SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
progressives
Economic Populism, Not Neoliberal Abundance, Is the Best Path to Defeating Trumpism
At a moment when Democrats’ efficacy in defeating Trumpism carries such existential stakes, new survey results demonstrate why many of us on the left have found the campaign to make abundance the new face of the Democratic Party so deeply concerning.
Jun 01, 2025
If you follow intra-Democratic discourse on social media, then you probably saw the frenzy that erupted this week following Axios’ coverage of a poll by Demand Progress that found populist messaging far outperforms the messaging being pushed by proponents of the “abundance” movement.
When asked about a candidate who wanted to “get money out of politics, break up corporate monopolies, and fight corruption,” 48.5% of respondents said they’d be much more likely to vote for that candidate and 33.1% said they’d be somewhat more likely, for a total of 81.6%. When asked about a candidate who wanted to “make the government and economy do a better job of serving working and middle-class Americans” by reducing “regulations that hold back the government and private sector from taking action,” 18.8% said they’d be much more likely to vote for that candidate and 28.9% said they’d be somewhat more likely, for a total of 47.7%. (The massive gap between the two options is actually slightly larger among independent voters, with 84.8% more likely to support the populist candidate versus 44.9% for abundance.)
At a moment when Democrats’ efficacy in defeating Trumpism carries such existential stakes, these survey results demonstrate why many of us on the left have found the campaign to make abundance the new face of the Democratic Party so deeply concerning. In the fight against authoritarianism, we simply cannot afford to repeat the mistake Kamala Harris made in 2024, when her shift away from an initially populist message to an abundance-adjacent strategy coincided with a significant drop-off in popular support – a disastrous approach that abundance advocates are working to recreate (or, perhaps more appropriately, maintain) within the Democratic Party, with the aid of millions of dollars from their crypto, AI, Big Tech, and fossil fuel backers.
In the fight against authoritarianism, we simply cannot afford to repeat the mistake Kamala Harris made in 2024...
Perhaps more revealing than the actual poll, however, have been the responses to it from the abundance camp. Abundance proponents immediately lashed out to try to dismiss the survey, cast doubt on its methodology, and explain away the obvious conclusions that Democrats should draw from its results. But each of their arguments is so profoundly weak, if not outright disingenuous, that reviewing them one by one calls into question nearly every aspect of the abundance program.
Abundance proponents’ first strategy was to attack the poll’s wording. For example, The Atlantic’s Jonathan Chait immediately sprung into action after the results were published to claim that the poll “is literally worthless, because the language is crafted to yield the desired outcome.”
Here’s how the poll described the abundance argument:
The big problem is ‘bottlenecks’ that make it harder to produce housing, expand energy production, or build new roads and bridges. Frequently these bottlenecks take the form of well-intended regulations meant to give people a voice or to protect the environment - but these regulations are exploited by organized interest groups and community groups to slow things down. This increases costs and makes it harder for us to provide for everybody’s needs. We need to push back against these groups so the government and economy can work better for working and middle-class Americans.
I don’t know how anyone could read this language and not think it’s an accurate articulation of the abundance agenda. Maybe abundance advocates could come up with a more generous framing of their argument, but if so, they haven’t provided it.
The one specific criticism I have seen came from Adam Jentleson, self-appointed warrior against “the groups,” who wrote, “This is a good example of how groups cook polls. Candidates typically say ‘cut red tape,’ which probably performs better than just ‘bottlenecks.’ But the group massages the question wording [to] get the outcome they want.” But that’s just not how abundance proponents frame their program. In Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s agenda-defining book, "Abundance," the word “bottleneck” is used over a dozen times. The phrase “red tape” does not appear once. Bottleneck also frequently appears throughout the authors’ other writings on this subject, and in the materials of the institutions backing the abundance campaign. If this isn’t a compelling message, that’s not an issue of unfair wording – it’s a problem with the abundance message, as pushed by abundance’s top messengers.
