Hence my initial mention of âhigh state capacityâ? But I think itâs fair to call abundance a deregulatory movement overall, in terms of, like⌠some abstract notion of what proportion of economic activity would become more vs less heavily involved with government, under an idealized abundance regime.
I guess it depends what version of abundance youâre talking about. I have in mind the book Abundance as my primary idea of what abundance is, and in that version of abundance, I donât think itâs clear that a politics of abundance would result in less economic activity being heavily involved with government. It might depend how you define that. If laws, regulations, or municipal processes that obstruct construction count as heavy involvement with the government, then that would count for a lot of economic activity, I guess. But if we donât count that and we do count higher state capacity, like more engineers working for the government, then maybe abundance would lead to a bigger government. I donât know.
I think youâre right about why abundance is especially appealing to people of a certain type of political persuasion. A lot of people with more moderate, centrist, technocratic, socially/âculturally less progressive, etc. tendencies have shown a lot of enthusiasm about the abundance label. Iâm not ready to say that they now own the abundance label and abundance just is moderate, centrist, technocratic, etc. If a lot of emos were a fan of my favourite indie rock band, I wouldnât be ready to call it an emo band, even if I were happy for the emosâ support.
There are four reasons I want to deconflate abundance and those other political tendencies:
Itâs intellectually limiting, and at least partially incorrect, to say that abundance is conceptually the same thing as a lot of other independent things that a lot of people who like abundance happen to also like.
I think the coiners and popularizers of abundance deserve a little consideration, and they donât (necessarily, wholeheartedly) agree with those other political tendencies. For instance, Ezra Klein has, to me, been one of the more persuasive proponents of Black Lives Matter for people with a wonk mindset, and has had guests on his podcast from the policy wonk side of BLM to make their case. Klein and Thompson have both expressed limited, tepid support for left-wing economic populist policies, conditional on abundance-style policies also getting enacted.
Iâm personally skeptical of many of the ideas found within those other political tendencies, both on the merits and in terms of whatâs popular or wins elections. (My skepticism has nothing to do with my skepticism of the ideas put forward in the book Abundance, which overall I strongly support and which are orthogonal to the ideas Iâm skeptical of.)
Itâs politically limiting to conflate abundance and these other political tendencies when this isnât intellectually necessary. Maybe moderates enjoy using abundance as a rallying cry for their moderate politics, but conflating abundance and moderate politics makes it a polarized, factional issue and reduces the likelihood of it receiving broad support. I would rather see people try to find common ground on abundance rather than claim it for their faction. Gavin Newsom and Zohran Mamdani are both into abundance, so why canât it have broad appeal? Why try to make it into a factional issue rather than a more inclusive liberal/âleft idea?
Edit: I wrote the above before I saw what you added to your comment. I have a qualm with this:
But, uh, this is the EA Forum, which is in part about describing the world truthfully, not just spinning PR for movements that I happen to admire. And I think itâs an appropriate summary of a complex movement to say that abundance stuff is mostly a center-left, deregulatory, etc movement.
I think it really depends on which version of abundance youâre talking about. If youâre talking about the version in the book Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, or the version that the two authors have more broadly advocated (e.g. on their press tour for the book, or in their writing and podcasts before and after the book was published), then, no, I donât think thatâs an accurate summary of that particular version of abundance.
If youâre referring to the version of abundance advocated by centrists, moderates, and so on, then, okay, it may be accurate to say that version of abundance is centrist, moderate, etc. But I donât want to limit how I define to âabundanceâ to just that version, for the reasons I gave above.
I donât think it makes sense to call it âspinâ or âPRâ to describe an idea in the terms used by the originators of that idea, or in terms that are independently substantively correct, e.g. as supported by examples of progressive supporters of abundance like Mamdani. If your impression of what abundance is comes from centrists, moderates, and so on, then maybe thatâs why you have the impression that abundance simply is centrist, moderate, etc. and that saying otherwise is âuntruthfulâ or âPRâ. There is no âcanonicalâ version of abundance, so to some extent, abundance just means what people who use the term want it to mean. So, that impression of abundance isnât straightforwardly wrong. Itâs just avoidably limited.
