Abundance will Fail Because They Refuse to Think About Systems

I am doing something I probably should not, but I am going to largely write just in agreement with someone else’s writing. I know, I know: how un-internet, just praising someone. But as you can probably tell by the headline, it’s also a shot at the Ezra Klein’s of the world, so the internet shall remain appeased.

Brian Beutler was written, as usual (there is no more astute political commentator today, aside from maybe Jamelle Buoi, and you should sign up for his newsletter) an excellent piece on how the Abundance people, folks who claim, based on the book Abundance by Klein and Thompson, that all the Democrats’ ills can be solved forever and ever by building more things , are going to be highjacked by right wingers:

But I do think progressives are right to worry about what will happen if Democrats do with abundance what they’ve done with every big idea they’ve had over the past 40 years: ask Republicans to provide them bipartisan cover.

Republicans might just say no. But they also might respond with a Trojan horse.

Abundance has to be a Democrat-only project, or at least an overwhelmingly Democrat-led project, or we won’t simply dial back the overreach of Naderite liberal proceduralism, if we’re not careful we’ll swing all the way back to the unencumbered laissez-faire exploitation of the early 20th century. We won’t unshackle government to build; we’ll empower Republicans to make government regulation of any kind illegal.

Beutler does not say that this will happen, to be precise — that is my interpretation. But I think it is a solid interpretation based on a simple understanding of the people involved and their complete lack of systematic thinking. Abundance, as it is practiced now, is almost certainly going to result in a worse, not better, life for most Americans.

First, it should be noted that at least some of the people involved in the abundance movement really do seem to favor right wing positions. Josh Barro lies about the place of unions in government costs. Jared Polis, governor of Colorado and huge Abundance fan, vetoed a bill that would remove the requirement that 75% of a workplace approve union action. These are either people who genuinely hate unions — because god forbid the people who work for a living get a slice of their labor — or they are genuinely stupid. Attacking labor unions is attacking one of the pillars of liberal strength in this country. If you actually care about liberal policies, doing so is the height of stupidity.

Let us assume for the moment that people like Klein and Barro do actually care about liberal goals. Attacking unions hinders liberal goals because being in a union is one of the few things that reliably marks a voter as a Democrat. It is insane to blame them for the woes of building in America, especially when that blame is simply untrue (NYC transit constructions costs are higher than Paris, a place with much, much , much higher union density than NYC, because NYC doesn’t have any expertise in house and has to pay consultants every time it so much as wants to blow its collective nose, to over simplify a bit.) Attacking one of the few systematic centers of power Democrats have is stupid. But the whole Abundance movement suffers from that problem — it simply does not think about systems of power.

A part of the reason that existing homeowners don’t want new build in their area is that the largest asset most working people own is their home. Driving down the price of their home (and you cannot have it both ways — either new builds make it cheaper for people to afford homes, or they do not. And if they do not, if they do not freeze or lower prices, then why are we bothering?) is a fundamental threat to their financial well-being (and no, I am not saying that it is all driven by that fear, not even close. But that fear is a component.). Does your plan include a massive increase in, say, Social Security and Medicare so that people’s retirements are visibly not threatened by your new housing? No? Then you are not thinking in systems.

Similarly, builders are not the natural constituency of democrats. Builders hate any regulations, since they are a cost, and will not, just because you reduce some, suddenly think of Democrats as their partners. If your Abundance plan includes only private builders and no social housing to counter them, you are giving more money and thus more power to people who are opposed to your general political goals. Not including social housing makes achieving all of your goals less likely.

Abundance fans might claim that merely letting businesses do what they want will result in lower costs of living, and therefor better outcomes for Democrats. There are several problems with that. Less constraints on builders does not always mean lower prices. Austin has almost zero constraints, and yet monopoly power among builders has driven up the prices, even as more units are built. Inflation was driven in part by firms using general inflation as a cover to raise their own prices, whether or not inflation justified the increases. And, perhaps most importantly, Biden saw an insourcing of manufacturing jobs to mostly red states and was decisively not rewarded for that work. Good policy does not always equal good politics.

Which is why it is important to understand systems of power. Are people going to want to vote for you when you run roughshod over their preferences in order to get stuff built? Are people going to be happy when we go back to an environmental regime that allows Los Angelos to be buried in smog and rivers to catch fire? Because that is the most likely outcome if you do not make this a partisan issue. To the extent that work and environmental rules hinder building (and the larger issue is the destruction of government capacity in favor of consultants and outsourcing) then people on the broad left can have a reasonable conversation about how and where to modify those rules. Similarly, people on the left can have a good faith conversation about where and how to mix private investment with public investment. They won’t be easy conversations all the time, but they can be fruitful if done in good faith.

But when you start attacking members of the coalition, especially unfairly, when you start with the premise that regulation is bad, especially when you invite partnership with people on the right, people who do not care if workers are hurt or rivers catch on fire, why should anyone on the broad left trust you?

I have seen it said that Abundance people do not have a theory of political power. I do not think that is correct. I think it is pretty clear they do have a theory of political power — it is just wrong. They seem to believe that they can co-opt business interests in order to drive progressive outcomes, and that such outcomes will create positive feelings toward Democrats. Except this has been tried over and over and failed every time. You cannot ignore existing power relationships and expect to succeed.

We do need to build more things — decarbonization, housing, etc. all depend upon new works. But we need a clear-eyed understanding that building things alone will not make people favor liberal priorities. We need to understand that building that impoverishes or weakens normal people compared to wealthy businesses, is not an improvement. Taking the entire system into account, focusing on how to achieve the specific goals of Abundance within the larger frame of making things better for most people will be a welcome conversation. Pretending that you can hand money and thus power over to people who are opposed to that larger goal, though, is a recipe for destroying your own power to achieve good things.

Abundance only works if you pay attention to power systems, and that means it only works if you make this a project of the broad left and not go chasing a bipartisan, end to politics that simply will not happen. That its most strident proponents do not understand that simple truth is enough reason to be suspicious of the utility of their plans.