time happens to be a white guy, but it certainly doesn’t have to be a white guy. In the last three presidential elections the major nominee who was the white guy did not get the most votes. Each Democratic voter should vote for the person s/he prefers to be President and not try to over-strategize it.
Christopher says
Well, I never said nobody else is sexist.
SomervilleTom says
Understood. I read your comment as a request for more data to support my characterization of the coverage I’m seeing from Times. Hence my followup with a typical example from the Times.
Mark L. Bail says
Christopher, my original uneasiness with Warren’s presidential candidacy was the way she sounded. Particularly when she talked about Trump.
After studying the “electability” canard, which I had been guilty of believing in the past, I reconsidered my take on Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, whom I excitedly supported for Senate. Were my electability thoughts sexist? I don’t know but the question of would I support Warren if she were a man certainly cut through the bullshit.
pogo says
While warming up to her as the nominee and overcome her political negatives, I get to this Massachusetts jinx problem. I’ve seen that show before and I don’t like end previous endings.
johntmay says
Massachusetts has had two of the past twenty presidents, New York has three as has California and Texas. I see no reason we can’t get to three.
jconway says
I would argue the things Dukakis, Kerry, and Romney most have in common were being bland white dudes who ran away from their base. Kerry and Romney in particular were infamously portrayed as flip floppers on issues core to their base like Iraq or abortion.
Using that criteria, Biden comes closest to this mold. Or the elite educated, elite backed, sled consciously centrist war hero Seth Moulton, who sounds a lot more like he’s auditioning to be the next John Kerry than Elizabeth Warren does.
If she can continue to emphasize her Oklahoma, single mother, and public college roots to undercut the Professor Pochahantas narrative, she can open her compelling message up to new voters. A big if to be sure, but a doable one. Her worst day was her first day, which is better than having it the other way around.
petr says
Do you, or do you not, believe that Mike Dukakis would have made a better President than George H W Bush? Do you, or do you not, believe that John Kerry would gave made a better President than George W Bush?
That’s the questions that have been put to you. Only that. The question is not ‘what do you think your fellow citizens think about what you think?’ The question is not ‘what combination of media friendly character traits is the most likely to win?’ The question is, unquestionably simple: who, amongst the presented choices, will make the best President?’ It. Does not. Have. To be. Any. More. Complicated. Then that.
It is not for you to, a priori, second guess your fellow-citizens vote.. It is not for you to triangulate. It is not yours to say what ‘the base‘ is or isn’t or what it will or will not accept…
You keep trying to apply rationality to a process that has been, intentionally, made irrational… Then, when this intentionally irrational process, fails to satisfy your logic (as it always will) you continue to blame those who are rational for their failure to surmount that irrationality.
jconway says
Apparently even Tucker Carlson is praising her economic patriotism agenda. I think it’s a real winner.
SomervilleTom says
@the things Dukakis, Kerry, and Romney most have in common were being bland white dudes who ran away from their base:
Mr. Dukakis and Mr. Kerry lost to bland white dudes who ran away from their base. Mr. Romney was a bland white dude who lost to a thrilling black man who, once elected, intentionally governed in way that was indistinguishable from a bland white dude — at least until the final few months of his eight-year administration.
I don’t think this formulation helps us choose better leaders. I think that identity-focused politics (like “bland white dude”) are a prominent symptom of the deep disorder that is destroying our democracy.
The idea of rule-by-identity is as ancient as human society. You are enough of a historian to know that the idea of explicitly moving beyond identity to a rational exchange of views occurring in the context of a civilized debate among colleagues was one of the more radical innovations of the American Experiment.
I think we lose, rather than gain, to the extent that we revert to politics based on skin color, gender, and ethnic origin.
jconway says
Yeah we can disregard that. I won’t disregard the idea that this Massachusetts curse is a bunch of malarkey-in politics and baseball.
Pablo says
I really don’t understand the Warren-Hillary comparison, except they are both white women.
At any point during the 2016 campaign, could you come up with a sharp and compelling statement about what Hillary wanted to do as president? It’s not that Hillary would have been a bad president; she is hard working, diligent, accomplished. Bernie? “Millionaires and billionaires.” Trump? “Make America great again, trade, and immigration.” Hillary? “I’m ready for Hillary. Break the glass ceiling.”
Warren: “I have a plan for that.” Elizabeth Warren is clearly running for president because she wants to accomplish a bunch of things. She has a vision for the country, she wants to make significant reforms. She is a modern day Teddy Roosevelt, and agree or disagree, people are going to respect her clarity.
Trump is transactional. Warren is driven by policy.
Trump blames immigrants and places corporate folks in positions of power. Warren points to the corporate stranglehold on Washington as the real problem.
Trump is impulsive. Warren is researched and strategic.
Warren will show up for the debate and will slice Trump into little bitty bite-sized bits of demagogic despot, and will sharply and effectively call him out for his lies.
Is she electable? Yes, if she keeps on keeping on, slow and steady, earning the respect and admiration of the American voters who disapprove of Trump.
Christopher says
I think Hillary wanted everyone to reach their potential as much as other Dems, but since my support for her (and this year Biden) is all about experience and qualifications, I was not looking as hard for that.
jconway says
It came from a combination of media sexism and campaign errors. Her launch was bad and she was all over the place focusing on issues voters don’t actually care about. The Native American controversy, criminal justice reform, banning Columbus Day, and Venezuela to name a few. Once she ditched trying to respond to Trump tit for tat and focus on her own policy agenda, she reset the campaign. .
Now she’s focused on the classic New Deal economic justice and economic patriotism that got her elected against the original faux populist. This is an agenda that could sell Warren to swing voters, not to mention, actually fix what ails this great country.
centralmassdad says
I still kind of hope that she stays a Senator, because she’s likely to be there for longer.
One thing that is interesting is that there are lot of Republicans, that are beginning to sound far more economically populist. Rubio criticizing free trade again recently. Hawley, the guy who unseated Sen. mcCakskill, gave a speech the other day that has been the subject of commentary because of it’s forthright advocacy of a pretty extreme form of theocracy, but which elsewhere contains passages about economic policy that could easily have come from Warren or Sanders.
I am beginning to think that Trump, by campaigning as a populist, may have completed the breakdown of the previous political structure of the country. Democrats have, for my entire lifetime, struggled with the breakdown of the New Deal coalition in the wake of Vietnam and civil rights for women, minorities, and gays. New Left/Old Left; individual rights/collective rights; identity politics/economic liberalism.
Sometimes they run candidates that are good at bridging the divide, like Bill Clinton or Obama, and sometimes ones that are not, like Hillary or like Kerry. But for the most part, things oscillated around an equilibrium created by the Republican ability to get “social issues” voters to vote for Koch Brothers/Club for Growth candidates.
2016 certainly upset that applecart. Trump was certainly not the ordinary “Freedom Caucus” Grover Norquist candidate. The economic populism/right-wing culture war combo proved powerful, at least in the election. In the event, Trump is too much of a moron, and too unskilled to actually do anything, and so was essentially controlled by Paul Ryan and McConnel for the first two years, which–surprise! cost Republicans the house. But it wasn’t the populist Trump that took the polling hit, but the Koch Brothers Republicans in Congress.
Did Republicans lose the House because voters were appalled at the right-wing culture war in action, or because it turns out that they didn’t really want to lose their health insurance after all? If theocratic culture warriors like Hawley are engaging economic populism, then it seems like they have likely concluded that they need to be more like Trump and less like Paul Ryan.
If that’s what is happening, then the Club for Growth “Atlas Shrugged” hold on the GOP is dissolving, and we, like our cousins in the UK, are in the midst of the collapse of the existing left-right political order, and will likewise probably see it replaced with something different, perhaps like the “open-closed” and “urban-rural” divisions that have arisen there.