Hard to believe, I know. And many here will say, "Never!" That said, let's take a look at what is happening right now in the framing department...
Today brings us this article from The New York Times about Clinton seeking the input of "more than 200 policy experts" to help her define "how to address the anger about income inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy. "
Economic Plan Is a Quandary for Hillary Clinton’s Campaign
Behind many of these proposals is a philosophy, endorsed by Mrs. Clinton’s closest economic advisers and often referred to as inclusive capitalism, that contends that a majority of Americans do not want to punish the rich; they just want to feel that they, too, have a chance to succeed.
...
“It’s not enough to address upward mobility without addressing inequality,” said Lawrence H. Summers, a Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration who is among those talking with Mrs. Cllinton. “The challenge, though, is to address inequality without embracing a politics of envy.”
...
Last month in Washington, a 17-person commission convened by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank with close ties to Mrs. Clinton, presented a 166-page report on “inclusive prosperity,” which is among the numerous economic blueprints Mrs. Clinton has reviewed. For some, the solutions proposed by the committee, of which Mr. Summers was co-chairman, did not go far enough.
Regardless of who the "more than 200 policy experts" are (and what points of view they represent), is there any doubt in the minds of most politically-informed Democrats that Clinton is most likely to settle on the prescription laid out by Summers and his think tank?
These centrist/Third Way/former-DLC retreads are proposing what amounts to a faux populist strategy that lives in fear of being accused by the other side of "class warfare." (Thus, Summers' comment about "the politics of envy.") It's a strategy designed to thread the needle between a populist campaign and the corporate-loving/stroke-the-one-percent policies of the neoliberal class that have been in place since Bill Clinton's victory in 1992.
What this strategy misses, of course, is the actual public anger at income inequality in this country.
The most recent Gallup poll on the subject found 67% of Americans are dissatisfied with income distribution. A Pew survey found that 78% of Americans think income inequality is a significant issue.
Interestingly, the Pew survey also asked this question:
What is the most important reason for the gap between the rich and poor in our country today?
Tied for the number one answer were:
Government - 24%
Some work harder than others - 24%
Seventeen percent said "our educational system," and, surprisingly, only 13% said "workers' pay."
And now let's look at what the GOP economic populist argument is likely to be. (And, yes, it will be a mountain of lies, but it will be told convincingly and with passion and with the backing of billions of dollars in marketing.)
From Jeb Bush's speech in Detroit last week:
"Far too many Americans live on the edge of economic ruin," he said. "And many more feel like they’re stuck in place: Working longer, and harder, even as they’re losing ground. Tens of millions of Americans no longer see a clear path to rise above their challenges.
“Something is holding them back," he continued. "Not a lack of ambition. Not a lack of hope. Not because they’re lazy, or see themselves as victims. Something else. Something is an artificial weight on their shoulders. ... Today, Americans across the country are frustrated. They see only a small portion of the population riding the economy’s 'up' escalator."
Sure, it's all rhetoric, but there are the inklings of a GOP economic populism platform. And who will the enemy be? The government, of course, and a Democratic president's government, in particular.
Read today's piece from conservative columnist, Jack Kelly.
For Most Of Us, There's No "Recovery"
...
If it weren’t for gains made by the well off, there wouldn’t be a “recovery.” Five years after it began, the top 1 percent of earners (more than $366,623 a year) had garnered 81 percent of its fruits. The incomes of the top one-tenth of 1 percent (about $8 million a year) grew 39 percent.
The incomes of the bottom 90 percent declined...
Most of us get nearly all our income from our jobs. Only 44 percent of adults work 30 hours or more a week, according to Gallup’s survey of the work force. Ten million fewer are working now than when Barack Obama became president.
...
About 20 percent of employers are cutting back on new hires and worker hours to avoid onerous provisions in Obamacare, surveys by Federal Reserve banks in New York and Dallas indicate.
...
The 7,805 regulations issued by the Obama administration through December will boost to $1.88 trillion the cost of complying with federal rules this year...
Federal regulations reduce economic growth by as much as 12 percent...
... the burst of regulatory activity during the Obama administration has cost 546,000 jobs. More than 2,000 additional rules are in the pipeline.
According to Pew, the government and one's inability to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps are the top two reasons Americans cite for our income inequality. Sound familiar?
Sure, it sounds farfetched to believe that a Democratic presidential candidate could be outflanked on economic/income inequality by a Republican. But given the cautious, corporate-friendly nature of Hillary Clinton, compounded by her inclination to surround herself with neoliberal retreads whose policies helped get us to the state of economic inequality we are in today, I think it is possible that she could be outflanked.
The Republican will claim that he is the hero of the middle class, and the ever-skittish Clinton campaign, terrified of being accused of "class warfare" (and terrified of ostracizing her deep pocket backers), will run a campaign designed "not to lose" rather than a campaign designed to win.
I am nowhere near as confident in her ability to pull this off as Markos is. Given what we've seen to this point, I think a Clinton run is a crapshoot, despite what current polls suggest.