If I were Elizabeth Warren, I would make the case for her new taxes, spending programs, and regulatory schemes as follows:
- In the 18th and early 19th centuries, there were no issues with excessive corporate economic and political power, as the country was small, transportation and communications were slow, and land was readily available. The US was really a mosaic of tiny local markets and governments, not a single market, as it is today.
- That changed as the country grew and was linked together by the railroads and the telegraph. The reforms of the Progressive Era were, in large part, an appropriate response to excessive corporate power arising from the creation of the single national market and new forms of wealth.
- Similarly, when the shortcomings of laissez-faire became obvious during the Great Depression, the government responded by creating the beginnings of the welfare state and by vastly increasing its powers over corporations and the economy as a whole.
- Once again, the natural drift to oligarchy, as described by Piketty, has characterized the American economy and political system since 1980. It’s time for a third wave of regulations and welfare state improvements to update an outdated system and make it work for everyone. That isn’t socialism; it’s the way we’ve successfully responded to systemic problems in the past.
To me, when you put Warren’s program in that historical context, it becomes much more persuasive to people who are skeptical of radical change. Given her problems with identity politics, I’m not sure reframing the argument would make that much difference, but it would definitely be worth a try.