What you are describing as "abundance progressivism" ideally would be the platform of the California Republican Party which itself was eaten alive by movement conservatism, which should have been a cautionary tale for movement progressivism ... But the focus on outcomes rather than narrow ideological approaches, the understanding of the importance of established institutions paired with a skepticism of the extent to which any organized interest public or private can problematically infringe on individual liberty is basically classic conservatism in the Burkean mold. We've ruined the words conservative and liberal (and progressive) for that matter. Such is the nature of political sloganeering. But what you are choosing to call Abundance Progressivism (a good slogan!) is very much a flexible philosophy that deserves strong advocates in California and everywhere else.
MP is a subset of AP - I don't think you can have MP succeed eventually without the outcomes that AP recommends, and people will never be happy until these outcomes are achieved.
I wonder the same applies to Republicans - MP = Abortion, Gun Rights, etc. and AP = lower taxes, less regulation, etc.
Having said that, I think I'm definitely aligned with the AP philosophies, but not against some MP items :). The challenge is how to achieve the goals of AP while keeping MP in mind. I also think that in a lot of cases, MPs have taken things too far. We decided to put child in a private school, because PAUSD is focused on "improving equality", but effectively "lowering the bar for everyone so everyone is equal" instead of "raising the bar for kids falling behind". Instead of outcomes (educational excellence for all), the focus has become equality.
Yes. I’ve struggled to define my politics in my own head, and had come around to a kind of clunky “I’m a liberal who believes in radical change”. But AP sounds right up my alley. Whether something works or not is important! We need to care about that, observe it and adjust accordingly. People need housing.
But if you indeed are for-abundance, you cannot be a progressive today.
You can be a Democrat, you can be center-left, sur.
And perhaps you are even correct that with CA state politics you have a greater chance of success within the donkey party than the elephant one.
But today's progressivism is explicitly at odds with pro-abundance.
So unless you are cynically using the label "progressive" to try to woo some of the borderline leftists back to the center-left, your thesis is flawed.
But I suppose whether intentional or not, that really is all you are attempting to do.
How is abundance progressivism fundamentally different from the liberal technocratic approach of the past two decades? It isn’t. And if it isn’t, I don’t think the technocratic approach that has directly led to the current crisis of democracy is necessarily the best way ahead. There appears to be some recognition of this which explains the attempted rebranding. But in a fitting irony, true to liberal technocratic form, the branding leaves a lot to be desired.
I'm sympathetic as a Bernie voter, but it is not self-evident that a liberal technocratic approach directly led to the current crisis of democracy. I am guessing you are talking about things like Clinton "deregulating" Wall Street and Obama "going easy" on Wall Street or the healthcare industry.
1. It's not clear to me that the abundance progressivism described in this article matches up very well with the Clinton or Obama administrations. (Maybe you could argue that Obamacare was a pragmatic compromise to expand access to healthcare within the existing system, whereas a movement progressive finds it unacceptable to further entrench private health insurance instead of single-payer or at least a public option.)
2. There's certainly a case that movement conservatism has had an equal or greater contribution to the current collapse of our democracy.
But that was the extent of their attention to the problem. As far as I know, Obama didn't propose federal legislation or personally reach out to state legislatures to take action.
What you are describing as "abundance progressivism" ideally would be the platform of the California Republican Party which itself was eaten alive by movement conservatism, which should have been a cautionary tale for movement progressivism ... But the focus on outcomes rather than narrow ideological approaches, the understanding of the importance of established institutions paired with a skepticism of the extent to which any organized interest public or private can problematically infringe on individual liberty is basically classic conservatism in the Burkean mold. We've ruined the words conservative and liberal (and progressive) for that matter. Such is the nature of political sloganeering. But what you are choosing to call Abundance Progressivism (a good slogan!) is very much a flexible philosophy that deserves strong advocates in California and everywhere else.
MP is a subset of AP - I don't think you can have MP succeed eventually without the outcomes that AP recommends, and people will never be happy until these outcomes are achieved.
I wonder the same applies to Republicans - MP = Abortion, Gun Rights, etc. and AP = lower taxes, less regulation, etc.
Having said that, I think I'm definitely aligned with the AP philosophies, but not against some MP items :). The challenge is how to achieve the goals of AP while keeping MP in mind. I also think that in a lot of cases, MPs have taken things too far. We decided to put child in a private school, because PAUSD is focused on "improving equality", but effectively "lowering the bar for everyone so everyone is equal" instead of "raising the bar for kids falling behind". Instead of outcomes (educational excellence for all), the focus has become equality.
Yes. I’ve struggled to define my politics in my own head, and had come around to a kind of clunky “I’m a liberal who believes in radical change”. But AP sounds right up my alley. Whether something works or not is important! We need to care about that, observe it and adjust accordingly. People need housing.
I wish you well.
But if you indeed are for-abundance, you cannot be a progressive today.
You can be a Democrat, you can be center-left, sur.
And perhaps you are even correct that with CA state politics you have a greater chance of success within the donkey party than the elephant one.
But today's progressivism is explicitly at odds with pro-abundance.
So unless you are cynically using the label "progressive" to try to woo some of the borderline leftists back to the center-left, your thesis is flawed.
But I suppose whether intentional or not, that really is all you are attempting to do.
How is abundance progressivism fundamentally different from the liberal technocratic approach of the past two decades? It isn’t. And if it isn’t, I don’t think the technocratic approach that has directly led to the current crisis of democracy is necessarily the best way ahead. There appears to be some recognition of this which explains the attempted rebranding. But in a fitting irony, true to liberal technocratic form, the branding leaves a lot to be desired.
I'm sympathetic as a Bernie voter, but it is not self-evident that a liberal technocratic approach directly led to the current crisis of democracy. I am guessing you are talking about things like Clinton "deregulating" Wall Street and Obama "going easy" on Wall Street or the healthcare industry.
1. It's not clear to me that the abundance progressivism described in this article matches up very well with the Clinton or Obama administrations. (Maybe you could argue that Obamacare was a pragmatic compromise to expand access to healthcare within the existing system, whereas a movement progressive finds it unacceptable to further entrench private health insurance instead of single-payer or at least a public option.)
2. There's certainly a case that movement conservatism has had an equal or greater contribution to the current collapse of our democracy.
In the last year of the Obama administration, they did release pro-housing-supply publications:
https://nlihc.org/resource/obama-administration-releases-housing-development-toolkit
But that was the extent of their attention to the problem. As far as I know, Obama didn't propose federal legislation or personally reach out to state legislatures to take action.