Lawn-Sign Liberalism vs. Supply-Side Progressivism
Abundance, by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, Avid Reader Press, 297 pages, $30
At the turn of the 20th century, labor leader Samuel Gompers had many specific demands, including job security and an eight-hour day. But his list of "what labor wants" added up to a single overarching—and open-ended—desire. "We want more," Gompers said in an 1890 speech. "We do want more. You will find that a man generally wants more."
More was once the essence of progressive politics in America: more pay for factory workers; more roads, schools, parks, dams, and scientific research; more houses and education for returning G.I.s; more financial security for the elderly, poor, and disabled. Left-wing intellectuals might bemoan consumerism and folk singers deride "little boxes made of ticky-tacky," but Democratic politicians promised tangible goods. The New Deal and the Great Society were about more.
In the early 1970s, however, progressives started abandoning the quest for plenty. They sought instead to regulate away injustice, pollution, and risk. The expansiveness of President Lyndon Johnson and California Gov. Pat Brown became the austerity of President Jimmy Carter and California Gov. Jerry Brown. Activists unleashed lawsuits to block public and private construction. Government spending began to skew away from public goods like parks and roads and toward income transfers and public employee compensation. Outside the digital world of bits, regulation made achieving more increasingly difficult if not downright impossible—in the public sphere as well as the private.
With the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the politics of more came to mean giving people money or loan guarantees to buy things: houses, college degrees, child care, health insurance. But regulation grew along with the subsidies, and the supply of these goods didn't expand to meet demand. The subsidies just pushed up prices. Instead of delivering bounty, government programs fed shortages, and shortages fed anger and resentment. "Giving people a subsidy for a good whose supply is choked is like building a ladder to try to reach an elevator that is racing ever upward," write Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson in Abundance.
Klein and Thompson believe in supply-side progressivism, a term Klein coined in a 2021 New York Times column. Abundance is their manifesto on behalf of "a liberalism that builds." The authors want an activist government to emphasize creation rather than restriction, generating abundance rather than stoking resentment. Although concerned about climate change, they have no sympathy with the degrowthers who invoke it to argue for shutting down industry and imposing stasis. Making people worse off, they believe, is not a progressive cause.
"We imagine a future not of less but of more," they write. "We do not subscribe to the seductive ideologies of scarcity. We will not get more or better jobs by closing our gates to immigrants. We will not turn back climate change by persuading the world to starve itself of growth. It is not merely that these visions are unrealistic. It is that they are counterproductive. They will not achieve the futures they seek. They will do more harm than good."
Klein and Thompson take on the "lawn-sign liberalism," endemic in California, where signs declaring that "Black Lives Matter, Kindness Is Everything, and No Human Being Is Illegal…sit in yards zoned for single families, in communities that organize against efforts to add the new homes that would bring those values closer to reality."
Progress, the authors argue, is not about enlarging a familiar pie. "The difference between an economy that grows and an economy that stagnates is change. When you grow an economy, you hasten a future that is different," they write. "The more growth there is, the more radically the future diverges from the past."
Abundance is the left-leaning complement to James Pethokoukis's 2023 book The Conservative Futurist. Both books represent a growing intellectual movement to replace the zero-sum politics of pessimism and sclerosis with a hopeful vision of progress and abundance. "The nostalgia that permeates so much of today's right and no small part of today's left is no accident," Klein and Thompson write. "We have lost the faith in the future that once powered our optimism. We fight instead over what we have, or what we had."
Although Abundance doesn't question the many environmental laws passed in the early 1970s, it does challenge the expansive interpretations that let activists block projects ranging from new apartments to wind farms. Klein and Thompson explain how a single court decision turned the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) into a procedural barrier against new construction.
Signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1970, CEQA required substantial government projects to file environmental impact reports before proceeding. Neither the governor nor the legislature saw it as a sweeping measure. In 1972, however, the state Supreme Court ruled that a private developer's plans to build condominiums and shops fell under the law merely because the project needed a permit. Regulation, in other words, became an excuse to treat private projects as the equivalent of freeways and dams. In the words of a Sierra Club lobbyist quoted in the book, CEQA had come to cover "anybody engaged commercially in putting two sticks of wood together." The ruling produced an enormous industry of lawyers and consultants while choking off construction. It was a prime example of lawn-sign liberalism: Affluent professionals benefited, while the general public got much less for its tax money and its housing dollar.
Within the abundance movement, Klein and Thompson fall into the "eco-modernist" camp, embracing technology and prosperity as solutions to environmental problems. "This book is motivated," they write, "in no small part by our belief that we need to decarbonize the global economy to head off the threat of climate change." They worry that regulation and litigation are blocking green infrastructure. They want to make it easier to build solar arrays, wind farms, and the transmission lines to connect them to a new smart grid. They deem the war on nuclear power a massive government failure.
