Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

Process, regulation, and “state capacity”

• Several comments argue environmental review laws (CEQA/NEPA/SEPA) have morphed into process-for-process’s-sake: easily weaponized to block projects, including infill housing and shelters, sometimes worsening environmental and social outcomes.
• Some want these laws scrapped and replaced with clear outcome-based standards and empowered regulators; others warn that interests blocking projects will simply find new tools.
• Related critique: Democrats often celebrate dollars spent rather than infrastructure actually delivered, reinforcing the “everything bagel liberalism” the article targets.

Social vs economic issues and electoral politics

• One camp says liberal politicians should foreground housing, infrastructure, and basic services, but keep getting dragged into polarizing social fights (policing, pronouns, DEI).
• Others counter that Republicans drive the culture war far harder, and that many “social issues” (safety, civil rights, schools) are inseparable from material well-being.
• There’s disagreement over how much Democrats actually “pander to the left,” and whether Kamala Harris’s 2024 campaign really emphasized economic abundance or just continuity with Biden.

Healthcare, DEI, and affirmative action

• Debate over whether a robust national health system would be a political winner: some say yes in theory, others note repeated failures (ACA public option, Medicare for All) and voter risk-aversion.
• Long thread on affirmative action/DEI: some see Democrats pushing unpopular race-conscious policies; others say polling is context-dependent and that diversity is broadly valued even if specific mechanisms are contested.
• Many note conservative media’s ability to keep old slogans (“defund the police”) alive regardless of current platforms.

Housing, NIMBY/YIMBY, and local politics

• Widespread agreement that underbuilding, restrictive zoning, and local veto points drive scarcity; disagreement over whether homeowners are acting in rational self-interest (protecting asset values) or mostly from fear of change, class prejudice, and aesthetics.
• Some argue more density raises land values even if unit prices fall; others stress that transitions can destroy existing neighborhood fabric and perceived safety/parking.
• Several see “pulling up the ladder” as a dominant ethos: older owners benefiting from scarcity while younger would-be residents are priced out.

Landlords, tenants, and ADUs

• ADU liberalization is widely seen as symbolically important but practically limited: high construction costs, complex permitting, risk-averse small landlords, and strong tenant protections make many owners unwilling to add units.
• Landlords describe nightmare evictions and property damage; tenants describe predatory or negligent landlords and fear that weakening protections would be disastrous.
• Some call for differentiated rules for small vs corporate landlords; others warn that creates loopholes and unequal rights.

Generational and class conflict

• Repeated theme: older, asset-rich cohorts “age in place,” block new housing, and effectively turn younger adults into “economic refugees” pushed to cheaper regions.
• Some foresee open intergenerational political conflict; others note that properties are often inherited, so class continuity may blunt that.

Abundance agenda: enthusiasm vs skepticism

• Supporters see “abundance” as a needed reframing: focus on output, faster permitting, and building more housing, transit, and clean energy rather than austerity or fatalism.
• Critics say this is repackaged neoliberalism that dodges structural issues: corporate power, campaign finance, and extreme wealth inequality. They worry that new supply will be captured by oligarchs and funds rather than genuinely improving affordability.
• Some left critics argue liberalism itself is collapsing because it can’t confront class struggle; others say abundance can work technically but fails to address widespread feelings of alienation that fuel right-wing populism.

Corporate power, money, and government

• Strong current arguing that both major US parties are constrained by donors and corporate interests; “social issues” are framed as a distraction that leaves economic structures intact.
• Others emphasize institutional decay and “state capacity”: even when policy goals are popular, ossified rules, misaligned incentives, and fragmented authority make execution slow and expensive.
• There’s broad but vague agreement that fixing housing and infrastructure will require both loosening counterproductive rules and confronting concentrated economic power; how to do both at once is unresolved.