The Strategic Case for Abundance

The Real Political Value of an Abundance Agenda

I've been following the discussion around Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's Abundance, and a recent piece on JoeWrote.com titled, "Ezra Klein Should Be Honest About What He’s Asking For," is skeptical. Joe raises some interesting questions about how the public dialogue, and how the Abundance Agenda is being promoted.

While I appreciate Joe's perspective and the points raised about the political machinations, I have to say, I think the analysis misses some crucial distinctions and mis-frames the central challenges. The questions the Joe poses – whether the Abundance Agenda should be the Democrats' core message and if it's the key to defeating fascism – demonstrate key concerns progressives ask. However, I believe the way these questions are often approached, and some of the conclusions drawn, warrant a more direct challenge.

Joe spends a lot of time showing that Ezra and Derek present different perspectives, and I agree that the source of these differences likely includes the issues they want to focus on.

But those aren’t the interesting questions, the interesting questions are those Joe leaves for Ezra, Should the Abundance Agenda be the core message Democrats bring to the American voter? and Is the Abundance Movement correct that you book is the key to defeating fascism?

While interesting, these questions aren’t complete, because they make hidden assumptions. Let’s take the first question. If I had to answer that question without correcting the premise, the answer would be a resounding yes. Among the “core messages” on offer at the moment, it beats the others in dramatic fashion.

I suppose Joe would disagree, as I believe backs the socialist anti-oligarchy core message. But the failures of that message are listed directly in the name. Socialism is anathema to more than half the electorate, and dogma to a much smaller group. Interestingly, neither really understands what socialism is. Those few who do understand, should be frightened to even use the term due to the risk of being misunderstood by nearly everyone. Failing to understand the way what you say is heard is a great way to fail in politics. That is true whether you’re trying to tell a truth, or trying to tell a lie.

The second part, anti-oligarchy, fails on two simple notes. First, it’s anti. Defining yourself by what you’re against is a poor substitute for defining what you’re for. If you do, it better be egregious, and you better intend to take it all the way. Anti-Japan in 1941 after Pearl Harbor? Pretty safe. But did FDR speak just to being against Japan? No, instead he evoked patriotism. Is oligarchy worthy of a core “anti” message? Not hardly. I have no doubt there are some bad rich people, but there are also some good ones. Good does not mean perfect, and while we should have high standards, we must judge all individually. Not only is the right way to conduct ourselves, but it’s also a strategic dead-end to vilify a group with significant power just to have something to define yourself as against.

I expect Joe thinks anti-oligarchy means, worker power and decreasing corporate control of politicians. But that’s not what the public hears. It hears, tear down those corporations. I’m all for decreasing unequal influence of politicians, and corporate influence is a great place to start. And start you can, but finishing is harder. Additionally, do you really think most Americans will list that as their most pressing problem? Similarly with worker power. You can make unions easier to form, but they still must form, not drive employers out of business, and focus on delivering value to workers rather than sustaining their own existence. I’m not against Joe here, but he has not stated his means, only the objective, and I think that’s where the issues will arise. And beyond that, those objectives have a risk to go off the rails and start pursuing self-destructive actions because those issues don’t afford easy solutions, and that’s what will be sold to the public, an easy solution to a hard problem. The easy solution will emerge, but it will be devoid of any real value to solve the problem. Crime is a problem? Defund the police! Rent is a problem? Rent control!

While I’d answer yes to the first question, I’d prefer to complete the question by filling in that gap between Ezra and Derek. The scope of Abundance the book is limited, tackling only specific questions. It does open up a concept though, and this is certainly part of the gap Joe seems uncomfortable with. But beyond that, even this concept of Abundance isn’t an all-encompassing ideology. But is that what the Democratic Party needs? A new ideology? I say no. The fundamental essence of the Democratic Party, residing in the hearts of its potential supporters, is sound. What it needs is a better strategy to govern, which brings the two components of winning elections so that you have the opportunity to govern, and actually doing good things after winning. And to that, Abundance is a layer that can both point in the direction of some things that should be done, and redirect the least effective ideas that come from those fringe ideologies that lurk nearby.

To the second question Joe poses to Ezra, Is the Abundance Movement correct that your book is the key to defeating fascism?, I’d come back with a question; is defeating fascism really the goal? Sure, I’m all for not having fascism, and my objection isn’t some semantics of whether Trump is really a fascist or not. But if your ultimate goal is to defeat your opponents, in a sense, you’ve already lost. In politics you do have to win, but that’s about strategy, and Abundance is great strategy. Better than anything Joe has laid out. Activate the apathetic via a message so alienating that you’re likely to convert more of them to be against you? What optimism can lead to the belief that if 50% of the voting public didn’t take your side, more than 50% of the non-voting public will?

Abundance, the book, the Agenda, the Movement; none of these will defeat fascism. But that’s not what we need to do, we need to win an election and govern well. And yes, in the process, we’ll keep the fascists out of government. While not defeated, fascism is not going to crawl into a hole and declare defeat in the next 2 or 4 years. There is no magic pill for that, and so we must live in the real world. When it comes to fascism, we first must hold it at bay, and then whittle it down. Ultimately that is won one heart at a time. I’m not really even comfortable with the metaphor of a “fight” here that entails a defeat. When we fought WWII, this was a fight, where defeat was a real goal. A terribly hard one, with great sacrifices, that at times looked very much at risk. But unlike war, which is almost the definition of the negative-sum contest, we should be defining ourselves in terms of a positive-sum future, and taking advantage of it. And while that is a message bigger than Abundance, it’s very much a part of it.

In addition, when it comes to governance, that’s where Abundance shines. And as I argue in Trust is not free, we will need to rebuild in many ways after the destructive Trump years, and I believe Abundance is a framework that aligns with that need far better than anything being offered as an alternative.