Great article. Democrats treat the quote ‘if you try to please everyone you’ll please no one’ as a mission statement to rather than a warning. Trump’s Musk/VC wing of supporters and the nativist/nationalist wing seem to be at odds with each other and if Trump tries to please everyone on his side I feel he’ll have the same results as the Democrats have been getting.
As I've noted on MattY substack, as best we can tell from various polls, GOP voters are less in favor of upzoning and deregulating housing sector than Democratic voters. The loudest left voices against building more housing are often in NYC or SF (see Aaron Peskin) and as a result get disproportionate news coverage. But it's not actually strictly true that Dem voters (and maybe more important Dem politicians) are more likely to be against upzoning and building more housing**.
I bring all this up because, in theory I agree with your post. But basically have to note that the second part of your post is probably more relevant here; there's a lot to suggest to me that GOP pursuing an "abundance agenda" is a bit of a pipe dream. Call me a partisan Dem if you'd like, but the deregulatory agenda of GOP has for quite a while been mostly about doing favors for their elite donors*.
*If an abundance agenda does actually come to fruition via the GOP, the mechanism seems like it will be the courts. Ending Chevron deference should probably be long term good for an abundance agenda narrowly speaking. I'm still very worried about this court ruling given that it seems like it's going to lead stuff like the Fifth Circuit declaring that since deference doesn't have to be given agencies like the FDA, they can rule that mifepristone is a great danger to the public because it will cause societal breakdown by giving women too much control (I'm not really joking that based on past behavior I can see Fifth Circuit ruling this way based on this reasoning). But it should also in theory lead to much shorter delays getting projects built due to delays from environmental review. Again, this seems like a "baby with the bathwater" situation in that seems like a mechanism for getting rid of all environmental regulation. But I don't think I'm crazy in thinking this could lead to possibly more not less solar panels getting built.
** I should note by opinions on a lot of topics like this is colored by living in Long Island; quite possibly the national epicenter of right wing NIMBY.
The most likely area for abundance reform is environmental review, I think. There's just no way that the GOP coalition is getting on board with anything that is specifically about increasing the housing supply, as they are ideologically and emotionally opposed to the existence of multifamily housing in their communities, and they are equally opposed to the concept of public transit. But they do hate environmentalists and they do like industrial projects, so I think on that front there will be progress.
To pass significant environmental reform, they will need to get 60 votes in the Senate -- it's not "Byrdable" and can't get through the reconciliation process. I do think there is room for bipartisan cooperation on certain aspects of this, but it will look different than if Republicans could write their own law.
Seems to me that the base of the Democratic Party has moved from center (realistic) to liberal (promote causes rather than growth). The center has shifted to Trump (not necessarily Republican though). If Trump is successful in getting governments finger out of the pie then I think the Democrats will be forced to find another puppet like Biden to front for their liberal agenda - or become the minority party for the foreseeable future.
Great article. Democrats treat the quote ‘if you try to please everyone you’ll please no one’ as a mission statement to rather than a warning. Trump’s Musk/VC wing of supporters and the nativist/nationalist wing seem to be at odds with each other and if Trump tries to please everyone on his side I feel he’ll have the same results as the Democrats have been getting.
As I've noted on MattY substack, as best we can tell from various polls, GOP voters are less in favor of upzoning and deregulating housing sector than Democratic voters. The loudest left voices against building more housing are often in NYC or SF (see Aaron Peskin) and as a result get disproportionate news coverage. But it's not actually strictly true that Dem voters (and maybe more important Dem politicians) are more likely to be against upzoning and building more housing**.
I bring all this up because, in theory I agree with your post. But basically have to note that the second part of your post is probably more relevant here; there's a lot to suggest to me that GOP pursuing an "abundance agenda" is a bit of a pipe dream. Call me a partisan Dem if you'd like, but the deregulatory agenda of GOP has for quite a while been mostly about doing favors for their elite donors*.
*If an abundance agenda does actually come to fruition via the GOP, the mechanism seems like it will be the courts. Ending Chevron deference should probably be long term good for an abundance agenda narrowly speaking. I'm still very worried about this court ruling given that it seems like it's going to lead stuff like the Fifth Circuit declaring that since deference doesn't have to be given agencies like the FDA, they can rule that mifepristone is a great danger to the public because it will cause societal breakdown by giving women too much control (I'm not really joking that based on past behavior I can see Fifth Circuit ruling this way based on this reasoning). But it should also in theory lead to much shorter delays getting projects built due to delays from environmental review. Again, this seems like a "baby with the bathwater" situation in that seems like a mechanism for getting rid of all environmental regulation. But I don't think I'm crazy in thinking this could lead to possibly more not less solar panels getting built.
** I should note by opinions on a lot of topics like this is colored by living in Long Island; quite possibly the national epicenter of right wing NIMBY.
My expectations are so low that I don't want "be able to build stuff for lower costs" so much as I want "be able to build stuff."
The most likely area for abundance reform is environmental review, I think. There's just no way that the GOP coalition is getting on board with anything that is specifically about increasing the housing supply, as they are ideologically and emotionally opposed to the existence of multifamily housing in their communities, and they are equally opposed to the concept of public transit. But they do hate environmentalists and they do like industrial projects, so I think on that front there will be progress.
To pass significant environmental reform, they will need to get 60 votes in the Senate -- it's not "Byrdable" and can't get through the reconciliation process. I do think there is room for bipartisan cooperation on certain aspects of this, but it will look different than if Republicans could write their own law.
Seems to me that the base of the Democratic Party has moved from center (realistic) to liberal (promote causes rather than growth). The center has shifted to Trump (not necessarily Republican though). If Trump is successful in getting governments finger out of the pie then I think the Democrats will be forced to find another puppet like Biden to front for their liberal agenda - or become the minority party for the foreseeable future.
No comment on tariffs to supplement taxes plan floated by Trump ?