The Abundance Movement

A couple months ago I interviewed Derek Thompson about his book with co-author Ezra Klein, Abundance. It was, in many ways, a positive, wonky book about reducing red tape and enabling ‘a liberalism that builds,’ literally and figuratively, to solve today’s problems. I’ve been supportive of many of these ideas as I agree that making government work better is a laudable goal. And their argument has filled a need, as “Abundance” has been on the bestseller list now for 10 straight weeks.

In early May, more than a dozen members of Congress in both parties launched the Build America Caucus that was explicitly inspired by the ‘abundance movement.’ The new caucus is meant to focus on energy permitting and enabling housing and infrastructure to be built.

So, we’re all good, right?

Of course not. We’re talking about politics here.

Ezra and Derek have been attacked as anti-government, libertarians, tools of big corporations, and reheated neoliberals among other mean things, mostly from the left. Why? Because their critique is a different one than that brandished by most on the ideological left, which generally holds that big companies and the wealthy are the string-pullers keeping good things from happening, not government being bad at doing things. It is not lost on these critics that Ezra and Derek are straight white guys, albeit self-proclaimed liberals who write for the New York Times and the Atlantic.

Why are these attacks so animated? Jonathan Chait in the Atlantic notes, “The abundance agenda is a collection of policy reforms designed to make it easier to build housing and infrastructure and for government bureaucracy to work . . . the abundance agenda contains a radical critique of the past half century of American government . . . it is a direct attack on the constellation of activist organizations, often called ‘the groups,’ that control progressive politics and have significant influence over the Democratic Party.”

Jonathan goes on to pose a question regarding various failed policy launches: “Why was everything slower, more expensive, and more dysfunctional in states and cities controlled by Democrats?” And what happened to the government that built the Hoover Dam or the Golden Gate Bridge?

Chait asserts that limits on government remain a core part of the interest-group politics that have dominated the Democratic Party’s progressive wing for decades now. This form of progressivism consists largely of citizens groups utilizing influence and lawsuits. These interest groups and lawyers have over time become pretty good at keeping government from doing things. But they may have become a little too adept. As Chait puts it, “[the groups] sought to prevent the government from doing harm, but in too many cases, they ended up preventing it from doing anything at all.”

As an example, all of the environment regulations and associated lawsuits have made it nearly impossible to build new energy infrastructure that would help address climate change. Hence, Joe Biden’s energy revolution, in its first several years, struggled to actually build charging stations or anything else. There are many similar examples in infrastructure going back at least to the Obama administration.

To Chait, the attack on the abundance agenda is not just tribalism as usual but “the logical outgrowth of a well-developed belief system.” Progressive groups believe that citizen empowerment is the key. The government is assumed to be potentially malevolent and subject to corrupt influence. Empowering government is not exactly the goal.

Who should determine how and when to build, the government or the groups? If a lawsuit is brought that will gum up a housing development for years, what is the right recourse? Progressivism and abundance come up with very different answers.

Chait observes that the abundance agenda does have a few political upsides. It addresses the lack of faith in public services. It could bring down costs. It seeks to make the state better at things. And it actually could provide a positive vision of the future. He forecasts a civil war in the Democratic Party over the vision of the abundance movement versus that of traditional progressive groups, who see the abundance bros as either naïve or corrupt or both. The abundance agenda could become the de facto policy platform of the moderates of the Democratic Party and is already being embraced by many figures who represent that wing.

I feel for Ezra and Derek, who I think are leveling a very sincere and well-founded critique that identifies the frustrations held by many Americans. I’m not sure they realized that they would be setting off an ideological civil war based on their wonky analysis of why government can’t build anymore. What leftists don’t seem to realize is that if government could actually do things, we could have a more honest conversation about who gets what instead of simply presiding over an inept government that can’t deliver and is breeding further mistrust. I remember when I was running for President hearing from people, “I like the idea of healthcare for everyone, but I’m not sure I trust the government to make that happen without fouling it up.” That’s not a great environment for big solutions.

Versions of this critique arose before Abundance, including Recoding America by Jen Pahlka, Why Nothing Works by Marc Dunkelman, and Stuck by Yoni Appelbaum. I interviewed each of these authors, read their books, and recommend them all. But none of them was as big a deal as Ezra and Derek. Still, multiple people have come to the same conclusion, including Jen Pahlka who was the U.S. Deputy CTO and spent years in government trying to deliver better services. Red tape truly is holding us back.

Why is the abundance movement restricted to the Democratic Party? John Arnold, a philanthropist, noted “Every governor/mayor, regardless of party, faces challenges related to housing, energy and transportation. Abundance is being presented as the Democratic solution when it should be framed simply as the solution.”

At least one commentator asked Ezra and Derek, “What do you think the odds are that the Democratic Party will actually make these changes? Wouldn’t you be better off advocating for a third party?” One of the major weaknesses for Democrats right now is that they are unlikely to get a majority in the U.S. Senate for the foreseeable future, which makes any Dem-led legislation unlikely. Ezra has been saying in interviews that he thinks a third force in politics is a good idea, in part because he sees the need to compete in places that the Dems are uncompetitive, which right now is a pretty big chunk of the country.

I am pumped that Ezra and Derek made an explicitly political case and set off to meaningfully answer the question, “Why are Americans so fed up?” Including outcomes is an enormous development instead of trying to win the argument or morality play of the day. Outcomes in the United States have been getting worse in terms of the affordability of housing, healthcare, a college degree, childcare, and a lot of other staples of American life. Why are we saddled with such dysfunction? Unaccountable bureaucracy is one big barrier. Corporate interests are another. They're both valid.

But another one staring us in the face is a polarized two-party system that will continue to push solutions out of reach. Abundance will have to be more than a new faction of the Democratic Party to achieve its goals. And a desire for abundance stretches far and wide well beyond party lines. It might even help erase them.

For my interview of Misha Chellam, founder of the Abundance Network, a group dedicated to making government work locally, click here. To see what Forward is doing in your State to create a new option, click here.