"By some counts, nuclear power is safer than wind and cleaner than solar," they write. "It is inarguably safer than burning coal and petrol. And yet the US—facing a crisis of global warming—has almost stopped building nuclear power reactors and plants entirely. Between 1973 and 2024, the country started and finished only three new nuclear reactors. And it has shut down more nuclear plants than it's opened in most of our lifetimes. That is not a failure of the private market to responsibly bear risk but of the federal government to properly weigh risk."
Klein and Thompson want political authorities to have more discretion. They recount how Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro used an emergency declaration to speed repairs after a tanker truck exploded and destroyed a bridge on Interstate 95, a crucial artery through the northeast. After he waived the normal procedures for taking bids, drawing up environmental reports, and halting construction at the first sign of rain, rebuilding took just 12 days rather than months.
"The process Shapiro used would typically be illegal," Klein and Thompson write. "Yet national Democrats and Pennsylvania voters alike loved it. What does that say about the typical process?" Government, they conclude, "needs to justify itself not through the rules it follows but through the outcomes it delivers."
That prescription sounds like common sense: Deliver the goods. Give the public what it wants. Make taxpayers feel they're getting their money's worth. But rules matter. A strongman unhampered by picayune restrictions may seem efficient at first, but even a wise and virtuous abundance czar will make serious mistakes when left unchecked by either rules or competition. Such mistakes are why rules accumulate in the first place.
By their nature, manifestos are not deep. Abundance is more thorough than most, but in rallying progressives to the cause of more it avoids the hard questions. More what? Who decides and how? Where does feedback come from?
Klein and Thompson isolate much of their abundance agenda from the valuable information conveyed by prices, preferring central direction even to market-based mechanisms like carbon taxes. "The market cannot, on its own, distinguish between the riches that flow from burning coal and the wealth that is created by bettering battery storage. Government can," Klein and Thompson write. "The market will not, on its own, fund the risky technologies whose payoff is social rather than economic. Government must."
So the book doesn't make the case that California should have a high-speed rail system, for instance. It simply assumes that high-speed rail would be good and uses California's disastrous project to exemplify the absurdities of procedural progressivism. "In the time California has spent failing to complete its 500-mile high-speed rail system, China has built more than 23,000 miles of high-speed rail," the authors note. But China has also built whole cities that no one wants to live in. It has more steel capacity than it can profitably sell. China has more but not necessarily more of what people want. Who decides and how?
Or take the national network of electric vehicle charging stations authorized in the Biden administration's infrastructure bill. Out of the 500,000 stations promised, Klein and Thompson lament, "by March 2024—more than two years after the bill passed—only seven new chargers were up and running." Assuming that electric charging stations are politically popular, they fear the delay will give the Trump administration credit for their construction.
They misread public sentiment. At a conference put on last summer by the eco-modernist Breakthrough Institute, veteran Democratic pollster Celinda Lake gave a presentation on climate-related messages that do and do not move voters to support Democrats. The absolute worst message touted the 500,000 charging stations. While most unsuccessful messages had tiny positive effects, this one actually moved people toward Republicans. Don't talk about electric cars, Lake warned. Women in particular hate them, Lake said, because they're terrified of being stranded. But women love hybrids. In the automotive marketplace, hybrids are a success. But the technocratic vision Abundance offers doesn't have a place for them.
In 2022, I served on a Breakthrough Institute conference panel moderated by Klein. As we assembled, he made a point of noting how much we disagree, citing my 1998 book The Future and Its Enemies. "I am a technocrat," he said, a term I use in the book to describe people who "promise to manage change, centrally directing 'progress' according to a predictable plan." They aren't the good guys. I argue instead for a more emergent, bottom-up approach, imagining an open-ended future that relies less on direction by smart guys with political authority and more on grassroots experimentation, competition, and criticism.
What we share are the convictions that more is better than less and that a good society is not zero-sum. These days those beliefs make us allies. We can fight about the rest later.
