I agree with you, and I actually think that Edsall probably does too. I think he's using some creative arguments that, while perhaps unconvincing, are his attempt to try to lure conservative into the debate. From what I know of his writing, of which I am normally a fan, he is a center left thinker who doesn't normally shy away from telling conservatives how wrong they are on the issue of inequality. I think he's using flattery for their 'ideas' to try to convince them that we need them to help to rectify the centuries of wrongs in this country. The mainstream conservative movement seems intransigent on the issue of poor people, but at some point they need to be engaged to be won over (or maybe they'll all die; I suspect, however, that's too hopeful, as young liberals will grow up to be conservative replacements for the deceased as soon as they inherit mommy and daddy's estate). The other alternative, of course, is that low income people can be both educated and convinced to vote in numbers that actually make a difference.
I'll take your word for it. If I'm not intended as the article's audience, it's okay that the article struck me as idiotic and tone deaf. I think the conservatives are fucked, frankly. Mommy & Daddy are a lot less likely to have an estate in this day and age (granted, if they have one it's likely to be bigger than grandpa's). That's the bugbear of wealth concentration - fewer Joneses, easier to keep up with. Every analysis I've seen points to the fact that Millenials are investing less and saving more than any generation since the Great Depression... a demographic like that doesn't swing for trickledown they swing for socialism. Meanwhile, they're growing up not really caring about gay marriage, living in a country that's steadily legalizing marijuana and in an environment where "terrorists" are the closest we can get to a bodily enemy but giant corporations surround them to fuck up their day.