The Abundance Agenda: Neoliberalism's Rebrand

[Celerity]

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-11-26-abundance-agenda-neoliberalisms-rebrand/

The past few years have seen a widespread move away from free-market dogma, as policymakers search for new economic perspectives. The election of Joe Biden in 2020 proved to be a crossroads for economic orthodoxy. For the first time in more than a quarter-century, a Democratic administration did not entrust its economic policy exclusively to adherents of Robert Rubin’s philosophy, for whom the solution to any economic issue was usually “Be less of a Democrat.”

Instead, the Biden-Harris administration trusted progressives as a coalition partner, rather than an electoral faction that had to be dealt with, not worked with. The Biden administration attempted true industrial policy for the first time in over a generation, rekindled enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and didn’t shy away from stimulating the economy when it was foundering. And while Biden’s term has been a rousing success on most macroeconomic measures—the electoral loss turned in part on global inflation and the rollback of the temporary pandemic safety net—progressives’ increasing power within Democratic politics has caused some moderates to become enraged that they’re now expected to settle for the position of senior partner, and denied near-total control.

Enter the “abundance agenda,” an attempt to generate new messaging for a new political era in which neoliberalism has fallen rapidly out of favor. The term has been floating around for years, but has more recently become a rallying cry for a whole array of deregulatory causes. The abundance agenda has also offered shelter to effective altruists, who have been searching for a flag to rally around that isn’t associated with one of the largest frauds in world history. The Biden administration has started to usher in a post-neoliberalism, with more heterodox ideas competing for acceptance. Abundance is neoliberalism repackaged for a post-neoliberal world.

What exactly abundance adherents believe varies, of course, but there are a number of broad precepts: building more housing, producing more energy, and fostering more technological innovation. None of these are objectionable goals; the differences with progressives arise, largely, in how to get there. Abundance starts from a “growth above all” mindset. The agenda’s advocates hate residential zoning laws—which, contrary to what they frequently imply, is something they have in common with us and most progressives—but also detest the National Environmental Policy Act, support fracking, oppose tenant protections, and are often deferential to the policy preferences of Big Tech.

snip

[leftstreet]

1. DURec

Interesting article, thanks for posting

[intheflow]

2. Neoliberalism is what has killed the DNC.

It's what moved the party rightward and in doing so, has made the "both sides are the same" narrative much harder to counter (on most policy matters, if not moral ones). The idea that unlimited growth in anything is possible on our finite planet, among our finite species, would be laughable if only so many on our side weren't embracing the concept like closeted Republicans.

[jfz9580m]

3. K&R this post

The idea that unlimited growth in anything is possible on our finite planet, among our finite species, would be laughable if only so many on our side weren't embracing the concept like closeted Republicans.

It is beyond absurd.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. The Democratic party has never been against growth; you don't need to be a "closeted Republican"

to support it. It's been the goal of all economists for centuries (since people decided Malthus wasn't the end of economics, basically). Recognising there are foreseeable limits to growth is a new idea to Democrats; it seems, to me, that it's correct, but you shouldn't try and paint those who don't yet agree as "closeted Republicans".

[intheflow]

7. I said "UNLIMITED growth."

If you don't grow, you die, but there are healthier, more sustainable ways to grow that recognizes limitations on growth. And also, the neoliberals who want to drill baby drill, invest in cryptocurrency, unabashedly promote militarism and/or an economy wholly dependent on the military-industrial complex - those people are RepublicanLite DINOs.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. But the idea of limits on growth is not a Democratic one

It's from the environmental movement. If there are limitations on growth, then at one point, you must stop growing. If "if you don't grow, you die" is true of an economy, then all economies will die, at some point.

"Neoliberal" does not have to include "invest in cryptocurrency", obviously, because it long predates cryptocurrency. In fact, none of the things you mention are prerequisites of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is an idea fully compatible with the Democratic party ethos of the past, even if it's not a great idea.

[Mike 03]

6. Exactly. We're never going to get this right if we keep panicking

and moving in the wrong direction.

It's so depressing. If we want to unlock those 90 million eligible voters who don't vote we know where they are. I seriously believe we need a new war on poverty. That is what I thought the pundits meant when they said we need to "meet people where they are." They are working two or three jobs and don't know who represents them because neither party talks honestly about lifting them out of poverty.

As for growth, Chomsky warned us at least two decades ago that constantly placing the emphasis on more and more growth was suicidal and could only end in calamity.

By the way, thank you for your post.

[Jspur]

8. The problem is the donor class won't

allow any of this to happen and they have unfortunately taken full control of the democratic party.

[jfz9580m]

4. K&R.nt