The post Lawn-Sign Liberalism vs. Supply-Side Progressivism appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
AZ Senate Republicans are the adults in the room. Well, 11 of them, anyway
Corrections & Clarifications: An earlier version of this column misidentified the legislative chamber to which Rep. David Livingston belongs. Sen. Jake Hoffman and his Arizona Freedom Caucus must be feeling tire tracks on their backs. Early this morning, the Republican-run Senate passed a bipartisan budget — one negotiated with Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs — then suddenly adjourned for the year. 'See you in January!' Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, exclaimed. Of course, the Senate can't constitutionally adjourn for the year without the House's approval. But Petersen's move puts the more conservative House, which earlier passed its own Republican-only budget, in a take-it-or-leave-it situation. That is, unless Petersen relents and pulls the gone fishin' sign off the door to the Senate. A budget must be in place by June 30 to avoid a state government shutdown. (OK, I know some of you think that might not be such a bad idea. ...) Petersen told me he believes the $17.6 billion Senate-Hobbs budget 'leans right' and will get House approval. 'It has the votes to pass. That is why we sent it,' he said. House leaders and Hoffman, the Senate's believed-to-be lone Freedom Caucus member, must be feeling a little like roadkill. While Senate GOP leaders wisely negotiated with Hobbs, hoping to avoid the whole veto dance, House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Goodyear, and the Freedom Caucus pulled on their blinders and decided to go it alone, declining to negotiate with Democrats or even Senate Republicans. Their smaller $17.3 billion budget is enough to make a MAGA heart go pitty-pat. It would strip in-state tuition from 'Dreamers' and other students who are here illegally and cut in-state tuition for everybody else, ignoring the fact that tuition is high because the Legislature slashed state funding for the despised universities. It would freeze salaries for family court judges and their employees — I guess somebody in the House has a rather specific ax to grind — and freeze enrollment in the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state's Medicaid program, for childless adults. It would make it more difficult for Attorney General Kris Mayes to prosecute politicians suspected of corruption. Fake electors like Hoffman, for example. Oh, and it would offer millions to their former Freedom Caucus bro, Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap, to aid in his fight with the GOP-run Board of Supervisors over election duties. Also left dead on the floor when the Senate adjourned: House Republicans' request to boost Maricopa County lawmakers' daily expense pay, or per diem as it's called, by a modest 514%. Color the Freedom Caucus purple with apoplexy that Senate GOP leaders would dare to negotiate with Hobbs. 'Today the @AZSenateGOP submitted to Katie Hobbs and passed a budget handing Arizona to the radical left on a silver platter ... ,' Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, raged on social media. House Appropriations Chairman David Livingston, R-Peoria, actually called the staunchly conservative Petersen a RINO. All this, because he dared to negotiate with Satan's handmaiden on the Ninth Floor. Or in the alternative, dared to seek common ground. Senate Republicans have become increasingly annoyed at House Republicans' field trip to 'fantasyland,' as Sen. T.J. Shope, R-Coolidge, called it. That exasperation spilled into public view on June 19. 'We have one job to do down here at the Capitol. Pass a real budget,' Petersen said on social media. 'Not a fake budget for optics and talking points that will be gutted by a line item veto pen, but a real budget that has a consensus of conservative Republicans and gets a signature. 'I am proud of my caucus for not resorting to juvenile behavior. They have shown maturity in the face of misinformation, intrigue, hypocrisy and deception.' For their trouble, Senate Republicans who supported the budget got $5 million each to spend as they see fit. Expect to see a lot of local road projects in GOP districts. Among other things, the Senate-Hobbs budget offers pay raises to state police and firefighters, a 4% bonus for corrections officers and additional money to fight illegal immigration and drug smuggling. It also gives a $200 million one-time boost to K-12 schools, despite the House proposing to cut their funding. Opinion: Rich kids need our help to pay for their piano lessons Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, tried for hours to add in some Freedom Caucus priorities as the Senate passed the budget bills. Things like denying in-state tuition to students who lack legal status and helping Heap in his 'election integrity' battle against the Board of Supervisors. Things like allowing Grand Canyon University and other private and religious colleges to participate in the state Teachers Academy program, which pays tuition at state universities and community colleges for future public school teachers. 'We can get non-woke, well-trained teachers into our classrooms,' Hoffman said. Time after time, Hoffman's amendments were rejected by his fellow Republicans, frustrating the Legislature's biggest bully as the budget passed with the support of 11 Republicans and six Democrats. 'This is the governor dictating to the Legislature the power of the purse,' Hoffman huffed. 'The power of the purse doesn't belong to the governor. It belongs to us.' Actually, it really belongs to us, the voters who installed a divided government. Petersen and 10 other Senate Republicans, in recognizing that fact, are the grown-ups here. Reach Roberts at Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) at @LaurieRobertsaz, on Threads at @LaurieRobertsaz and on BlueSky at @ Get more opinions in your email inbox by signing up for our free opinions newsletter, which publishes Monday through Friday. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona Freedom Caucus just got run over ... by Republicans | Opinion
