On a recent episode of the Bad Faith podcast, Briahna Gray hosted a particularly good discussion of Abundance, the new book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson I wrote about at length back in March.
You're spot on about certain liberals wanting their version of the CCP. I also think they see themselves as the 'party leaders.' They think they have all the answers and it's the 'groups,' unions, and other people-focused groups that slow them down.
Unfortunately, for all the labour that went into the book, it’s intellectually lazy. That, or it’s dishonest.
Both Thompson and Klein are so beholden to Liberalism they’re unwilling to ask questions about how the high speed rail in China came to be what it is today. Rather, they revert to lazy talking points and oversimplifications.
> what you get is a constellation of people who remain culturally liberal but increasingly have little patience for certain tenets of liberal democracy itself
I see it in YIMBY housing debates. I support broad reforms but there are those who would basically abolish all the roles of local governments in favour of a centrally approved land use policy (often citing Japan's model). Or the support we're seeing in BC, Ontario and from Carney for cabinet override laws to strong arm preferred infrastructure projects past various regulatory reviews.
(YIMBY answer: approved by democratically elected politicians at the state/provincial level)
And isn't Cabinet override the essence of Democratic involvement? The elected leadership of the country taking a stance and willing to stand for election on it?
Sorry but it's not just smaller or local municipalities that claim the mantle of Democratic Legitimacy.
First, Klein and Thompson don't hold up China as the best example here. They use *other liberal democracies* as better benchmarks. It's not just that the US can't build like the Chinese government. It's that we cannot build like the French, Spanish, or Italian governments either. When California hired the French (national government controlled) entity called SNCF to consult on the CA HSR project, the French left in disgust.
Second, your premise about whole government planning also misses a key element of Klein and Thompson. Let's set aside the real criticisms of that Roosevelt report. (For the record, I think it's ridiculous)
If you adopted each suggestion in the Roosevelt report--all of the multi-scalar, cross-government, and public/non-profit development stuff--project opponents would still be able to use federal APA and NEPA plus local zoning/ordinance/permitting lawsuits to delay every project.
(I'll grant that *sometimes* there's a narrow focus on NEPA specifically, but even that Roosevelt report says it's just one reason for delay while citing others such as "local ordinances and zoning" and "community opposition." This is EXACTLY the Klein/Thompson point!)
None of the Roosevelt report suggestions eliminate the ability for project opponents to use the tools of delay that are commonplace today. Why would we believe a different approach would be successful if opponents can still sue, obtain interim injunctive relief, and tie up projects in litigation for years? We need to change the laws governing approvals if we want different outcomes.
Unfortunately, for all the labour that went into the book, it’s intellectually lazy. That, or it’s dishonest.
Both Thompson and Klein are so beholden to Liberalism they’re unwilling to ask questions about how the high speed rail in China came to be what it is today. Rather, they revert to lazy talking points and oversimplifications.
I need to reread your piece because my state just passed an abundance based housing bill and I think we will be even more cooked than we already were
Oh, so the left is AGAINST building homes for people who need them now? Smdh…
Abundance just means having more stuff, how can you be against more stuff?
—oh, you *are* for it. Good, great, let’s get back to enriching more slumlords with more slums
You're spot on about certain liberals wanting their version of the CCP. I also think they see themselves as the 'party leaders.' They think they have all the answers and it's the 'groups,' unions, and other people-focused groups that slow them down.
Unfortunately, for all the labour that went into the book, it’s intellectually lazy. That, or it’s dishonest.
Both Thompson and Klein are so beholden to Liberalism they’re unwilling to ask questions about how the high speed rail in China came to be what it is today. Rather, they revert to lazy talking points and oversimplifications.
This final point is so cogent
> what you get is a constellation of people who remain culturally liberal but increasingly have little patience for certain tenets of liberal democracy itself
I see it in YIMBY housing debates. I support broad reforms but there are those who would basically abolish all the roles of local governments in favour of a centrally approved land use policy (often citing Japan's model). Or the support we're seeing in BC, Ontario and from Carney for cabinet override laws to strong arm preferred infrastructure projects past various regulatory reviews.
Centrally approved by whom?
(YIMBY answer: approved by democratically elected politicians at the state/provincial level)
And isn't Cabinet override the essence of Democratic involvement? The elected leadership of the country taking a stance and willing to stand for election on it?
Sorry but it's not just smaller or local municipalities that claim the mantle of Democratic Legitimacy.
Two comments here.
First, Klein and Thompson don't hold up China as the best example here. They use *other liberal democracies* as better benchmarks. It's not just that the US can't build like the Chinese government. It's that we cannot build like the French, Spanish, or Italian governments either. When California hired the French (national government controlled) entity called SNCF to consult on the CA HSR project, the French left in disgust.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-speed-rail-politics.html
Second, your premise about whole government planning also misses a key element of Klein and Thompson. Let's set aside the real criticisms of that Roosevelt report. (For the record, I think it's ridiculous)
If you adopted each suggestion in the Roosevelt report--all of the multi-scalar, cross-government, and public/non-profit development stuff--project opponents would still be able to use federal APA and NEPA plus local zoning/ordinance/permitting lawsuits to delay every project.
(I'll grant that *sometimes* there's a narrow focus on NEPA specifically, but even that Roosevelt report says it's just one reason for delay while citing others such as "local ordinances and zoning" and "community opposition." This is EXACTLY the Klein/Thompson point!)
None of the Roosevelt report suggestions eliminate the ability for project opponents to use the tools of delay that are commonplace today. Why would we believe a different approach would be successful if opponents can still sue, obtain interim injunctive relief, and tie up projects in litigation for years? We need to change the laws governing approvals if we want different outcomes.
It’s astroturf not a ‘faction’
> among the best examples
This link is broken, alas.
Unfortunately, for all the labour that went into the book, it’s intellectually lazy. That, or it’s dishonest.
Both Thompson and Klein are so beholden to Liberalism they’re unwilling to ask questions about how the high speed rail in China came to be what it is today. Rather, they revert to lazy talking points and oversimplifications.