The reason I’m advocating for Democrats to campaign as economic populists – and then govern as such – is because all evidence indicates that this strategy gives us our best chance of beating fascism, before it’s too late.
The next move from the abundance camp was to attack the very idea of comparing populist and abundance messaging, given that it’s possible for Democrats to embrace both programs. As Jentleson put it, “This binary is silly and it’s a structural problem to have foundations pumping millions into calcifying it. The top Dem electoral performers talk about breaking up concentrated corporate power AND cutting gov’t red tape.” There are two big problems with this argument. First, the poll actually tested this point directly. One of the survey’s questions combined populist and abundance messaging to see how a both/and approach performed. Lo and behold, while the combined message did much better than the plain-abundance option, it did significantly worse than the plain-populist one.
But even more importantly, this “we can do both” line completely sidesteps the reality that most of abundance’s top backers have spent the last six months actively fighting to stop Democrats from embracing populism. Matt Bennett, co-founder of Third Way, a centrist think tank that has been a major booster of the Abundance agenda, recently complained that “demanding economic populism is its own form of purity test” and argued that Democrats should stop using a “fighting the oligarchs” message. Jonathan Chait just published a piece about abundance titled “The Coming Democratic Civil War” which stated with admirable honesty that “progressives are not wrong to see the abundance agenda as a broader attack on their movement.” At one Abundance promotion event, Derek Thompson said, “What is ‘oligarchy’ doing for you? The tool they have used to explain the world fails to do so.” In another interview he said, “On the Democratic side, there is a fight, and it’s happening right now, and our book is trying to win a certain intra-left coalitional fight about defining the future of liberalism in the Democratic Party.”
For the abundance camp to contend that they never claimed their program could help Democrats win elections is gaslighting, pure and simple.
In reality, there are pieces of the abundance program that could fit in with a populist agenda. For example, it’s often been progressives who have led the fight against exclusionary zoning. But the abundance movement – its top proponents, the institutions behind them, and the interest groups that are, to use Jentleson’s words, “pumping millions into” standing them up – have generally presented abundance as either in conflict with economic populism or, as Thompson put it, as an alternative that must displace progressivism in “defining the future” of the Democratic Party. Given the battle lines they have drawn, information about which framework voters respond best to seems extremely important. And let the record be clear: The idea of merging populism with abundance is a concession they are making only now that it’s clear that abundance alone could spell disaster for Democrats at the polls.
But it is the final argument from the abundance camp that is both the most disingenuous and the most telling. Many abundance proponents responded to the poll’s evidence that abundance offers Democrats a weak message to run on by arguing that their framework was never meant to be an electoral program. As Vox’s Eric Levitz argued, “[T]he point of abundance reforms is to govern well, not win elections.”
The idea of merging populism with abundance is a concession they are making only now that it’s clear that abundance alone could spell disaster for Democrats at the polls.
Of course, this claim is patently false. Abundance proponents have, beyond any shred of a doubt, been pitching their program as the electoral strategy that will give Democrats their best shot at defeating Trumpism. In his keynote description of abundance in The Atlantic this March, Thompson could not have been more explicit on this point, writing, “If Trump’s opponents are going to win at the polls, they will need to construct a new political movement, one that aims for abundance instead of scarcity.” For the abundance camp to contend that they never claimed their program could help Democrats win elections is gaslighting, pure and simple.
And yet, accepting this claim entails accepting an even more devastating indictment of the abundance movement. Because in the midst of Trump’s ongoing authoritarian takeover of our country, winning elections is the number one existential goal we must achieve. Yes, I am a progressive, so I want to see economically populist governance because I believe it will improve Americans’ lives and strengthen the prospects of our shared future. But I believe the same about maximalist policies on a number of social issues that I’m not advocating for Democrats to campaign on. The reason I’m advocating for Democrats to campaign as economic populists – and then govern as such – is because all evidence indicates that this strategy gives us our best chance of beating fascism, before it’s too late.
This debate matters greatly, because the stakes are so high. If abundance isn’t going to help Democrats defeat MAGA, then abundance advocates – or at least the ones who care about ending Trumpism – should stop trying to “define the future of the Democratic Party.” Let’s leave that work to the Democrats who are trying to orient our party around a vision that voters actually do find compelling.
Keep ReadingShow Less
From Power as an Aphrodisiac to Prostate Cancer: Democrats and the Fall of Joe Biden
The presidency is the ultimate source of power in American politics. But individuals lusting for power does not typically end well for the masses—especially the working class.
May 21, 2025
There is a fable that when Kissinger and Nixon met with Mao Zedong, Mao wondered out loud why the physically unattractive Kissinger was so successful with women. Kissinger quipped, supposedly, that “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”
Anyone who has spent time in political campaigns, political office, or corporate hierarchies, knows there is more than a little truth to Kissinger’s claim. If you hold power or have access to it you are attractive, or at least more attractive than you would be without it. You can feel it and you can use it, and you may do foolish things for fear of losing it. The hunger for it is strong enough to suck away your courage.
Kissinger’s insight gives us, perhaps, a better understanding about how Biden got away with running again when he was so obviously impaired. (You want to kill an aphrodisiac? Talk about your prostate cancer.)
The wound has been reopened with the publication of Original Sin, by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. It is the supposedly shocking story of how Biden’s mental and physical maladies were covered up. (What’s really shocking is how Tapper is hawking his own book on his own CNN show and then also covering it as major news, just a bit like Trump selling meme coins from the White House. Yes, in behalf of all authors, I’m jealous!)
And now the revelation that Biden has Stage 4 prostate cancer is leading to further recriminations that he was hiding his declining health both from the public and from his fellow Democrats.
The basic argument is that those in the know knew that Biden was growing more and more feeble during his presidency and covered up the growing problems by keeping him out of the public eye. As a result, Biden and his team pressed for his reelection, while virtually no one in the Democratic Party resisted publicly, even as polls repeatedly showed that a majority of Democratic voters thought Biden was too old to run again.
Why didn’t the Democrats do something about this obvious train wreck in the making? Why didn’t Bernie, AOC, Elizabeth Warren and other congressional progressives call this process into question so there would be time to select a new candidate through primaries? Why didn’t Governors Pritzker and Newsom, along with other presidential hopefuls, say something—anything—to the American public?
The current crop of answers goes something like this: Biden was protected by his “Polit Bureau” of close advisors, as Democrats labeled them. Those in government who were in contact with Biden always reported that he was sharp and fit because he was only made available during his good times. In short, it was largely his advisor’s fault, including his wife Jill, who failed the party and American democracy by protecting him from more scrutiny. And perhaps, more importantly, it was Biden’s foolish ego that pushed him to hold onto power until it was too late.
Much of that may be true, but it’s inadequate. Kissinger’s aphrodisiac explanation goes deeper.
The presidency is the ultimate source of power in American politics. How could anything match being the leader of the free world, the Commander in Chief of the largest military arsenal in history, and the single person who can control U.S. laws and legislation, from the bully pulpit, by executive order, or with a veto? Everyone wants to kiss your ring.
The president has that power. Power for most everyone else (except for the Supreme Court justices, when they show some spine) is largely derivative. As a result, those who have access to the president are far more powerful than those who do not. Gaining presidential access and then holding on to it is the next best aphrodisiac.
Progressives in Congress—like Sanders, AOC, and Warren—believed they had great influence over Biden and his agenda. There was the repeated bluster that Biden was the most pro-working-class president since FDR. Big ideas, like the Green New Deal, gained Biden’s support, and progressives were often in the center of the action, passing progressive legislation and regulations (even when ambushed by Sens. Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema).
Had they dared to question Biden’s re-election run, it is likely, very likely, they would have lost their access in a hurry. That threat no doubt quieted their tongues. Proximity to power may even have led them to ignore Biden’s decline, to avoid seeing it, and even to choose not to think about it. The power-high can do that and more.
What about the presidential hopefuls? They are hungry for the fullest dose of the power aphrodisiac. If they challenged Biden and his incumbent advantage in 2024 and failed, they might never get another chance at that ultimate high. The Biden supporters among Democratic elites, especially, would never forgive them for stepping into the race. And if Biden beat them in the primaries, and then lost to Trump, or if they beat Biden and then lost to Trump, they would get blamed, and their lofty political ambitions would be quashed. Just calling Biden out, without challenging him in the primaries, would get them nowhere but down. Just ask Dean Phillips.
But if they sat back and let Biden win, or fail on his own, then the 2028 would be wide open. Their choice wasn’t that hard. The safest path to power was to bide their time.
Unfortunately, that political pragmatism and surrender to the aphrodisiac might turn out to be enormously problematic for the Democrats. It’s not a given that Trump’s scorched earth policies will flip the House back to the Democrats in 2026, and the Senate map is a particularly tough one for the Democrats. The Biden debacle has voters questioning why Democrats remained dead silent even as the rest of the country could see plainly that Biden was too old to govern.
That silence now leads to more questions about the timing of Biden’s cancer diagnosis. Did he release this information to turn media coverage away from the new book’s revelations? How could he not know of his ailment while he was president, given that he had the best health care support in the country, if not the world?
All this adds to the stains on the Democratic brand and further undermines their credibility, which already is severely tarnished among working-class voters.
As this story festers, it might be a good time for progressives to question their lifelong strategy of rebuilding the Democratic Party into an instrument of working-class justice. Maybe, just maybe, they should concede that task is doomed to failure. Most Democratic Party officials do not want to be the defenders of the working class. Most, in fact, are content to work hand-in-hand with their wealthy donors who have gained their riches by siphoning wealth away from working people.
Instead, it might be time to have a serious discussion about what it will take to build a new working-class political formation, possibly a new party, even if it is going to take a decade and maybe longer to come to fruition.
The billionaires have two political parties. We need one of our own—one that is not intoxicated by the enfeebling lust for power.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why David Hogg (Almost) Gets It, and the DNC Still Doesn’t
DNC Vice-Chair David Hogg is right to call out do-nothing Democrats but fails to articulate a bold, unapologetically populist vision that names the enemy.
Apr 29, 2025
The Democratic National Committee needs to take a step back and reflect on the moment in which it finds itself. The sense of national anxiety and uncertainty is palpable. Trust in our institutions is staggeringly low. Everyday Americans are scared, and they’re looking for actual leadership. They’re looking for hope. They’re looking for visionaries.
However, for the sake of party unity and integrity, the leaders of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) must remain neutral when it comes to primary challengers.
At least, that’s what the DNC leadership is saying now.
The only way to win back the trust of voters and challenge the proto-authoritarian regime we’re up against is by listening to the demands of working-class people and dropping the paternalistic attitude that insists the elites know best.
That certainly wasn’t the approach taken in 2016 when Hillary Clinton was given insurmountable preference and privilege by the DNC, and again in 2020 when early primary victories for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) sent the party establishment into a panic. Deals were made, and party elites all but sealed the nomination for former President Joe Biden. Neutrality surely wasn’t a priority then.
So what changed? A young, occasionally progressive vice-chair of the DNC with a massive platform announced that his personal grassroots organization, unaffiliated with the DNC, would pledge funds to back primary challengers in democratic strongholds where the running incumbents are failing to rise to the moment we face, and are pompously ignoring the demands for bold change from their constituents. Now, all of a sudden, it would be improper for anyone with real influence in the party infrastructure to pick a side in contested primaries. Interesting. Apparently it’s only improper for party officials to pick a side when the side they pick challenges the status quo.
