I'm not going to get off topic, but this is an effort for moderate, pro-growth Democrats to wrest the party away from the AOC and the identity-focused wing of the Democrats. It's fascinating to follow.
Abundance Agenda mega-thread
- Thread starter Nole Lou
- Start date
I'm not going to get off topic, but this is an effort for moderate, pro-growth Democrats to wrest the party away from the AOC and the identity-focused wing of the Democrats. It's fascinating to follow.
Yep, I will listen to this for sure. This book, and these authors, are basically the rallying point around this movement right now.
the issue is going to be that "moderate dems" seem to have very little interest in 1) anything that represents real change, 2) local politics
and what you're talking about is going to take a lot of both
I don't know. I'm not a Democrat or a liberal, so obviously I favor more moderate Dems like Shapiro and Polis. But to my knowledge no national Democrat has really thrown in with an abundance/YIMBY agenda. There are plenty of obstacles to it, it will be interesting if any Democrat has the balls or the strength to do it.
The abundance agenda folks really butt up against:
- Social justice/identity politics people, since they almost universally favor de-emphasizing unpopular social positions like trans athletes and reparations, in favor of actually winning elections and governing. They also oppose government mandated social justice set asides/regulations in building, which considerably handcuffs development.
- Environmentalist groups, as abundance Dems favor weakening NEPA, and in general there are environmental groups who sue to stop every possible development, including green energy infrastructure
- Socialist/Anti-capitalist/Anti-growth types. I'm not talking about bigger social safety net "socialists", as many abundance democrats favor a robust and even larger social safety net. I'm talking about true blue "being a landlord should be illegal", "free housing is a human right" type socialists. There aren't very many of these people, but they are way over-represented online.
- Career bureaucrats
Any number of those things may have limited voter traction, but add them together and they make up a formidable part of the base and Democratic machinery.
The trans issue has got to come up with a happy middle ground. Abundance and environmental concerns can go together and must in Iowa due to commercial agriculture methods.
In ag, I'm not a proponent of solar and wind on prime farmland, nor next to homes. There is a segment of the population that is harmed by them nearby. Neither are quiet. The soil damage done during construction is awful. The concrete isn't coming out. But the need is there.
As a farm manager, I don't know why anyone would ever sign a contract if owners really understood what they are signing. Nuclear, I've extensively traveled Ukraine and the social/environmental damage is real. I used to take a radiation meter with me. I'd find hotspots. Once my flight went right over Chernobyl. I was reading about 700 clicks per minute which is normal for flights as we descended to Borispyl Kyiv. We were at 10000 feet and went right over the reactor. This was after the dome was installed. It went up to 3500 clicks and dropped to normal 60-70 (background in most areas including Iowa) as we cleared Chernobyl airspace. The reading should have been dropping from 700, not raising.
Which republicans have starved the high speed rail project in California?
What you are saying is true...but this is the alternative. The third way is don't do anything - government works great, Democratic run cities and states do not have a housing or building problem, environmental review isn't holding up infrastructure, it's good that states can't do the proposed burns to prevent fires because NEPA review takes seven years, etc.
i bet if you dig into that a little deeper, the areas of the state that are losing or gaining population aren't exactly in line with how the state votes overall
gerrymandering is a thing, but i'm not sure that's necessarily a disaster for democrats (which is what I'm assuming is the intended point)
Or maybe the answer for most things need to be both. Private companies to do the work and government to make sure the private companies are doing the work properly. Right now, you have a party performing a complete removal of the checks to make sure work is done safely and properly.
I'm sorry, you're just never going to sell me on "California isn't building enough housing and can't complete rail projects because of Republicans."
@Nole Lou did you listen to Ezras latest pod? Great stuff about what you are fascinated about. I think we are on the same page following this and what’s going on in the Democratic Party. He will also be on the Gavin Newsome Pod next week which should be some good listening.
