I’ve never interviewed Elizabeth Warren, and I probably never will. But if I did, it would go something like this:
C: Is this the very kitchen table where you did the David Leonhardt interview?
W: Yes, it is.
C: Where’s Bailey?
W: He’s at the vet today, I’m afraid.
C: That’s disappointing. He looks incredibly cute in his pictures.
W: Maybe next time.
C: OK. I’d like to start by asking the obvious question: why should people vote for you instead of one of the other clearly qualified Democratic candidates?
W: I’m the right person at the moment. The biggest problem facing this country is the little guy being screwed over by the big guy. From my academic work on bankruptcy to my books to my work as a senator, I’ve made trying to help the average person my life’s work. It’s a calling.
C: So if we were facing World War III, you would look at it differently?
W: Let’s just say I wouldn’t try to run as Winston Churchill.
C: Most of my questions today are going to revolve around the relationship between your candidacy and two other famous Democrats.
W: I bet I can guess which ones.
C: The first is Hillary Clinton.
W: Bingo on that one.
C: I’m sure you know that a lot of Democrats are afraid you’re not electable because you look and sound too much like Hillary. How do you respond to that?
W: I’m not going to say anything bad about Hillary. Bless her heart, she has always fought for the right side, and she basically ran a good campaign. But she had a lot more scar tissue than I do, and a lot more baggage. The e-mail thing obviously didn’t help. Neither did her obvious ties to Wall Street. She was the wrong person at the wrong time–that’s all.
C: What’s your theory on what happened in 2016? Was it some sort of massive counterrevolution, or was it a fluke based on Comey, e-mails, and the public being tired of Democrats?
W: Some of both. I think part of Hillary’s problem was being identified too closely with the establishment, and having small ball solutions to equality problems. For all that, however, she still would have won without Comey and the e-mails.
C: So you think you differ from her in that you don’t have as much baggage, and you don’t play small ball?
W: Something like that, yes.
C: That brings us to the other prominent Democrat.
W: Let me guess–Bernie Sanders.
C: Two for two. Let me start by saying that, from a wonk’s perspective, you have been absolutely crushing it. You should be way ahead. And yet, Bernie is far ahead of you in the polls. Why do you think that is?
W: Name recognition. People obviously remember him from 2016.
C: But you’re also a well-known national figure. That can’t be the only reason. Don’t you think there is something else going on?
W: Like what?
C: People just relate to him better than they do to you. It might be sexism. It might be the idea that you patronize people, and he doesn’t. I’m not saying that’s true, necessarily, but it could well be a common perception.
W: I have to hope that the American people are better than that. If they aren’t, we’re all in trouble.
C: Bernie calls himself a socialist. Do you think that’s accurate?
W: By the dictionary definition, definitely not. He doesn’t support widespread nationalizations. He wants a larger and better welfare state, less inequality, and more control of business. For that matter, so do I.
C: You have been careful to call yourself a capitalist. Why the difference?
W: First of all, I truly do believe in capitalism. Second, the word scares the hell out of a lot of Americans. It’s a tactical mistake to use it.
C: Do you think it is a distinction with a difference?
W: Yes. It’s not just semantic. Bernie views things through an ideological lens. I’m more data driven. We’re both determined to make America work better, but I relate more to FDR making capitalism succeed, and Bernie wants to make America look like Denmark.
C: In a tactical sense, you do agree with him on the “revolution,” don’t you?
W: If what you mean by that is a class-based appeal to people who either haven’t voted in the past, and to people who don’t vote their economic interests, yes. We can’t win and get a truly progressive agenda through the system without it.
C: Do you view the wealthy as your enemies? Take, for example, Michael Bloomberg. He’s a social liberal, and he’s spending a fortune to elect Democrats. Should he be viewed as a bad guy?
W: Here’s one of the areas in which I don’t agree with Bernie. Bernie would see him as a class enemy, period. To me, there’s nothing wrong with being a successful capitalist. Unlike Trump, Bloomberg actually built his own empire, and has done a lot of good with it. I think we as a nation should celebrate that, not condemn it. That said, I also think we need to limit his wealth to avoid corrupting the democratic process. That’s a practical, not a moral, judgment.
C: The other side of that coin is what we call the white working class. How do you plan to appeal to the kind of people that Hillary called “deplorables?” They violently disagree with you on values issues–how can you possibly change their minds?
W: It’s a tough issue, no doubt. I think the key is to avoid playing small ball on economics, and to offer them something they genuinely think would significantly improve their lives. That’s the only hope.
C: Thanks for your time. I’ll be back next week to ask you about some of your specific policies.
W: I’ll try to have Bailey here next time.