Elizabeth Warren Spells Out The Fight We Have To Have

The Democratic Party is unified on the urgency of stopping Trump and on “affordability”, but there are some fights we have to have inside our party

(Elizabeth Warren, WikiCommons)

Elizabeth Warren gave a great speech on Monday morning at the National Press Club about the future of the Democratic Party and what we needed to do to build an enduring, governing electoral majority. It was a Warren classic, full of fight and clarity about the path ahead. She eloquently made the case for a full throated economic populism. As she put it:

Americans are stretched to the breaking point financially, and they will vote for candidates who name what is wrong and who credibly demonstrate that they will take on a rigged system in order to fix it. Revising our economic agenda to tiptoe around that conclusion might appeal to the wealthy, but it will not help Democrats build a bigger tent, and it definitely will not help Democrats win elections. A Democratic Party that worries more about offending big donors than delivering for working people is a party that is doomed to fail – in 2026, 2028, and beyond.

Warren’s speech highlights the dilemma that Democrats have to face. On the one hand, we all want to stay united in order to make sure Trump and the Republicans don’t win elections in 2026 and 2028. Opposition to Trump has been, and will continue to be, the tie that binds us.

And you can certainly say that our commitment to democratic principles, and to the centrality of the affordability message, are things Democrats are strongly unified around. All this is to the good as we work hard together to stop the MAGA policy agenda and win the 2026 and 2028 elections.

The fundamental fight we cannot avoid

Having said that, Democrats are not going to be able to avoid an absolutely foundational fight over how we project ourselves as a political party. It will be played out in 2026 primaries, in the 2026 general election, and in the 2028 presidential race most of all.

There is no avoiding the fight over whether we should be the party that boldly and bluntly takes on corporate concentration and abuse of power, that takes on big money and tax breaks for wealthy corporations and billionaires, or whether we should be the party that softens our rhetoric and scales back our agenda and ambition every time it bothers some megadonor to the party.

I will tell you that the polling data is overwhelmingly in the favor of those of us arguing for a message taking on corporate concentration and power. In the fall of 2024, I worked on a poll that showed the public overwhelmingly in favor of strong antitrust enforcement and other measures to reign in corporate power. Last week, Rasmussen, a Republican leaning polling operation, came out with a new poll saying the same thing. The full report is paywalled, but former Wall St Journal reporter Brody Mullins sums it up:

A new poll by Rasmussen Reports reveals that an overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats think large corporations have too much power, Big Tech firms have “run wild” and that President Trump should do more to enforce antitrust laws.

In all, nearly three in four Americans believe big companies hold too much power, according to the poll; Two in three think stronger government enforcement of antitrust laws would lower prices for Americans.”

In all of my Factory Towns project polling and focus groups, the anger toward corporate monopolies and big corporations abusing their power was palpable. And in a recent private briefing I got from extensive polling, the conclusion was 100% clear that the only way Democrats have a chance at starting to win back blue collar voters, especially men, was a strong anti-corporate power message. This is even more true of the white working class voters who will constitute the decisive voting bloc in Senate races like North Carolina, Maine, Ohio, Iowa, Nebraska, Texas, and Alaska, as well as most of the key races in the House.

Finally, I would note that Donald Trump won elections in great part because of his populist message – attacking weak trade deals like NAFTA, promising to cap credit card rates and prescription drug prices, not taxing tips, and taking on the Wall Street and Big Tech establishment. The fact that he lied about most of that agenda is coming back to haunt him.

Abundance and other ways to change the subject

Warren addressed the Abundance Democrats in a way that I very much agreed with. After talking about how one of the gaols of the CFPB was to consolidate consumer regulation, she went through some of the examples of the way she and other progressive Democrats have looked to cut back on unnecessary regulations in a way that actually helped regular folks. She then remarked:

So yes, we need more government efficiency—a lot more. But many in the Abundance movement are doing little to call out corporate culpability and billionaire influence in creating and defending those very inefficiencies.

Instead, Abundance has become a rallying cry – not just for a few policy nerds worried about zoning, but for wealthy donors and other corporate-aligned Democrats who are putting big-time muscle behind making Democrats more favorable to big businesses. It looks like the corporate tycoons have found one more way to try to stop the Democratic Party from tackling a rigged system with too much energy.

The people in our party who work for big corporations as consultants, lobbyists, and pollsters want to talk about anything other than the power of the populist message. They want to change the subject from the overwhelming amount of evidence that economic populism is what works. They want to talk about Abundance. They want to say we are too liberal on social issues.

Yes, we might need to use more effective language on these issues, but our Factory Towns polling of working class counties showed very clearly that the problem on social issues was far less our specific policies than on their perception that we prioritized every other issue but the big economic issues that mattered to them. It also showed a populist economic issue beating a Republican culture war message. Sometimes these pro-corporate Democrats will say “well, we don’t want to sound too liberal,” even though progressive populist messages consistently outpolls the watered down messages of the pro-corporate Democrats.

Democrats Have to Decide: which side are they on?

If I thought the mushy pro-corporate brand was the best way to win the next two elections, I would shut up and fight the good fight on issues when Democrats swept back into power. However, our only way to an electoral majority is by winning back a significantly higher share of working class voters. And the only way to do that is through big, bold and loud economic populism. We can’t be pussyfooting around anymore. I know we will lose some big money contributions as a result. Not having as much money as the Republicans will be challenging, but what I have learned over the years is that full throated roaring populism can also raise money because of the excitement it creates. Elizabeth Warren raised more money than any other Senate candidate when she ran against Scott Brown to win her first race. Bernie raised a ton of money in his two presidential runs, as did Elizabeth. Populists like Sherrod Brown, Tammy Baldwin, Dan Osborn, and Ruben Gallego, and other populists raised the money they needed to be competitive in Senate races.

Even long-time centrists like James Carville and Adam Schiff are saying we need to move in the populist time. Now the rest of the party needs to get on board.

So let’s have this fight. If us progressive populists with the strongest message win the battle over the message and agenda the Democrats should be pursuing, we will beat back MAGA for good.