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
7 days until Arizona government shuts down. Here is who to blame
Just in time for the Fourth of July, Gov. Katie Hobbs should put up a sign at Slide Rock and Red Rock state parks and on the voicemail of the Department of Public Safety and AHCCCS, which insures roughly one in every four state residents or 2 million people: Closed. For more information, contact House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Goodyear, (602) 926-3635. Montenegro is the guy who is so terrified of Sen. Jake Hoffman and his hard right Arizona Freedom Caucus that he's ready to shut down state government rather than approve a budget negotiated by Senate Republicans and Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. Negotiations in which House GOP leaders refused to negotiate. Several people close to the situation tell me the House votes were there last week to pass the $17.6 billion Appropriations Chairman David Livingston on June 18 predicted the Hobbs-Senate budget would pick up support from as many as 31 of the 60-member chamber's 33 Republicans. 'We have a lot of good things in there for members,' he told Capitol Media Services' Howard Fischer. Then on June 19, as the Senate was passing the bills and Hoffman was on the losing end of every vote, the House abruptly adjourned for the weekend. Montenegro announced the House votes weren't there. 'The House is not going to be forced into a take-it-or-leave-it deal that doesn't reflect the will of ourmembers or the people we represent,' he announced on the afternoon of June 20, after a three-hour closed caucus. 'We will do what responsible legislators should do: take action to keep government running and protect Arizona taxpayers.' Even Rep. Livingston has changed his tune, lambasting the staunchly conservative Senate President Warren Petersen for daring to embrace the reality of divided government and negotiate with Hobbs on a budget — a budget that just a day earlier he had praised as containing 'a lot of good things' for Republicans. 'The Governor, with the help of RINO Senate President, is pushing a Democrat Budget,' he said late on June 19, as the Senate passed its bill and announced it was adjourning for the year. Montenegro is now proposing a skinned-down budget to prevent a shutdown and 'give us the time we need to continue negotiations.' I'm not sure what there is to negotiate in July that couldn't have been negotiated in May and June, when House GOP leaders refused to come to the table. Instead, House Republicans went it alone and produced their own $17.3 billion budget — guaranteed veto bait given the cuts to education and AHCCCS. Meanwhile, the Hobbs-Senate $17.6 billion budget increased funding for education and border security and gave pay raises to state police and firefighters, a bonus to corrections officers and $5 million to every Senate Republican who supported the budget, to spend in their districts or otherwise as they see fit. Opinion: Call the doctor. Some GOP lawamkers just got run over So, what happened? One word: Hoffman. Multiple sources tell me he's the shadow speaker, the puppeteer pulling Montenegro's strings. That Montenegro is terrified of being removed as speaker, so he caved to the Freedom Caucus, which Sen. Hoffman chairs. Hoffman's No.1 goal at the Capitol is to hobble Hobbs. It has been from the moment she was elected. Because really, what's more important? Ensuring the smooth operation of state government or making Hobbs look bad to improve Republican Rep. Andy Biggs' odds of knocking her off next year? Something to ponder as you rush to get that Real ID driver's license before you fly this summer or find yourself in need of a state highway trooper or help from the Department of Economic Security. Something to ponder as wildfires — the kind that happen outside the state Capitol — ignite. Starting July 1, the state of Arizona will be closed for business. If you need help, call 1-800-MONTENEGRO. Reach Roberts at Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) at @LaurieRobertsaz, on Threads at @LaurieRobertsaz and on BlueSky at @ Get more opinions in your email inbox by signing up for our free opinions newsletter, which publishes Monday through Friday. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona is a week from shutdown if House refuses budget deal | Opinion
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: The Democrats aren't the ones ‘more concerned with the interests of the few'
To the editor: Columnist Jonah Goldberg writes that the Democratic Party is 'a mess' because it is 'fairly perceived as more concerned with the interests of the few and less concerned with the welfare and rights of the many' ('Maybe the latest Democratic disarray means they're coming to their senses,' June 17). He then defines the 'few,' at least in part, as the teachers' and government employees' unions. Unfortunately, Goldberg misses the big picture. It's the Republican Party that consistently gives tax cuts to the rich and the corporations while they pay lip service to the middle class and are openly hostile to the poor. It's the Republican Party that seems to hate the unions — the economic movement that has most benefited the middle class and the working class. It's the Republican Party that is hostile to anything that helps consumers and the environment. It's the Republican Party that wants to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, food stamps for children, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Environmental Protection Agency. Donald Trump conned millions of Americans into believing that he is a populist who is looking out for their interests. The White House's Department of Government Efficiency cut government funding and services for programs that help the middle class and the poor, and now Trump is seeking tax cuts for the rich and corporations. Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' will do more of the same. It should be obvious that Trump and the Republicans are not concerned with 'the welfare and rights of the many.' Michael Asher, Valley Village
