Is the time ripe for the progressive movement?
-
I mean the shift from class-based toward a focus on identity categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Both in building political alliances and in defining and promoting policy.
This move has fractured the democratic coalition and weakened its electoral success. Of course party leaders thought with increasing numbers of Hispanic voters this would lead to safe majorities in the long term. 2024 showed that to be wishful thinking (what I called their ‘theory of the case’ which was shattered last November).
-
I think the Abundance Democrats are on to something - this is getting to the root of pocketbook issues that voters care about. Younger voters more than we old timers.
-
The "progressive values" as we know them today are anathema to the majority of voters. They bet on a losing horse there and then put all of their energies into attacking Trump even after he left office. Then they tried to pose as the defenders of democracy. I see no sign that they have changed so I think they will continue to be fringe.
-
I think the Abundance Democrats are on to something - this is getting to the root of pocketbook issues that voters care about. Younger voters more than we old timers.
@jon-nyc said in Is the time ripe for the progressive movement?:
I think the Abundance Democrats are on to something - this is getting to the root of pocketbook issues that voters care about. Younger voters more than we old timers.
I'm not aware of this movement. More info?
-
Here’s ChatGPT’s summary. Ezra and Alex’s book came out in March and they did the podcast circuit then. You can find them on many podcasts describing it more.
Short version: it’s a faction of center-left wonks, politicians, and policy shops arguing that Democrats should be “the party that builds”—more homes, power plants, transit, factories—by fixing the rules that make building slow, scarce, and expensive. They call it the “abundance agenda” or “supply-side progressivism.”
What it wants
• Make more of the basics (housing, clean energy, transit, chips, medical innovation) by streamlining permitting/zoning, boosting state capacity, and investing public money where it unblocks private building.  
• Pair deregulation with investment, not laissez-faire: think Biden-era industrial policy (CHIPS/IRA) plus faster approvals and infrastructure delivery. Proponents dub this “modern supply-side economics.”  Who’s pushing it
• Popularized by Ezra Klein & Derek Thompson (NYT/The Atlantic), whose 2025 bestseller Abundance argues liberal process has choked outputs; they urge a “liberalism that builds.”   
• Backed by pro-housing/YIMBY currents and some centrist/progressive think tanks (e.g., Institute for Progress).  Why it’s “recent”
• The term took off after Thompson’s 2022 Atlantic essay and Biden-era industrial policy; in 2025 the Klein/Thompson book made it a banner for intraparty debate. 
• You can see concrete fights in California, where Democrats moved to streamline CEQA for infill housing and infrastructure—explicitly framed as “abundance.”  The split inside the party
• Supporters say abundance policies lower costs, speed decarbonization, and prove Democrats can deliver materially. 
• Skeptics on the left call it a gloss for deregulation or “neoliberal rebrand”; others say the agenda is too thin without stronger anti-corporate tools.  
• The rift is now showing up in messaging and housing battles; recent coverage frames it as a live Dem family fight.  -
I mean the shift from class-based toward a focus on identity categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Both in building political alliances and in defining and promoting policy.
This move has fractured the democratic coalition and weakened its electoral success. Of course party leaders thought with increasing numbers of Hispanic voters this would lead to safe majorities in the long term. 2024 showed that to be wishful thinking (what I called their ‘theory of the case’ which was shattered last November).
@jon-nyc I don't agree that "identity politics" even exists. It's all just politics. People's reasons for coalescing around policy is irrelevant.
If people who promote policies because of how they identify are engaging in "identity politics", then those opposing such policies are engaging in "identity politics" as well. They can't identify with what it means to be LGBT or etc.; that's their identity. If fighting for the removal of confederate monuments is "identity politics" then fighting such removal is just as much the same. If people resort to fighting for who they are, it's because the current set of classes is exclusionary.
I was born and spent the first 21 years of my life in NH. I returned to NH 12 years ago. Do I identify as a New Englander? Yes. Do I vote for policy positions that will expand social benefits for NH? Yes, but not if those policies will be detrimental to other parts of the US (I don't really know what that would be, but maybe something like unfair share of federal resources). Do I vote against policy positions that will harm New England? Yes, unless there is a compelling reason not to. If New England was being short changed because it's New England (our current POS wouldn't hesitate to do so), would I fight back? Yes.
I am homosexual, have been my whole life (as far back as I can remember). Do I identify as gay? Yes. Do I vote for policy positions that will expand social benefits for LGBT persons? Yes, but not if those policies will be detrimental to other people (in my wildest imagination I cannot fathom what that would be). Do I vote against policy positions that will harm gays? Yes, unless there is a compelling reason not to. If gay people are being short changed because they're gay, would I fight back?
If I say I'm fighting for my rights as a New Englander, I am not generally considered to be engaged in identity politics. If I say I'm fight for gay rights (or trans rights, or racial equality, etc.) then I'm considered engaged in identity politics?
"Identity" politics is an arbitrary label.
What about rural Americans vs. urban Americans. Surely this has everything to do with identity. Yet one of the biggest problems facing the Democrats is this shift of the left into major metropolitan areas and the right settling in rural America. I read something recently that stated this shift in demographics creates a very real struggle for Democrats to achieve 270 electoral votes. Urban America doesn't identify with rural America, and rural America doesn't identify with urban America. Identity politics? No, just politics.
What about the wealthy fighting for low-tax policy that benefits them at the detriment of most of the nation? Identity politics?
In the end, it's just "politics".
-
The "progressive values" as we know them today are anathema to the majority of voters. They bet on a losing horse there and then put all of their energies into attacking Trump even after he left office. Then they tried to pose as the defenders of democracy. I see no sign that they have changed so I think they will continue to be fringe.
@Mik Nope. Not the stats I've seen. Progressive ideas are popular. Universal basic income, minimum wage, government run healthcare, climate change. All garner a lot of support. Support for LGBT rights are high as well. Laws against discrimination against the gay community continue to be supported by a majority.
Support for trans equality is not there yet (although growing support), but the fight continues. Rebutting falsehoods is the biggest challenge.
-
I think the Abundance Democrats are on to something - this is getting to the root of pocketbook issues that voters care about. Younger voters more than we old timers.
@jon-nyc On the face of it, it sounds like some good ideas. (Although how much of it is really new?) I haven't looked into much of the specifics, but am aware that it's not getting the red carpet from all factions of the party.
Some amount of deregulation could be a big boost if it removes barriers towards growth. As long we don't allow ourselves to kick problems into the future.
-
The "progressive values" as we know them today are anathema to the majority of voters. They bet on a losing horse there and then put all of their energies into attacking Trump even after he left office. Then they tried to pose as the defenders of democracy. I see no sign that they have changed so I think they will continue to be fringe.
@Mik said in Is the time ripe for the progressive movement?:
The "progressive values" as we know them today are anathema to the majority of voters. They bet on a losing horse there and then put all of their energies into attacking Trump even after he left office. Then they tried to pose as the defenders of democracy. I see no sign that they have changed so I think they will continue to be fringe.
They ran a candidate who got NOT ONE elected delegate and ran a campaign based on SAVING DEMOCRACY. I don't know how a political party recovers from such a debacle if only because I've never seen this before and wouldn't have written it as fiction.
-
What Jon said.
@Steve-Miller Ditto
