In May 2020, President Trump established Operation Warp Speed, which delivered free COVID-19 vaccines to the American people in just months through a combination of streamlining approval processes, providing substantial up-front funding for multiple candidates — including those that utilized previously obscure mRNA technology — and offering financial incentives for successful candidates. Ordinarily, it would have taken multiple years. Similarly, after the July 2023 collapse of a bridge on I-95 near Philadelphia, Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania streamlined processes of permitting, contract awarding, and regulatory oversight to reduce what would have otherwise been a months-long rebuilding effort to 12 days.
Both examples demonstrate the power of the “Abundance” approach to politics, which argues that American companies and governments should focus on results. The idea’s foremost champions are the journalists Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, who released their book “Abundance” in March. Too often, they claim, the Democratic Party has stymied growth and progress through restrictive regulation, zoning, and environmental protections. Whether or not this is entirely true, “Abundance” encourages the party to think big: not only about dollars spent, but about their efficiency. However, as Democrats cast about for a unifying message, I would offer three warnings before wholeheartedly recommending the “Abundance” agenda.
Klein wrote in a New York Times op-ed, comparing the glacial rollout of high-speed rail in California with the swift Chinese deployment of the same technology, “I do not want America to become China. But I do want it to be able to build trains.” Underneath this is a critical, though less blunt argument. For America to build with the same efficiency as China, Klein argues, governments from the municipal to the federal level should eliminate needless regulations and costly project reviews. That plan would mean fewer environmental impact audits and requirements that governing boards include a certain percentage of women and minorities. “Abundance” highlights these examples from the application process for companies seeking funding under the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, and also suggests that citizens should have less power to sue the federal government and hamper its efforts. In other words, for America to build with the same efficiency as China, some reduction in public and legal checks on government action may be necessary.
This is an audacious argument. To what extent should Democrats embrace this vision of expansive state and corporate power when Republicans are weaponizing it against them? With Congress unwilling to act as a coequal branch of government, federal judges have been effective at slowing down the government and halting some unconstitutional proposals, like ending birthright citizenship. The democratic process sometimes yields conflicting ideas about what is in the best interest of the public, and the ability to debate these policies in courts, Congress, and the press is a critical feature of the American system. Just because the procedure is slow does not automatically mean it is inefficient.
That said, we can do better. I think the near-term procedural sacrifices are worth it for the potential benefits — for example, more housing built faster. However, I am also concerned that without a concurrent cultural shift, the “Abundance” agenda won’t be the panacea promised. Improving American life is not simply a policy conversation. Democrats in power between 2021 and 2025 spent billions of dollars on projects in red states and lost the popular vote. New York Times columnist David Brooks recently wrote that “today most of our problems are moral, relational and spiritual more than they are economic. There is the crisis of disconnection, the collapse of social trust, the loss of faith in institutions, [and] the destruction of moral norms in the White House.” I don’t entirely agree with Brooks. Housing prices could be tackled with smart policy decisions, like loosening the regulations that disincentivize home construction. But his larger point is excellent.
While building effectively will certainly improve both perceptions of the party’s governance and its relationship with policy-minded voters, much of the animus in American politics involves cultural issues as well as economic ones. Our struggles with tribalism, loneliness, isolation, distrust of each other and the government, and pessimism cannot be solved by the government simply building more public transit. The Carnegie Endowment has reported that voters in both parties increasingly view members of the other as actively dangerous for the nation. Any project aimed at increasing American productivity has these challenges to confront at the same time.
One vehicle for healing these social rifts is the education system. Numerous studies have shown that students from preschool through 12th grade can hone their empathy and cooperation skills in the classroom, equipping them to be engaged citizens in the collaborative American project. To realize these benefits of education, federal and state lawmakers should increase funding for public schools and promote civics courses that emphasize the value of active and respectful participation in our democracy, not to mention working for a future where school shootings are a thing of the past. While encouraging the development of these essential skills for citizens and shaping the leaders of tomorrow should be priorities for any administration, the network of colleges and universities has an equally important role to play. At the highest levels of education, research universities propel the frontiers of innovation. Investing in and strengthening American institutions of higher learning prepares students to be pioneers of discovery in scientific disciplines, empowering them to tangibly advance the nation’s abundance as productive and collaborative citizens.
For the amount of time that Klein and Thompson spend praising World War II–era initiatives, the absence in “Abundance” of any suggestions for a coherent higher-level education policy is striking. The authors speak fondly of the New Deal, which by any metric delivered jobs, innovation, and abundance, but neglect to mention the role that mid-century investments in universities played in this story. In the wake of WWII, the National Defense Education Act created the federal student loan system that still enables disadvantaged students to pay for college, all in an effort to increase American scientific competitiveness vis-à-vis the USSR. Now, the picture is bleaker. As Harvard professor Stephen Greenblatt points out, where U.S. institutions used to dominate the production of scientific knowledge, Chinese universities now make up eight of the top 10 schools that publish the most research. Addressing the shortcomings of our education system so that America can once again be a global leader in scientific progress goes hand in hand with raising American prosperity.
Despite all these complications to what Klein and Thompson present as a relatively straightforward story, I am optimistic about “Abundance.” I believe we can focus on making government work more effectively for more people, preserving our democracy, and tackling our underlying social challenges, including our schools. By doing so, we will build an abundant America for all.
