Won’t be a civil war, they need both in their coalition to get a governing majority
Bigmoney-4life on
Paywall?
Docile_Doggo on
I am once again asking headline writers to find a different descriptor for internal party arguments than “civil war”
SenranHaruka on
Before I read this I’m gonna guess, “really about power” means it’s a question of if technocrats and bureaucrats should execute the vision of the government, which opponents decry as Somehow Robert Moses Returned, or if more stakeholders should be represented to prevent toes being stepped on by dumb or malicious technocrats which opponents decry as preventing necessary creative destruction and entrenching conservative local aristocracy.
I’ll come back when I finish.
WifeGuy-Menelaus on
You know the first civil war was also a Democrat civil war
NicheAppealer on
Abundance liberalism actually represents the interests of Democratic voters and addresses universal problems rather than self-sabotaging grievances. When consultants and the left get over their shared delusion that blue collar white male votes somehow count extra because they’re history’s greatest victims, the party will be in a much better position.
BackgroundRich7614 on
I feal like calling it a “civil war” doesn’t make much sense. Abundance is a fairly narrowly focused reform idea, not something that wants to completely upend what the Dems wants. You can be both pro-Medicare for all, and Pro Abundance for instance.
If anything the most likely outcome is that Abundance (or at least parts of it) becomes assimilated into the broader Democrat/Liberal Progressive ideology just like a lot of previous idea were.
So we’re just going to ignore the Republican in fighting?
Why the hell does everyone on both sides blame the Democrats for everything instead of the threat of authoritarianism were facing? I’m tired of articles like this trying to divide us.
They helped push this “civil war”, with the whole Biden old thing, then the stuff about Harris “word salads”.
It’s not a civil war, it’s a shake up. The infighting between maga voters and their Republican representative s ignoring them is closer to a “civil war”.
ONETRILLIONAMERICANS on
> The progressive movement seeks to maintain solidarity among its component groups, expecting each to endorse the positions taken by the others.
> Much of the most vociferous opposition to the abundance agenda has zeroed in on its betrayal of this principle. The Roosevelt Institute’s Todd Tucker attacked Ezra Klein on X for his “survivor island approach to coalitions—first unions and Dems team up to vote enviros off the island, and then Dems turn on labor.” David Sirota, a left-wing journalist, complained, “Abundance Libs are insisting the big problem isn’t corporate power & oligarchs, it’s zoning laws & The Groups? Come on.” Austin Ahlman, a researcher at the Open Markets Institute, an anti-monopoly advocacy organization, mused, “You have to wonder whether the Abundance faction stuff would have landed better if the proponents had not laid the groundwork for it by first broadsiding every other organized constituency in the democratic tent.”
That this debate is being conducted almost exclusively within one huge party makes me again lament the single-winner/disproportional nature American electoral systems (at both the local and federal level). In a proper democracy this should be waged between parties. Democrats as a big tent party can’t properly conduct it because they need both wings to have any hope of winning an election, because the only way to win is to break 50%, so you can’t go so far as to alienate whichever side loses this debate. It’s infuriating how pernicious and widespread the effects of a bad electoral system are. It taints not just the institutions themselves but the political landscape that arises in response to it. Pro-open borders, pro-free trade, pro-market (within reason) liberals should not be forced to share branding, messaging, and personnel with socialists. Terrible system.
Tangential axe grinding:
1. It’s pretty sad that Democrats are having a wonky policy debate but Republican Party has been completely taken over by regressive ethnonationalist authoritarians and people are still treating both parties as equivalently legitimate political projects.
2. This entire debate re: the abundance agenda’s ability to win elections is founded on the assumption that material/economic policy is the basis on which people vote, which is currently a very controversial stance in the political science community^† and which Chait himself seemed suspicious of in a previous [piece](https://archive.is/NWakj):
> It’s true that most of the spending in Biden’s major infrastructure laws is still in the pipeline. But these delays are themselves a result of Biden’s post-neoliberal ideology, which insisted on attaching a long list of social criteria to its projects, while failing to enact legislation to speed up the permitting process. In any case, industrial policy is just one piece of Biden’s allegedly transformational agenda. Other elements—including on trade, labor, and fiscal policy—have taken immediate effect. None of these actions has shown any sign of helping Biden politically. The president’s stream of actions to forgive student debt did not produce higher support among young voters, his unwavering deference to labor unions did not yield more support among union members, and so on.
