Elizabeth Warren is not Hillary Clinton

My former Chief Prospect Editor, Mark Schmitt, had a maxim that I always liked: "It's not what you say about problems; that's what the problems say about you. "

Mark's line came to my mind as I interviewed Elizabeth Warren (you can listen to our conversation on my podcast or read it here). I've seen a lot of nervous democrats compare Warren to Hillary Clinton. After all, Clinton also had plans. Clinton was also the most prepared candidate on the stage. And look how it ended.

I think the analogy is imperfect. Clinton had a lot of projects but no clear message. Warren's genius has been to turn many projects into a clear message. Clinton's plans could not dispel the feeling that she was complicit in the status quo. Warren's plans underscore his long-held dislike of American capitalism.

Democrats often talk about income inequality. Warren focuses on the inequality of wealth. During our conversation, she used the word "wealth" 23 times but only mentioned "income" four times. There is a reason for this. Wealth is the place where income merges into power and privilege. When your money comes from an income, it is, at least in theory, earned by the job. When it is only wealth that creates more wealth, it is a pool of resources disassociated from labor and innovation that drives economies forward.

"Think of it this way," she told me. "The poorest 99% of last year paid 7.2% of their taxes, in addition to their taxes. Top 1 percent? They paid 3.2% of their total wealth. "These huge fortunes," she continued, "grow in their own right. They are now the capital. You do not have to work if you have one of these great fortunes. These things are managed by professional managers. Listen to how Warren talks about it. This offends him.

Warren has repeatedly postponed the conversation about his wealth tax and all he could buy. Like here:

Two cents on a hundredth of 1%, the biggest fortune in the country, $ 50 million and more, and for two cents, we can offer a universal guard, a universal pre-kindergarten, an increase in the salaries of all our educators and -K workers, universal technical school, two-year college, four-year college and debt cancellation related to a student loan for 95% of those who benefit. We are canceling debt related to student loans of 43 million Americans across the country. The vision of what the government can do and on whose side the government is considering changes like this.

And here:

A minute ago, I was talking about the 2 cent fortune tax. My proposal is a tax on the country's 75,000 biggest fortunes. If you have more than $ 50 million, the 50 millionth and first dollar is taxed at 2 cents. And then 2 cents on every dollar after that. Two cents. What could we do with 2 cents? Examine the opportunities it offers for childcare and preschool education, as well as technical and college schools, and free people from a huge debt burden.

And here:

But note how much you receive from the wealth tax. The 2 cents fortune tax is enough to do everything I've talked about, in addition to having $ 100 billion to spend on opioids and that it still stays close half a trillion dollars. It is a huge amount that it produces because there is an extraordinary and concentrated wealth in this country. Getting 2 cents opens up real opportunities for everyone.

Warren's slogan is "I have a plan for that." And on one side, it's true: she has a lot of plans. But a clearer way of understanding her argument is that she has a plan that she applies again and again.

According to Warren, there has been a tremendous accumulation of wealth – and therefore power and opportunity – in this country. She wants to tax wealth and redistribute both money and opportunity. It wants to break the clutches of economic power by putting workers on boards, unleashing antitrust regulators on Amazon and Facebook, and ending Washington's revolving door. These are different policies, of course, but they all say the same thing: the rich have too much money and power, and Warren wants to change that.

That's the difference between her and Clinton. Clinton had a lot of projects and so many messages. Warren has a lot of projects, but they reinforce a message. Warren has her weaknesses, but the way she talks through politics is a determining force.

Some other notes of our conversation:

• I asked Warren how she disagreed with the Socialist Democrats and did not have much. "I believe in markets," she said. "But the rules-free markets, it's theft." I asked him about health care and education, which are the only places where Bernie Sanders suggests nationalizing even a part of it. 39, an industry, but Warren agrees with him. "Most markets do not work in these areas," she said. "That does not mean that there are no rooms for which we could work, but no. Health care is a basic human right and we are fighting for basic human rights. Public education is a public education because it is not market oriented. "

Sanders calls himself a Socialist Democrat and Warren calls Capitalist, but the difference between them is more subtle than it suggests. If you ask Warren about capitalism, it will cunningly describe what well-regulated markets can create. Ask Sanders about capitalism and focus on its failures and fundamental immorality. This is a clear difference in effect, but it does not lead to such a difference in policy.

• A more serious division in the primary is between Warren and Joe Biden's theories of change. Biden insists that the problem concerns politicians and not the political structure. "The system worked very well," he said. said. "It's called the Constitution. He says you have to get a consensus to do anything. "

Biden is more likely than its competitors to obtain this consensus. Warren, on the other hand, does not believe she will get support from Republicans and talks about systemic change. She told me that her first bill would be a massive package against corruption. She wants to persuade her fellow Democrats to abolish the buccaneer. "This case that Democrats are applying under one set of rules and Republicans under a different set of rules – these days are over when I'm president," she says. "We do not do it anymore."

• When I asked Warren what she would do as president, she responded quickly. "I will do everything I can do as president." Despite her enthusiasm for action by the executive, I found her a little vague about the authorities she was using. Although most presidents have delegated the regulations to staff after following Warren's career, I think she is exceptionally likely to act as chief regulator.

Warren designed, built and managed an aggressive regulatory agency – the Office of Consumer Financial Protection – and did it well. As a senator, she put a special emphasis on the fight against regulatory decisions and appointments. She has expertise here that most presidential candidates do not have. "You know, most of these agencies were built at a time when we believed in government," she said. "It's true, whether you're talking about the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Commerce, or the Environmental Protection Agency. These agencies still have a very large number of tools. "

Presidential campaigns tend to focus on legislative dreams rather than regulatory strategies, but very probable that even if a democrat wins in 2020, he will have to face a Republican Senate. In this world, the ability to creatively use the powers of the executive power will be of paramount importance. I would like Warren, as well as all Democrats, to be more specific about how they approach this part of the job.

• It's more impressionistic, but I want to say it: I've interviewed most of the Democrats running for president and I find Warren more warm and natural than almost everyone else. That's true in person, but it's also true about the strain.

This was cut in the transcript, but if you listen to our full podcast, you'll hear about her insistence that the lights are always on in the auditoriums so she can see the faces of her audience and interact with them. "It's actually a very close and intimate interaction, even with a thousand people or a few thousand," she says. "Eyes in the eyes, face to face." It's not just talking: Warren is engaging much more naturally with the crowd than most politicians. The idea that she appears cold or unconscious about the strain – she became viral with speeches when it was almost nothing – crumbled when looking at her or meeting her.

That said, Warren has never performed so well in Massachusetts. She ran behind Barack Obama in 2012 and, after adjusting for the Democrats turnaround from 2016 to 2018, also behind Hillary Clinton. She is less popular than Charlie Baker, the Republican governor. She follows Biden in her own state. This is the question of "eligibility" to which I ask myself questions with Warren: why is she not stronger among the voters who know her best?