By Peter Nicholas
Democrats looking for a way forward after their election losses
this year have wound up in a debate over how best to frame the
party's economic message, with the most liberal members rallying
behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and her calls for a focus
on income inequality.
Ms. Warren had gained new prominence on the national stage--and
drawn increasing calls for her to run for the White House--in
recent weeks with her attempt last week to scuttle a compromise
budget bill because of concessions to Wall Street, as well as her
opposition to President Barack Obama's choice for a top Treasury
post due to his Wall Street ties. Those moves have reinforced Ms.
Warren's long-standing message that Democrats should fight to
reduce corporate influence and the share of wealth controlled by
the nation's richest households.
Other Democrats say Ms. Warren's message will lead only to more
electoral defeats, as many voters will reject the focus on income
inequality and instead want policies aimed at broad economic
growth. While all Democrats say they want to foster a growing
economy, the two wings of the party are at odds over which points
should be most central to their message.
"In a world where there are more self-described conservatives
than there are self-described liberals, is having a campaign that
only tries to win by appealing to your base the right strategy?"
asked Jack Markell, the Democratic governor of Delaware. "I would
argue it's not."
Mr. Markell, who hasn't yet endorsed a candidate for the 2016
election, said the next Democratic nominee has to reach
independents and "some Republicans, as well. In my mind, an agenda
around [economic] growth is the most likely message to do
that."
At the same time, Ms. Warren's populist message has made her a
focal point of a vocal wing within the party. The liberal advocacy
group MoveOn.org hosted an event in Iowa on Wednesday night aimed
at showcasing support for Ms. Warren in the state that holds the
nation's first presidential contest. MoveOn also plans to spend $1
million on its "Draft Warren" effort and is hiring staff in Iowa,
New Hampshire and possibly other states that hold early
primaries.
So far, Ms. Warren has said only that she is backing former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, telling National Public Radio
earlier this week, "I am not running for president." Yet in
sticking to the present tense, as NPR's Steve Inskeep pointed out,
she suggested she hasn't entirely ruled it out.
One question hanging over the party is what economic policy Mrs.
Clinton would propose should she run for president, and whether she
would cast herself in Mrs. Warren's populist mode or adopt a more
centrist, business-friendly stance.
Much of Mrs. Clinton's career suggests she would take the latter
course.
For years, the liberal and moderate strands of the party largely
minimized differences and kept a united front amid Republican
resistance to President Barack Obama's agenda. But the uneasy
alliance has become strained after the midterm elections, in which
the party suffered deep losses.
A sign of the split is stepped-up calls for Ms. Warren to jump
in the presidential race.
Some 300 lower-level former Obama campaign aides are lining up
behind the Massachusetts senator, signing a recent letter
describing her as someone who would "take on the Wall Street banks
and special interests" and tackle "rising inequality," which they
called the "challenge of our times."
A liberal advocacy group called Democracy for America is putting
$250,000 into the effort to draft Ms. Warren. Yet the group's
founder, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, has endorsed Mrs.
Clinton.
Ms. Warren gained fresh attention in recent weeks. She played a
leading role in opposing Mr. Obama's choice for a top Treasury
post, Antonio Weiss, due to his Wall Street ties, and also mounted
an unsuccessful campaign in the Senate to scuttle a provision in a
$1.1 trillion spending bill that will loosen parts of the
Dodd-Frank financial regulation law.
In her attempt to do away with the provision, she employed the
sort of language that leaves liberals enthralled and centrists
unnerved. Taking aim at Citigroup Inc., a recipient of
taxpayer-financed bailout money during the financial crisis, Ms.
Warren said in a speech on the Senate floor: "Washington already
works really well for the billionaires and the big corporations and
the lawyers and the lobbyists....What about the families who are
living paycheck to paycheck and saw their tax dollars go to bail
out Citi just six years ago?"
Ms. Warren decried what she cast as a revolving door between
Citi and the top ranks of the U.S. Treasury Department, saying the
bank has too much political and economic clout. "I'm from the
Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party," read a sign that
appeared at a protest Thursday at a Manhattan office of
Citigroup.
"I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party,"
read a sign that appeared at a protest Thursday at a Manhattan
office of Citigroup.
"We're at a crossroads: The rich, the ones at the very top are
getting wealthier and wealthier," Ilya Sheyman, executive director
of MoveOn, told roughly 100 people at the event in Des Moines. "The
middle class and those struggling to get into it are falling
further and further behind....This is a moment for Elizabeth
Warren."
Those aligned with Ms. Warren call for policies that would
increase the minimum wage, raise taxes on wealthy households and
subject Wall Street firms to tighter regulation.
While embracing some of those goals, others in the party tout
policies that would strengthen education, improve roads and
bridges, and promote exports. And they describe businesses as more
of a partner in a joint endeavor to expand economic opportunity
than a special interest to be tamed.
In the midterm elections, many Democrats made a minimum-wage
increase the centerpiece of their campaigns. Rep. John Delaney (D.,
Md.), who has warned against rhetoric that winds up "demonizing the
private sector," said the message must be more encompassing.
"You cannot anchor your whole economic message around" the
minimum wage, he said, "because in fact it doesn't affect a lot of
Americans, and it doesn't get at the heart of the issue: Creating
more middle-skill jobs where people can have a decent standard of
living and feel like their kids have opportunity."
In her recent book, "Hard Choices," Mrs. Clinton wrote about her
efforts as secretary of state to boost exports and help U.S.
businesses gain access to foreign markets, in the interest of
creating jobs at home.
At the same time, she has begun sprinkling her speeches with
populist themes. "Our democracy is supposed to work for everyone,
not just the privileged few," Mrs. Clinton said this fall at a
campaign appearance in Kentucky. "But, more and more--you know
this, you feel it, you live it--the scales are weighted against
working families."
Mrs. Clinton also has been hinting that she would like to bridge
the divide between the party's left and centrist blocs. "I love
watching Elizabeth giving it to those who deserve to get it," she
said at a campaign rally in October for former Massachusetts
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley.
Janet Hook contributed to this article.
Write to Peter Nicholas at peter.nicholas@wsj.com
Access Investor Kit for Citigroup, Inc.
Visit
http://www.companyspotlight.com/partner?cp_code=P479&isin=US1729674242
Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires