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.
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.