10 Comments
Won’t be a civil war, they need both in their coalition to get a governing majority
Paywall?
I am once again asking headline writers to find a different descriptor for internal party arguments than “civil war”
Before I read this I’m gonna guess, “really about power” means it’s a question of if technocrats and bureaucrats should execute the vision of the government, which opponents decry as Somehow Robert Moses Returned, or if more stakeholders should be represented to prevent toes being stepped on by dumb or malicious technocrats which opponents decry as preventing necessary creative destruction and entrenching conservative local aristocracy.
I’ll come back when I finish.
You know the first civil war was also a Democrat civil war
Abundance liberalism actually represents the interests of Democratic voters and addresses universal problems rather than self-sabotaging grievances. When consultants and the left get over their shared delusion that blue collar white male votes somehow count extra because they’re history’s greatest victims, the party will be in a much better position.
I feal like calling it a “civil war” doesn’t make much sense. Abundance is a fairly narrowly focused reform idea, not something that wants to completely upend what the Dems wants. You can be both pro-Medicare for all, and Pro Abundance for instance.
If anything the most likely outcome is that Abundance (or at least parts of it) becomes assimilated into the broader Democrat/Liberal Progressive ideology just like a lot of previous idea were.
Link for the global poor:
https://archive.ph/1SKOm
So we’re just going to ignore the Republican in fighting?
Why the hell does everyone on both sides blame the Democrats for everything instead of the threat of authoritarianism were facing? I’m tired of articles like this trying to divide us.
They helped push this “civil war”, with the whole Biden old thing, then the stuff about Harris “word salads”.
It’s not a civil war, it’s a shake up. The infighting between maga voters and their Republican representative s ignoring them is closer to a “civil war”.
> The progressive movement seeks to maintain solidarity among its component groups, expecting each to endorse the positions taken by the others.
> Much of the most vociferous opposition to the abundance agenda has zeroed in on its betrayal of this principle. The Roosevelt Institute’s Todd Tucker attacked Ezra Klein on X for his “survivor island approach to coalitions—first unions and Dems team up to vote enviros off the island, and then Dems turn on labor.” David Sirota, a left-wing journalist, complained, “Abundance Libs are insisting the big problem isn’t corporate power & oligarchs, it’s zoning laws & The Groups? Come on.” Austin Ahlman, a researcher at the Open Markets Institute, an anti-monopoly advocacy organization, mused, “You have to wonder whether the Abundance faction stuff would have landed better if the proponents had not laid the groundwork for it by first broadsiding every other organized constituency in the democratic tent.”
That this debate is being conducted almost exclusively within one huge party makes me again lament the single-winner/disproportional nature American electoral systems (at both the local and federal level). In a proper democracy this should be waged between parties. Democrats as a big tent party can’t properly conduct it because they need both wings to have any hope of winning an election, because the only way to win is to break 50%, so you can’t go so far as to alienate whichever side loses this debate. It’s infuriating how pernicious and widespread the effects of a bad electoral system are. It taints not just the institutions themselves but the political landscape that arises in response to it. Pro-open borders, pro-free trade, pro-market (within reason) liberals should not be forced to share branding, messaging, and personnel with socialists. Terrible system.
Tangential axe grinding:
1. It’s pretty sad that Democrats are having a wonky policy debate but Republican Party has been completely taken over by regressive ethnonationalist authoritarians and people are still treating both parties as equivalently legitimate political projects.
2. This entire debate re: the abundance agenda’s ability to win elections is founded on the assumption that material/economic policy is the basis on which people vote, which is currently a very controversial stance in the political science community^† and which Chait himself seemed suspicious of in a previous [piece](https://archive.is/NWakj):
> It’s true that most of the spending in Biden’s major infrastructure laws is still in the pipeline. But these delays are themselves a result of Biden’s post-neoliberal ideology, which insisted on attaching a long list of social criteria to its projects, while failing to enact legislation to speed up the permitting process. In any case, industrial policy is just one piece of Biden’s allegedly transformational agenda. Other elements—including on trade, labor, and fiscal policy—have taken immediate effect. None of these actions has shown any sign of helping Biden politically. The president’s stream of actions to forgive student debt did not produce higher support among young voters, his unwavering deference to labor unions did not yield more support among union members, and so on.