Hillary Clinton will be the heavy favorite to win the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2016 should she enter the race. And unlike in 2008, she will not have to contend with a once-in-a-generation candidate like Barack Obama, who mixed excellent strategy, soaring speeches, and deep personal appeal to defeat her. The conventional wisdom remains that she blew the race, but this view overlooks the President’s remarkable campaign and unique talent.

But if Hillary Clinton does run in 2016, she will face a challenge from the left. Her commitment to an active, affirmative role for the United States in promoting American, international, and global security and justice will be challenged by those on the left who favor a withdrawal from America’s international responsibilities regardless of how many hundreds of thousands of Syrians must die or girls in Afghanistan must live under the Taliban. But given the strength of her convictions on US foreign policy, it seems clear that she will not buckle to the populist pressure of liberal nationalists who want to focus on nation-building at home and ignore injustice and growing threats abroad.

The most important populist challenge she will face will not be on foreign policy, but on economics, and Senator Elizabeth Warren would be its most formidable spokeswoman should she enter the race. Warren’s forceful critique of the economic injustice that is coming to define this Second Gilded Age and the political cronyism that has shaped and supported it may redefine progressivism, giving it a more populist edge, and push Clinton to embrace similar rhetoric and an economic agenda that is tougher on Wall Street and more focused on the needs of working class and middle class Americans. And that would be a good thing—for Clinton and the country.
Embed from Getty Images

Populism is often maligned by elites, who focus on some of its uglier manifestations: bigoted, xenophobic distrust of the other (often immigrants and minorities); anti-intellectualism and a disdain for empirical evidence; parochialism; and a backward-looking mentality. But populism has also been a force for good in American history—lifting up the voices and interests of everyday Americans whose dignity is threatened by elite domination.

In fact, many of the finest progressive accomplishments in the 20^th century were first proposed by populists. While elites enriched themselves with sleeping consciences during the Gilded Age, populists proposed numerous steps that would help to build a more just country, from regulating railroads to a progressive income tax. Populist progressives delivered new protections for workers and consumers.

And populists did not stop at proposing policy reform. They also recognized the need for political reform—how essential it was to change the way government worked at a structural level. They proposed the initiative, referendum, and the direct election of US Senators, all designed to transfer power away from corporate interests to the people.

That is precisely what is needed today. Economic policies that benefit the majority are unlikely to pass if real campaign finance reform is not undertaken and upheld by the Supreme Court. Redistricting reform is essential to halting the absurd gerrymandering made even more efficient by modern technology. Primary reform is needed to re-empower Independents who have fled our two flawed parties.

We also need an economic agenda that will help to reignite social mobility, strengthen the American family, and fix the social safety net and secure its future. Workers need a living wage. Middle class families need greater economic security. The poor need policies that will help them find jobs that can lift them out of poverty and envision a greater future for their children. We need 21^st century infrastructure and tax policies that serve the common good. This calls for a progressive agenda, but one rooted in populism, rather than one that maximizes growth but decimates the middle class and leaves the poor behind in order to augment the wealth of economic elites.

The Democratic Party has an elite problem. Too few Democrats have shown a willingness to fight for everyday Americans, instead campaigning on issues that only seem designed to please liberal special interest groups. The coastal elites that dominate the party have been quick to place social libertarianism at the center of their agenda and slow to find real solutions to the problems facing the average American family.

Hillary Clinton has shown communitarian impulses in the past, and she has praised Warren’s efforts to fight for economic justice against plutocratic elites. By embracing a more populist economic and political agenda, Clinton could expand the Democratic Party’s appeal to middle class and working class voters. This is particularly true if Clinton attempts to restore the big tent approach to the Democratic party and find common ground with the nearly one-third of the Democratic party that is pro-life, perhaps by making it a goal to reduce the number of abortions, which the vast majority of the public supports.

By welcoming back those who have felt alienated as the party has adopted an extreme position on abortion and eradicated conscience clauses from its platform in order to please social libertarian elites (whose position incidentally is held by roughly 10% of the country), Clinton might begin to knit together a majority coalition built around an agenda designed to make the economy work for all Americans. She can redefine the Democratic Party and perhaps upend the status quo in our dysfunctional political system and deliver real change.