|
After a sunny spell of largely positive coverage, the Opinion section of the The Times has lately been drizzling on Elizabeth Warren’s parade.
|
Over just the last 48 hours, Steven Rattner and David Leonhardt, neither of whom is conservative, raised red flags about whether Warren’s approach to Medicare for all in particular and her positioning in general represent liabilities in a possible matchup against President Trump. Leonhardt pointed to similar critiques elsewhere, by journalists who are plenty liberal and wholly open to higher taxes, a sturdier social-safety net and more government intervention in the economy. They just believe that none of those changes is as high a priority as beating Trump, whose re-election would render all of those changes impossible.
|
The columns by Rattner and Leonhardt were in some ways more restrained versions of what our colleague Bret Stephens, a conservative, wrote a little over a week beforehand. Under the provocative headline “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote,” he framed all the industries Warren wants to disrupt in terms of all the people who would then be out of jobs — and who, contemplating that disruption as they head to the polls next November, might well be reluctant to cast a vote for Warren.
|
In between the column by Stephens and the columns by Rattner and Leonhardt came the release of a Times poll of voters in such key battleground states as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida; it showed that in a hypothetical matchup against Trump, Warren lost or tied in most of those states, while Joe Biden won most of them. Bernie Sanders’s performance in the poll placed him between those two. Warren definitely did the worst.
|
A lot could change in a year. For all the coverage of her over recent months, she’s less well known to voters than Biden, who was the vice president for eight years, and Sanders, who was able to get on voters’ radar through his vigorous and impressive 2016 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. And neither Biden, with his jarringly rickety debate performances, nor Sanders, with his recent heart attack, is a source of great reassurance.
|
But it’s necessary and good that these concerns about Warren are being raised. And it’s important that I explain something about those concerns. I know I speak not just for myself but for many other Warren worriers when I say that I’ve no qualm with her assertion that income inequality in America is simply untenable. She’s right. I’ve no quibble with her demands for some serious restructuring of the American economy. It’s past time.
|
But I look at which Democratic candidates turned red congressional seats blue in the 2018 midterms and I fear that she and her agenda are unaffordable gambles when the stakes are four more years of a spectacularly unethical, grossly insensitive and chillingly cavalier demagogue.
|
I’m also concerned about Democratic overconfidence — about some Democratic voters’ belief that the Ukraine revelations and Trump’s countless other scandals and offenses will surely guarantee his defeat next November, no matter the adversary, and that the nation’s tide is turning Democratic.
|
Yes, a Democrat scored a huge upset in the Kentucky governor’s race last night — but the Republican incumbent was historically unpopular, and in other statewide races in Kentucky, Republicans prevailed. Yes, Democrats just seized control of the government in Virginia. But that state has become bluer and bluer over the past decade.
|
And what happened there doesn’t mean blue skies for Democrats a year from now. Best to assume inclement weather — and to evaluate the contenders for the party’s presidential nomination accordingly.
|
If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment