Elizabeth Warren is the most intriguing Democratic candidate of the early 2020 campaign, having positioned herself as a top tier progressive, or at least she is campaigning as such. She has promised affordable childcare and higher education, support of collective bargaining, a livable minimum wage, stricter regulations on Wall Street and Silicon Valley corporations and a progressive wealth tax. While this all sounds superb, there is a large shadow of doubt looming behind her campaign.
Presidential campaigns are generally excursions in national pandering and 2020 is no different. Whether Warren will stand behind what she has campaigned on is the biggest factor for her to secure the nomination. Yes, she’s helped to move the conversation of policy further to the left than it has been in years, and that is clearly a good thing. However, that is not nearly enough to remedy the structural and judicial inequities rampant in our country and, furthermore, moving the conversation means virtually nothing if you compromise these progressive policies into oblivion once elected.
Being weary of Warren is not unfounded, she was a registered Republican in the 1990s. According to Open Secrets, her three largest donors from 2013-2018 were Emily’s List, the political action committee founded by IBM heiress Ellen Malcolm; Harvard University, where she was a professor before being elected as senator; and Women Count, a Palo Alto-based crowdfunding site that supported Hillary Clinton in 2016. During the same period her largest donor base was retirees, from which she raised almost $4 million.
Regardless, the crowd assembled at Laney College on a blustery May Friday night was ecstatic to see her. Her 90th presidential town hall (the first in the Bay Area) drew thousands.
During the rally she spoke of growing up in Oklahoma with three older military brothers and a “momma” and “daddy” who juggled working class jobs and economic insecurity; carefully outlining how those moments shaped her political life.
She told the story of her mother getting a minimum wage job that, in her words, “saved our house and our family.”
“Today a minimum wage job in America will not keep a momma and a baby out of poverty,” Warren said. “That is wrong and that is why I am in this fight.”
“When you’ve got a government that works great for those with money … that is corruption pure and simple and we need to call it out,” she continued. “I’m tired of free loading billionaires.”
The three main positions she articulated that were meant to set her apart from a particularly broad Democratic primary field provided a clear, concise plan for her campaign and possible presidency. As she said at the beginning and end of her speech, it is her plan that distinguishes her. The three pronged plan is: 1) attack corruption 2) institute structural economic change and 3) protect our democracy. All three of these prongs, she said boil down to opportunity, specifically the opportunity “to build a future.”
Her support for unions, DREAMers and the working class was clear. Her plan was clear. How her background influenced her political trajectory she made clear. She was charming and witty, with funny one-liners and anecdotes about past marriages and college with a baby. She seemed genuinely ecstatic to be out there.
Maybe you can sense it coming, the “but”… As in, “but… is it enough?” Or more pointedly: Do any of her progressive policy stances matter to the modern Democratic voter more than the fact that she’s a woman who would be running against a proven misogynist and alleged rapist?
The fracturing of the Democratic party between its younger, more working class, left-wing base and older, richer, donors is the question that we should expect to see repeatedly, aggressively and excessively mined as 2020 approaches. It’s a fair question: Will the Democrats cede to their younger and more progressive base? Or will they throw in the towel and take another L in the hopes of securing the bag? Honestly predictions are not my strong suit, but Warren has set herself apart from most of the others in the field as being a candidate who is unafraid to embrace staunch economic and social reforms.
That’s really the crux of the “but”: reform. Warren wants to reform a system in the hopes of giving everyone an equal opportunity to achieve the proverbial American Dream. The problem with reform within the system is just that, it is within the system. Modern capitalism draws its roots from systemic segregation and exploitation of working people. It is founded on this exploitation and degradation. Is reformation an option? Is reformation even viable?
Warren and her supporters are certainly counting on it.
However, reformation being viable means, at least in part, an acceptance that those on the other side of the aisle have similar goals. Reformation means changing the way American capitalism runs, not disassembling it. Reformation is undergirded by a belief that the people in power are the problem and not capitalism. This may not be enough.
This may not be enough to get both the progressive and moderates that she hopes to pull to her side. If it is, reformation may still not be enough to solve the economic, social and political problems constantly discussed on MSNBC and FOX News.
Frankly, a huge group of people think it is. Warren has a large liberal base that deeply believes in her numerous and extensive plans for the future. Many of these voters supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Obama in 2012, many of these voters reside in metropolitan coastal cities and shudder at the word “populist.” Whether or not Warren will be able to pull the progressive populist wing of the party to her campaign is still up in the air but the clear cut reality is she appears to be a close contender against Biden and Sanders.
It sounds trite, hell it feels overdrawn to even type it, but we are at a defining moment in American history. Climate change, social upheaval and economic collapse are not just theoretical problems, but rather actual issues on the horizon that the next president will need to address once inaugurated. So the real question for Senator Warren, or possibly President Warren is: When push comes to shove, will a President Warren lean towards reform or full scale overhaul?