By Peter Nicholas
DES MOINES, Iowa--A schism is emerging among Democrats over the
party's economic message, pitting those who favor policies that
foster broad economic growth against others rallying behind Sen.
Elizabeth Warren's call for a focus on income inequality.
Ms. Warren's growing prominence on the national stage has fed
the debate, with her supporters pressing her to run for the
Democratic nomination in 2016 to elevate issues such as corporate
influence and the share of wealth controlled by the nation's
richest households.
The liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org hosted an event in Iowa on
Wednesday night aimed at showcasing support for Ms. Warren in the
state that holds the nation's first presidential contest. MoveOn
also plans to spend $1 million on its "Draft Warren" effort and is
hiring staff in Iowa, New Hampshire and possibly other states that
hold early primaries.
It seems doubtful at this stage that Ms. Warren will go along.
She has said she is backing former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, telling National Public Radio earlier this week, "I am not
running for president." Yet in sticking to the present tense, as
NPR's Steve Inskeep pointed out, she suggested she hasn't entirely
ruled it out.
As they eye Ms. Warren's rising profile, some Democrats are
warning that broad swaths of voters will reject her focus on
economic inequality. "In a world where there are more
self-described conservatives than there are self-described
liberals, is having a campaign that only tries to win by appealing
to your base the right strategy?" asked Jack Markell, the
Democratic governor of Delaware. "I would argue it's not."
Mr. Markell, who hasn't yet endorsed a candidate for the 2016
election, said the next Democratic nominee has to reach
independents and "some Republicans, as well. In my mind, an agenda
around [economic] growth is the most likely message to do
that."
Unclear amid the debate is what tone and policy profile Mrs.
Clinton would adopt should she run for president. Just as Ms.
Warren, a Massachusetts senator, has come to symbolize the
Democrats' liberal wing, Mrs. Clinton is rooted in the ranks of
business-friendly centrists, many of whom believe Warren-style
populism is a risky electoral strategy.
For years, the liberal and moderate strands of the party largely
minimized differences and kept a united front amid Republican
resistance to President Barack Obama's agenda. But the uneasy
alliance has become strained after the midterm elections, in which
the party suffered deep losses.
A sign of the split is stepped-up calls for Ms. Warren to jump
in the presidential race. Some 300 lower-level former Obama
campaign aides are lining up behind the Massachusetts senator,
signing a recent letter describing her as someone who would "take
on the Wall Street banks and special interests" and tackle "rising
inequality," which they called the "challenge of our times."
A liberal advocacy group called Democracy for America is sinking
$250,000 into the effort to draft Ms. Warren. Yet the group's
founder, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, has endorsed Mrs.
Clinton.
Ms. Warren gained fresh attention last week, mounting an
unsuccessful campaign in the Senate to scuttle a provision in a
$1.1 trillion spending bill that will loosen parts of the
Dodd-Frank financial-regulation law that passed in Mr. Obama's
first term.
In her attempt to do away with the provision, she employed the
sort of language that leaves liberals enthralled and centrists
unnerved. Taking aim at Citigroup Inc., a recipient of
taxpayer-financed bailout money during the financial crisis, Ms.
Warren said in a speech on the Senate floor: "Washington already
works really well for the billionaires and the big corporations and
the lawyers and the lobbyists. ...What about the families who are
living paycheck to paycheck and saw their tax dollars go to bail
out Citi just six years ago?"
Ms. Warren decried what she cast as a revolving door between
Citi and the top ranks of the U.S. Treasury Department, saying the
bank has too much political and economic clout.
"We're at a crossroads: The rich the ones at the very top are
getting wealthier and wealthier," Ilya Sheyman, executive director
of MoveOn, told roughly 100 people at the event in Des Moines. "The
middle class and those struggling to get into it are falling
further and further behind....This is a moment for Elizabeth
Warren."
Those aligned with Ms. Warren call for policies that would
increase the minimum wage, raise taxes on wealthy households and
subject Wall Street firms to tighter regulation.
While embracing some of those goals, others in the party tout
policies that would strengthen education, improve roads and
bridges, and promote exports. And they describe businesses as more
of a partner in a joint endeavor to expand economic opportunity
than a special interest to be tamed.
In the midterm elections, many Democrats made a minimum-wage
increase the centerpiece of their campaigns. Rep. John Delaney (D.,
Md.), who has warned against rhetoric that winds up "demonizing the
private sector," said the message must be more encompassing.
"You cannot anchor your whole economic message around" the
minimum wage, he said, "because in fact it doesn't affect a lot of
Americans, and it doesn't get at the heart of the issue: Creating
more middle-skill jobs where people can have a decent standard of
living and feel like their kids have opportunity."
In her recent book, "Hard Choices," Mrs. Clinton wrote about her
efforts as secretary of state to boost exports and help U.S.
businesses gain access to foreign markets, in the interest of
creating jobs at home.
At the same time, she has begun sprinkling her speeches with
populist themes. "Our democracy is supposed to work for everyone,
not just the privileged few," Mrs. Clinton said this fall at a
campaign appearance in Kentucky. "But, more and more--you know
this, you feel it, you live it--the scales are weighted against
working families."
Mrs. Clinton also has been hinting that she would like to bridge
the divide between the party's left and centrist blocs. "I love
watching Elizabeth giving it to those who deserve to get it," she
said at a campaign rally in October for former Massachusetts
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley.
Janet Hook contributed to this article.