Warren Reports is happy to read comments of Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Caucus,

“The agenda we have is about restoring economic security to a very vulnerable middle class. The real activity will be in those areas."

Sounds like something right off these pages, eh?

Still, it is worth a moment to consider the implications of this sort of rhetoric, now that it is ascendant. The emphasis is not on lifting up those at the bottom. No, this strategy is about ensuring that those in the middle don't backslide into the bottom. Uncharitably, this could be called The Stasis Agenda.

Contrast that with the change-oriented rhetoric of John Edwards' "two Americas" refrain. He sees a bi-polar America and calls for expanding opportunity for those at the bottom.

"It's wrong we have 37 million Americans living in poverty. Poverty is the great moral issue of our time, and we all have an obligation to do something about it.''

At least in tenor, this is a more progressive (and divisive) sort of rhetoric. Which is right? ...

Of course, as a matter of policy, we probably need to do a lot of both. All the progress will be for naught, if people just slid back into poverty at the first trouble. On the other hand, it seems that the more we succeed in giving the middle class a lock on their position, it may be harder to persuade middle class voters that we need to help the poor. The risk that any of us could be there someday is part of what motivates the social contract.

It is also quite possible that Emanuel and Edwards are in complete agreement about the policy, but that they are simply choosing different rhetorical devices.  As a matter of political rhetoric, it remains to be seen whether Emanuel's (relative) conservativism or Edward's progressivism is the better match for contemporary American voters.

Benefiting the Emanuel approach is the long-standing tendency of almost all Americans to think that they are in the middle class.

It also doesn't hurt his strategy that the poorest Americans tend not to vote. For example, "in the 2000 presidential election only 38 percent of Americans with incomes less than $10,000 voted compared to 75 percent of those with incomes over$75,000." (David Shipler, The Working Poor, 278, cited here (pdf).)

And then there is the endowment effect noted by psychologists. Once someone has something, they feel a special entitlement to it. In this sense, Emanuel's approach may have a stronger tug on us, since he promises to protect us from losing what we already have.