Imagine someone complainingâitâs so unfair to describe abundance as a âdemocratâ movement!! Thatâs so off-putting for conservativesâinstead of ostracising them, we should be trying to entice them to adopt these ideas that will be good for the american people! Like Montana and Texas passing great YIMBY laws, Idaho deploying modular nuclear reactors, etc. In lots of ways abundance is totally coherent with conservative goals of efficient government services, human liberty, a focus on economic growth, et cetera!!
To the extent people care what Abundance says in deciding what abundance is, one could quote from the first chapter of the book, specifically the section âA Liberalism That Buildsâ, which explicitly addresses this topic.
I guess it depends what version of abundance youâre talking about. I have in mind the book Abundance as my primary idea of what abundance is, and in that version of abundance, I donât think itâs clear that a politics of abundance would result in less economic activity being heavily involved with government. It might depend how you define that. If laws, regulations, or municipal processes that obstruct construction count as heavy involvement with the government, then that would count for a lot of economic activity, I guess. But if we donât count that and we do count higher state capacity, like more engineers working for the government, then maybe abundance would lead to a bigger government. I donât know.
I think youâre right about why abundance is especially appealing to people of a certain type of political persuasion. A lot of people with more moderate, centrist, technocratic, socially/âculturally less progressive, etc. tendencies have shown a lot of enthusiasm about the abundance label. Iâm not ready to say that they now own the abundance label and abundance just is moderate, centrist, technocratic, etc. If a lot of emos were a fan of my favourite indie rock band, I wouldnât be ready to call it an emo band, even if I were happy for the emosâ support.
There are four reasons I want to deconflate abundance and those other political tendencies:
Itâs intellectually limiting, and at least partially incorrect, to say that abundance is conceptually the same thing as a lot of other independent things that a lot of people who like abundance happen to also like.
I think the coiners and popularizers of abundance deserve a little consideration, and they donât (necessarily, wholeheartedly) agree with those other political tendencies. For instance, Ezra Klein has, to me, been one of the more persuasive proponents of Black Lives Matter for people with a wonk mindset, and has had guests on his podcast from the policy wonk side of BLM to make their case. Klein and Thompson have both expressed limited, tepid support for left-wing economic populist policies, conditional on abundance-style policies also getting enacted.
Iâm personally skeptical of many of the ideas found within those other political tendencies, both on the merits and in terms of whatâs popular or wins elections. (My skepticism has nothing to do with my skepticism of the ideas put forward in the book Abundance, which overall I strongly support and which are orthogonal to the ideas Iâm skeptical of.)
Itâs politically limiting to conflate abundance and these other political tendencies when this isnât intellectually necessary. Maybe moderates enjoy using abundance as a rallying cry for their moderate politics, but conflating abundance and moderate politics makes it a polarized, factional issue and reduces the likelihood of it receiving broad support. I would rather see people try to find common ground on abundance rather than claim it for their faction. Gavin Newsom and Zohran Mamdani are both into abundance, so why canât it have broad appeal? Why try to make it into a factional issue rather than a more inclusive liberal/âleft idea?
Edit: I wrote the above before I saw what you added to your comment. I have a qualm with this:
I think it really depends on which version of abundance youâre talking about. If youâre talking about the version in the book Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, or the version that the two authors have more broadly advocated (e.g. on their press tour for the book, or in their writing and podcasts before and after the book was published), then, no, I donât think thatâs an accurate summary of that particular version of abundance.
If youâre referring to the version of abundance advocated by centrists, moderates, and so on, then, okay, it may be accurate to say that version of abundance is centrist, moderate, etc. But I donât want to limit how I define to âabundanceâ to just that version, for the reasons I gave above.
I donât think it makes sense to call it âspinâ or âPRâ to describe an idea in the terms used by the originators of that idea, or in terms that are independently substantively correct, e.g. as supported by examples of progressive supporters of abundance like Mamdani. If your impression of what abundance is comes from centrists, moderates, and so on, then maybe thatâs why you have the impression that abundance simply is centrist, moderate, etc. and that saying otherwise is âuntruthfulâ or âPRâ. There is no âcanonicalâ version of abundance, so to some extent, abundance just means what people who use the term want it to mean. So, that impression of abundance isnât straightforwardly wrong. Itâs just avoidably limited.
To the extent people care what Abundance says in deciding what abundance is, one could quote from the first chapter of the book, specifically the section âA Liberalism That Buildsâ, which explicitly addresses this topic.