The Abundance Agenda: A Divisive Force Within the Democratic Party

The past few months have been remarkable. The book I co-authored, 'Abundance,' has become a lightning rod within the Democratic Party—seen by some as a potential savior and by others as a threat to its future. Headlines reflect this divide: some ask if the 'Abundance Agenda' can revitalize the party, while others warn it could lead to internal collapse.

Initially, I anticipated that the book’s ideas would be widely accepted and spark limited controversy. Instead, the response has been far more intense and polarized than expected.

Interestingly, the main criticism has not come from the prominent Democratic figures the book critiques—such as blue-state governors and senior officials from recent administrations—many of whom have embraced its proposals. For example, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey has introduced a strategy aimed at creating 'housing abundance.' Several leading Democrats even remarked that the book echoed ideas they themselves had considered.

This moment represents a fluid and uncertain phase for the Democratic Party as it reevaluates its direction following significant setbacks in 2024. The internal debate centers on which perspectives will shape the party’s reinvention. The strongest opposition to 'Abundance' comes from the anti-corporate populist wing, which fears the agenda may undermine their growing influence.

'Abundance' seeks to shift political focus toward a question often overlooked: what do we need more of, and what obstacles prevent us from achieving it? This emphasis has drawn criticism from some on the populist left. Zephyr Teachout, a law professor known for her anti-monopoly stance, explained that her concern lies not with the policies themselves but with the framing. She argues that the core issue should be the concentration of power and how it obstructs progress.

Reflecting this divide, Demand Progress, a progressive advocacy organization, commissioned a poll presenting voters with two competing narratives about America’s primary challenge: whether the main problem is 'bottlenecks' limiting production of housing, energy, and infrastructure, or whether it is the excessive influence of large corporations over the economy and government. The majority favored the latter perspective.