I would love if Ezra ran for presidency haha. If he is on someone’s campaign they would be top of my list unless the person he is running the campaign for was a total scumbag like Trump. (Which I doubt because Ezra has integrity)
Another incredible read on the subject, in the form of a book review, from someone that has been banging this drum a long time. In fact, one of his pieces was probably the first thing I posted on the subject years ago.
www.noahpinion.blog
Book review: "Abundance"
In which Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson offer a whole new way of thinking about political economy.
www.noahpinion.blog
hawkeyetraveler
HB Heisman
OP thanks for getting this thread going and providing all the resources. Great stuff. I truly think this is a winning play. So many moderates in both parties want something like this.Another incredible read on the subject, in the form of a book review, from someone that has been banging this drum a long time. In fact, one of his pieces was probably the first thing I posted on the subject years ago.
Book review: "Abundance"
In which Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson offer a whole new way of thinking about political economy.
I agree. I know a third party is DOA in the US...but if there was ever an idea to build a third party around, this would be it. The issue would pull a ton of people from both parties in a way no third party attempt has in my lifetime.
I don't think there is a third party path to "let's be more moderate."
But with this as an animating policy principle with hard platforms? Could be very interesting. It's both super wonkish, but also super populist. Who doesn't want more of everything?
It's funny, but you had two two-term presidents back to back, one from each party, who had the overwhelming support of their party, who believed in and ran on the ability of the government to be lean, efficient, effective and yet robust enough to deliver serious benefits to Americans. They may have differed on specifics, but both Clinton and Bush embraced that concept of government. Nobody can pretend that wasn't a winning message in both parties.
Now you have a Republican party seemingly bent on the destruction/dismantling of government for it's own sake (virtually nothing DOGE has done increases efficiency) no matter what the department's purpose or mission is, and a Democratic party captured by special interests that marry it to anti-growth, anti-capitalist inertia.
This one is pretty heavy, a bit more esoteric, but a pretty good read about how we can't seem to get things that the majority clearly wants.
www.nationalaffairs.com
Minoritarianism Is Everywhere
The left in America has long accused the right of advancing minority rule and rejecting the principles of democracy. Though there is some truth to that charge, it applies as much to the left itself as it does to the right. A closer look at housing an...
www.nationalaffairs.com
Finally listed to this, it's fantastic and a great introduction to the premise.
Ok this is almost all focused on the Democrats, because I actually have hope for them adopting an organized policy agenda in this area, and I mostly agree with Ezra Klein that Trump perpetuates and weaponizes scarcity. But rare kudos to the Trump administration on this one...
So...without having come out explicitly, I think you can judge that Josh Shapiro is dancing with the abundance agenda...
i still think there's a disconnect if you think "special interest democrats" are the ones standing in the way of housing development/construction
in my experience, it is the exact opposite
changing zoning ordinances, encouraging density...these are almost uniformly rejected by the same people i think are the target of the "abundance movement" (and generally supported by the people I typically think of as "special interest democrats")
my biggest gripe with the abundance agenda stuff is that it seems to remove responsibility for this situation from american consumers...which i think is bullshit
america looks the way it looks - what we build and where - because that's what american consumers/public has demonstrated it wants
Last edited:
Scroll through Shapiro's twitter feed...
More childcare, more permits, more energy, more nurses, more teachers, more jobs, more state troopers...
Very little grievance/resistance politics to be seen. This guy's messaging has gotten so on point. He might have a tough time getting out of a Democratic primary, but his messaging has obvious and broad appeal.
More childcare, more permits, more energy, more nurses, more teachers, more jobs, more state troopers...
Very little grievance/resistance politics to be seen. This guy's messaging has gotten so on point. He might have a tough time getting out of a Democratic primary, but his messaging has obvious and broad appeal.
i got to a lot of meetings with a lot of people opposing housing developments
it's almost exclusively boomers and "moderates"
LOL After this Schumer clown show, no Dem will be willing to buck the system. You all are f&cked
I don't think anyone is denying the role of NIMBYs in this issue. It's fundamental to it.
But to claim that the residents of a neighborhood that blocks development is the "consumer's choice" is a hard disagree. It's an incidence of the minority (members of a neighborhood) overruling the majority and the public interest of the residents and city. What do you do about it, and why is it so much more impossible to build in the bluest of blue cities?