DNC Vice-Chair David Hogg is right to call out do-nothing Democrats who cling to power while refusing to fight for popular policies like Medicare for All, green jobs, and a wealth tax on the ultra-rich. These corporate-backed incumbents are dead weight on the party, and are more concerned with donor checks than the people they claim to represent. But where Hogg, and too many well-meaning liberals, fall short in their criticism is in their failure to articulate a bold, unapologetically populist vision that names the enemy: a rigged political system in which wealthy donors, corporations, and special interests can buy off politicians of both parties, and subvert the will of the people by simply writing a check.
The party establishment may not have gotten the memo, but the voters certainly have. According to a February Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults of both parties, the role of money in politics is the issue described by the highest percentage of respondents (72%) as “a very big problem,” followed closely by the affordability of healthcare (67%).
We need candidates and a party that refuse to accept dark money in the primaries. We need candidates and a party that draw a sharp distinction on this front. The Democratic Party must be a democratic party, not a plutocratic or oligarchic party.
If the DNC wants to be the vehicle the future requires, it must rally behind candidates who dare to say that healthcare is a human right, and will fight for a single-payer system. The party needs primary challengers who will unapologetically say that our tax dollars should pay for public services, not for bombs that are sent overseas to maim and murder civilians. We need candidates committed to a transformational Green jobs investment. We don’t need lip service and half-measures, but a full-scale mobilization to save our planet from climate catastrophe and corporate greed. We need candidates who will say enough is enough.
The moderate, establishment wing of the Democratic Party would have you believe that these policies are too radical, fringe, and unrealistic to help win elections. These political elites spend so much time convincing the media that they represent the views of the average voter that perhaps they’ve even begun to believe it themselves. The facts tell a different story.
Not only have progressive policies been proven successes in countless advanced democracies all over the world, but they are also extremely popular among Democratic voters. Let’s first look at who is currently popular among the Democratic base. As of last month, the Democratic Party’s favorability rating stands at just 29%. By contrast, the popularity of bold progressive voices in the party is dwarfing that of establishment moderates. Bernie Sanders, alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), is drawing massive crowds scarcely seen in nonelection years on their Fighting Oligarchy tour, while centrist Democrats are struggling to adequately respond to frustrated crowds at their town halls. According to a CNN poll from March 2025, 1 in 6 voters under 45 describe AOC as “emblematic of the party’s values,” much higher than any other politician listed in the poll.
With 48 years separating them, their popularity has less to do with age, and more to do with progressives’ ability to articulate a vision of the future for America that offers more than returning to business as usual. Working class Americans feel left in the dust in a rapidly changing economy that values quick profit over long-term growth and sustainability. The Biden administration failed to acknowledge and sufficiently address the challenges of struggling Americans, and the Kamala Harris campaign didn’t do enough to convince voters that it would be responsive to their needs..
The citizens of this country want to know that their vote and their voice matters, and that it won’t be drowned out by the overwhelming noise of super PACS and billionaire donors. They want to know that a devastating medical emergency won’t be the cause of their family’s bankruptcy. They don’t want the laws of this country to reinforce the idea that the value of your voice and the value of your life are directly tied to the amount of money in your bank account.
The bottom line is this: You win elections by responding to the needs and the concerns of the voters. When the voters of both parties agree that the electoral system is rigged for the rich and the healthcare system is broken, and yet both parties refuse to do anything meaningful about either of those problems, it inevitably follows that voters will look for leaders who seek to fundamentally change the parties that ignore them.
The DNC and the Democratic Party must recognize that leading into the midterms, we are truly at an inflection point. The playbook of the past has failed. There is no reviving it. The only way to win back the trust of voters and challenge the proto-authoritarian regime we’re up against is by listening to the demands of working-class people and dropping the paternalistic attitude that insists the elites know best. While we may disagree with David Hogg on certain issues and candidates, his commitment to cutting the dead weight from the Democratic Party is commendable. Where his strategy misses the mark, however, is in failing to articulate that what we need is not just young candidates willing to fight against Trump. We need to back young candidates willing to fight for a version of America that lives up to its promise in action, not just rhetoric.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular