Excellent piece, Frank! I entirely agree with your point of view. As a longtime advocate for an abundance agenda, seeing it being advocated and debated within a partisan frame is disappointing, to say the least.
I have been associated with Progress Studies (related to Abundance) for the last 10 years. I have mixed feelings about the Abundance movement because it is so closely associated with vocal supporters of the Democratic party. I agree with them on many issues, but I think they will support the Democratic party even if the party refuses to adopt their Abundance policies and they will not support the Republican party even if it adopts their Abundance policies. That gives them no leverage.
I also agree with you that the reason why Democratic constituents are against Abundance is because those anti-Abundance policies and practices benefit their groups. The Abundance supporters are also unwilling to oppose very clear anti-Abundance policies, such as Green energy subsidies and mandates.
The reality is that the Democratic party is an Anti-Abundance party, but the Abundance movement does not seem to realize it.
Where I disagree with you is with the Mugwump analogy. I do not get the idea that any of them will publicly abandon the Democratic party for a rival party because they have too many views that are Left-of-Center. They favor abundance, but other issues are more important to them. Therefore, the Democratic party knows that they do not have to change their policies, because Abundance supporters will vote for them anyway.
In the current state of American politics, the Republican party is far more likely to adopt an Abundance agenda because it does not threaten any factions within the party.
If anyone is interested in reading my books on the topic (and Substack), you can find links to them here:
I agree there are good reasons Republicans would embrace Abundance--is DOGE just about saving money, or making things work? If it's about making this work than these ideas would be popular. But at the moment, I don't think that's how they see it because there's just a instinctual rejection of anything that sounds like rules or government. What I've always said is even in the most libertarian reality, you aren't abolishing all government because that's not free or markets but anarchy. What are you going to do to make the parts of government that will still exist to work?
As for the Mugwumps, my point isn't that they're going to leave the party. It's that moral reform movements in history tend to make a big splash to make a point and then within a few years get defeated and fade away having changed nothing. This is because they're trying to do the wrong thing, reform a political party that doesn't want to change, instead of reform an America that is broken.
This is a truth that applies to just about anything you want to accomplish politically. You need to get your agenda into both parties. Aiming for just one party is a guaranteed ticket to being taken for granted by that party while not moving your agenda an inch.
Progressivism has changed a great deal since TR's day. It now encompasses a much wider range of goals, spanning economics, government, civil rights, and various social agendas. Modern progressivism can never appeal across party lines. To work, Abundance must be separated from the rest of the modern progressive agenda, the appeal of which can never expand beyond the left.
This is exactly what I mean, although I would put the last part a little differently.
The important thing isn't separating it from issues, but connecting it to what people are currently furious about and causing them to lose faith in America. It's about making it the solution to the source of our national discontent.
I mean that it should be separated from issues. What I meant was that it should target a relatively narrow range of issues that clearly address major concerns that span the political spectrum, well across party lines. A modern example of this sort of thing at work in the modern era was civil rights for blacks in the 1960s. Very targeted reform.
It’s NOT just the economy. If the Dems don’t adopt reasonable positions on social issues, they will not win the elections required to IMPLEMENT an abundance agenda. And if they return to DEI, like so many would like to, then certain demographics will be intentionally limited, in their access to abundance.
This is why I say Abundance should be one arm of a larger agenda targeting what has made people angry. But I would go one step higher up the idea chain. All of those issues also stem from a larger issue, which is failed leadership, a leadership class that's high-handed and out of touch, and a breach in national trust that has damaged faith in the system. Everything should directly target that as individual plans that are part of one solution.
So I read your article carefully because “abundance” is in the air. Your article confirms my suspicion that this is just an attempt to move toward traditionally republican positions regarding public policy without saying so explicitly, indeed, by attempting to add “good government” to the roster of luxury ideas that make high end democrats comfortable. But you identify as clearly as anyone that these ideas are anathema to the mainstream democrat party of hardcore anti-capitalist lefties. They may use the term “abundance” as a mass formation device; but the ideas will have to be adjusted to accommodate the diet of government executive managers found in our government, schools, businesses, and cultural sinks. Meanwhile, orange man bad. *sigh*
This is exactly why I think the right move isn't to try to reform a party that isn't going to want to change and is going to fight you, and instead to build your idea and movement from outside and then act on politics in a coordinated way.
Excellent piece, Frank! I entirely agree with your point of view. As a longtime advocate for an abundance agenda, seeing it being advocated and debated within a partisan frame is disappointing, to say the least.
Thanks, Jim!
The Abundance movement has the potential to reintroduce common sense into public policy and move politics back to the sensible center.
I largely agree with you.
I have been associated with Progress Studies (related to Abundance) for the last 10 years. I have mixed feelings about the Abundance movement because it is so closely associated with vocal supporters of the Democratic party. I agree with them on many issues, but I think they will support the Democratic party even if the party refuses to adopt their Abundance policies and they will not support the Republican party even if it adopts their Abundance policies. That gives them no leverage.
I also agree with you that the reason why Democratic constituents are against Abundance is because those anti-Abundance policies and practices benefit their groups. The Abundance supporters are also unwilling to oppose very clear anti-Abundance policies, such as Green energy subsidies and mandates.
The reality is that the Democratic party is an Anti-Abundance party, but the Abundance movement does not seem to realize it.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-the-left-undermines-progress
Where I disagree with you is with the Mugwump analogy. I do not get the idea that any of them will publicly abandon the Democratic party for a rival party because they have too many views that are Left-of-Center. They favor abundance, but other issues are more important to them. Therefore, the Democratic party knows that they do not have to change their policies, because Abundance supporters will vote for them anyway.
In the current state of American politics, the Republican party is far more likely to adopt an Abundance agenda because it does not threaten any factions within the party.
If anyone is interested in reading my books on the topic (and Substack), you can find links to them here:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/my-books
I agree there are good reasons Republicans would embrace Abundance--is DOGE just about saving money, or making things work? If it's about making this work than these ideas would be popular. But at the moment, I don't think that's how they see it because there's just a instinctual rejection of anything that sounds like rules or government. What I've always said is even in the most libertarian reality, you aren't abolishing all government because that's not free or markets but anarchy. What are you going to do to make the parts of government that will still exist to work?
As for the Mugwumps, my point isn't that they're going to leave the party. It's that moral reform movements in history tend to make a big splash to make a point and then within a few years get defeated and fade away having changed nothing. This is because they're trying to do the wrong thing, reform a political party that doesn't want to change, instead of reform an America that is broken.
You nailed it! The Mugwump explanation was perfect!
Thanks, Joe! I wasn't sure if the Mugwumps were too obscure but I think it's the perfect example.
This is a truth that applies to just about anything you want to accomplish politically. You need to get your agenda into both parties. Aiming for just one party is a guaranteed ticket to being taken for granted by that party while not moving your agenda an inch.
Progressivism has changed a great deal since TR's day. It now encompasses a much wider range of goals, spanning economics, government, civil rights, and various social agendas. Modern progressivism can never appeal across party lines. To work, Abundance must be separated from the rest of the modern progressive agenda, the appeal of which can never expand beyond the left.
This is exactly what I mean, although I would put the last part a little differently.
The important thing isn't separating it from issues, but connecting it to what people are currently furious about and causing them to lose faith in America. It's about making it the solution to the source of our national discontent.
I mean that it should be separated from issues. What I meant was that it should target a relatively narrow range of issues that clearly address major concerns that span the political spectrum, well across party lines. A modern example of this sort of thing at work in the modern era was civil rights for blacks in the 1960s. Very targeted reform.
It’s NOT just the economy. If the Dems don’t adopt reasonable positions on social issues, they will not win the elections required to IMPLEMENT an abundance agenda. And if they return to DEI, like so many would like to, then certain demographics will be intentionally limited, in their access to abundance.
This is why I say Abundance should be one arm of a larger agenda targeting what has made people angry. But I would go one step higher up the idea chain. All of those issues also stem from a larger issue, which is failed leadership, a leadership class that's high-handed and out of touch, and a breach in national trust that has damaged faith in the system. Everything should directly target that as individual plans that are part of one solution.
I would sign that.
So I read your article carefully because “abundance” is in the air. Your article confirms my suspicion that this is just an attempt to move toward traditionally republican positions regarding public policy without saying so explicitly, indeed, by attempting to add “good government” to the roster of luxury ideas that make high end democrats comfortable. But you identify as clearly as anyone that these ideas are anathema to the mainstream democrat party of hardcore anti-capitalist lefties. They may use the term “abundance” as a mass formation device; but the ideas will have to be adjusted to accommodate the diet of government executive managers found in our government, schools, businesses, and cultural sinks. Meanwhile, orange man bad. *sigh*
This is exactly why I think the right move isn't to try to reform a party that isn't going to want to change and is going to fight you, and instead to build your idea and movement from outside and then act on politics in a coordinated way.