(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Elizabeth Warren is climbing in the polls, propelled in part by a flurry of policy proposals, each detailed in blog post by the candidate. Issued at regular intervals, covering everything from wealth taxes to child care to agriculture, her proposals are part of a smart strategy that has helped distinguish Warren in a crowded Democratic field.
They are more than that, though. They embody a new and potentially transformational approach to politics — one that represents not just an alternative to President Donald Trump, but a fundamental break with Barack Obama.
Warren describes her vision as “big, structural change,” but if anything she is understating the case. In the past several presidential campaigns, Americans have been told that they face a choice of historic importance. Republicans said it was between socialism and capitalism; Democrats said it was between a diverse, cosmopolitan society and a closed ethno-nationalist one.
These frames emerged from a genuine anxiety about social and economic change. Yet neither defined an actual path forward. Warren, in contrast, is offering a vision of a government that is at once more responsive and more intrusive.
Consider Warren’s plan to cancel student loan debt and make college free. It would spend $640 billion to eliminate the outstanding debt of nearly 34 million Americans and reduce the debt of 9 million more. It would then allocate $600 billion over 10 years not only to make college tuition free but to fund room and board for students from low-income and middle-class families.
In this and other proposals, Warren is laying out her vision for America. It sounds exactly like what a presidential candidate is supposed to do, and in many ways it is. The problem, however, is this: As American politics are increasingly polarized, and as that polarization is increasingly focused on the president, the inherent limits of the office are being overlooked.
Presidents always claim a mandate from the voters for their policy ideas. But turning them into law means getting the approval of Congress, where they are subject to the idiosyncratic preferences and agendas of high-ranking senators and representatives.
This used to be a bipartisan process, but it hasn’t been for a while. Recall that Obama, although he campaigned on health care, at first ceded the issue to Congress and resisted associating himself too closely with the Affordable Care Act, hoping that a legislative consensus would emerge. When partisan polarization made that impossible, he and his fellow Democrats eventually embraced the term “Obamacare,” which was first used derisively by Republicans.
Trump, meanwhile, has bold ambitions but only a vague sense of how to achieve them. Nonetheless, there is no doubt he controls the party. Hyper-polarization means that even Republicans who have doubts about Trump’s agenda are forced to at least superficially embrace it or face a backlash from party voters.
What does all this have to do with Warren? Well, she has Trump’s penchant for bold ideas that go beyond party orthodoxy, and Obama’s focus on detail. The combination could energize her supporters and opponents in ways that makes the politics of the recent past look positively tame.
Consider Warren’s approach to abortion, one of the most contentious issues in U.S. politics and an emerging flashpoint in the upcoming election. Currently the dispute is whether state laws restricting abortion violate the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade. Conservatives hope that the court will overturn its decision, thus returning the issue to the states to debate. Warren would pre-empt that fight by codifying the constitutional rights identified by the Supreme Court into federal law.
The immediate impact of such a law would be victory for the pro-choice movement. The lasting impact, however, would be to make the abortion debate even more hostage to the vagaries of national politics. A future president and Congress could reverse Warren’s measure and replace it with national restrictions on access to abortion.
Contrast Warren’s approach to that of her Democratic colleague and opponent Kamala Harris, who would allow states to legislate on abortion but with Justice Department oversight. Both would use the federal government to further their cause, but Warren’s method would foreclose other possibilities. It is a characteristic common to many of her other proposals, such as turning the major tech companies into public utilities.
Elizabeth Warren’s approach could very well succeed in making the government more responsive. And she isn’t to blame for the harsh polarization that afflicts national politics. Nevertheless, the sheer scope and detail of her proposals would bring that divisiveness and acrimony into more aspects of American life.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Newman at mnewman43@bloomberg.net
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Karl W. Smith is a former assistant professor of economics at the University of North Carolina's school of government and founder of the blog Modeled Behavior.
©2019 Bloomberg L.P.