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.
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 am not sure what the liberal technocratic approach you are referring to means, specifically. It has certainly been there, but but you seem to have implied that it has had power and did nothing with it (or achieved actively counterproductive results that led to the worsening of American democracy).
However, in reality, the major successes of the liberal movement in past decades have been almost solely on the social front, namely LGBT rights (gay marriage being foremost among them, and transgender rights becoming important more recently) and an increased (at least cultural) focus on systemic racism, power imbalances, sexism etc. I welcome most of these developments, and I would wager both the "liberal technocrats" and the APs do as well.
But those are primarily cultural wins, even when legislation or court rulings are involved. Changing the culture is not what the APs are focused on, but rather ensuring the proper functioning (outcome-based, not process-based) of systems to ensure general prosperity. Indeed the main focus from APs in particularly on the issues that have NOT been touched upon or resolved at all in decades. For example, the number one issue focused upon by the headliners of the AP movement mentioned in the post itself is housing, particularly highlighting how the NIMBY movement (and associated legislation, such as single-family zoning laws) has artificially restricted supply and kept housing unaffordable for many, sacrificing well-being at the altar of neighborhood "character".
I am sure there have been liberal technocrats focused on matters like these in the past twenty years as well, it's just that... I can't really think of any that had significant political power. Obama, for instance, did not have any noticeable housing wonk or "abundance"-style beliefs in can think of. On economic matters, the Democratic party as a whole had spent decades fighting against supply-side economics by focusing on demand, and even the centrist wing mostly wanted to keep the system going and perhaps make it slightly more fair. As such, they did not have an explicit focus on making it more efficient by reducing well-intended but counterproductive regulations and increasing prosperity by ensuring the supply side was also well-adjusted.
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.
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.
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.
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 am not sure what the liberal technocratic approach you are referring to means, specifically. It has certainly been there, but but you seem to have implied that it has had power and did nothing with it (or achieved actively counterproductive results that led to the worsening of American democracy).
However, in reality, the major successes of the liberal movement in past decades have been almost solely on the social front, namely LGBT rights (gay marriage being foremost among them, and transgender rights becoming important more recently) and an increased (at least cultural) focus on systemic racism, power imbalances, sexism etc. I welcome most of these developments, and I would wager both the "liberal technocrats" and the APs do as well.
But those are primarily cultural wins, even when legislation or court rulings are involved. Changing the culture is not what the APs are focused on, but rather ensuring the proper functioning (outcome-based, not process-based) of systems to ensure general prosperity. Indeed the main focus from APs in particularly on the issues that have NOT been touched upon or resolved at all in decades. For example, the number one issue focused upon by the headliners of the AP movement mentioned in the post itself is housing, particularly highlighting how the NIMBY movement (and associated legislation, such as single-family zoning laws) has artificially restricted supply and kept housing unaffordable for many, sacrificing well-being at the altar of neighborhood "character".
I am sure there have been liberal technocrats focused on matters like these in the past twenty years as well, it's just that... I can't really think of any that had significant political power. Obama, for instance, did not have any noticeable housing wonk or "abundance"-style beliefs in can think of. On economic matters, the Democratic party as a whole had spent decades fighting against supply-side economics by focusing on demand, and even the centrist wing mostly wanted to keep the system going and perhaps make it slightly more fair. As such, they did not have an explicit focus on making it more efficient by reducing well-intended but counterproductive regulations and increasing prosperity by ensuring the supply side was also well-adjusted.
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.
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.