The recent defeat of Kamala Harris has sparked intense debate within the Democratic party, focusing on both political missteps and policy failures. Much of this centers around Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s book, *Abundance*, which argues that Democrats have failed to deliver on material prosperity, citing issues like inadequate housing in blue states and infrastructure projects consistently falling behind schedule and over budget. This argument echoes the concerns of numerous commentators, policy experts, and activist groups, collectively labeled as ‘abundance liberalism’.
However, a segment of the left distrusts this movement, viewing it as a threat to progressive influence and worker power. They posit a false dichotomy: Democrats must choose between abundance reforms and populist ones – tackling red tape or corporate greed. A recent Demand Progress poll, a progressive non-profit, suggests voters favor the populist approach, preferring a candidate focused on corporate power over one addressing regulatory bottlenecks.
This poll, however, is not without its flaws. Demand Progress’s inherent mission to combat corporate power inherently biases the results. The survey’s framing also subtly favors the anti-corporate message, potentially skewing the outcome. While populist rhetoric might resonate more politically, the true value of ‘abundance’ policies lies in their tangible benefits, not just their rhetorical appeal.
The case for ‘abundance’ policies rests on addressing significant Democratic governance failures. Blue states consistently grapple with housing shortages and high homelessness rates. Infrastructure projects, from high-speed rail to simple public toilets, are plagued by delays and exorbitant costs. Even at the federal level, initiatives like the investment in electric vehicle charging stations have fallen far short of expectations.
Klein and Thompson attribute these issues partly to restrictive zoning laws and lengthy environmental reviews, which often allow special interests to obstruct progress. The consequences of these failures are significant: They damage the Democrats’ reputation for economic competence, fuel conservative narratives about government inefficiency, and, most critically, are driving voters from blue to red states, threatening the Democrats’ electoral viability. The shift in population could lead to a situation where Democrats win the popular vote but still lose the presidency.
The Demand Progress poll attempts to discredit the argument for ‘abundance’ reforms, but it misses the mark. The actual argument isn’t about which message wins elections, but about the real-world consequences of policy choices. To refute the case for ‘abundance’, one must demonstrate that these reforms won’t actually increase the supply of housing, energy, and infrastructure, or that increased supply won’t translate into greater support for the Democrats, or that population shifts will continue regardless of policy changes.
The idea that Democrats must choose between an ‘abundance’ agenda and a populist one is fundamentally flawed. There’s no inherent conflict between antitrust enforcement and easing restrictions on housing construction; in fact, both promote competition. Furthermore, ‘abundance’ policies can complement progressive goals. Increased housing construction generates more tax revenue for social programs. Economic growth spurred by regulatory reforms creates more wealth available for redistribution.
While some trade-offs might exist, particularly concerning specific union interests or environmental priorities, policies benefiting a small segment of workers at the expense of a larger population aren’t truly pro-labor. Similarly, prioritizing limitations on oil and gas supply, even if environmentally sound, isn’t necessarily a populist stance. The ‘abundance’ debate is primarily about effective governance, not just campaign messaging.
Ultimately, the focus should be on the substance of ‘abundance’ liberalism, not just its political appeal. While knowing whether a policy is popular is helpful, understanding its accuracy is crucial. Democrats can campaign against corporate malfeasance regardless of their stance on zoning or permitting. However, if their understanding of the underlying problems is flawed, their policies will continue to fail working people.
