Conversation
![David Watson ๐ฅ](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
And its theory of politics โ to take this a bit further โ is that part of how you win credibility with voters is by showing you see the failures and problems of your own side, not just the other side.
A lot more to say here than I can jam into some tweets, so here it is: Abundance's "Theory of Power," explained.
If you can't see that at this point the two enemies are the billionaires and fascists then you're never gonna see it. Come on my show and debate this. The abundance 'welcomefest' was a union-bashing, left-bashing bonanza. If you were principled you'd be calling them out for that.
๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐ก๐ฒ ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ ๐
๐๐๐ซ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฏ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง
Scott Galloway, multi-millionaire professor, gives dire warning about the decline of American capitalism, expanding wealth inequality and far-right CEOs.
โ
NEW ARTICLE 
But what about China, Ezra....you seem to uncritically accept some of the arguments here on Great Power Competition...which work to undermine the theory of Abundance....sounds like a podcast....
I really appreciate you articulating this and I think yourโs is a mature perspective on power.
I do think, from time to time, individuals come along who are capable of wisely administering power, but they are rare. And, as you put, no reservoir of power is safe from corruption.
The way the Scarcity Left has the effrontery โ the bare faced cheek โ to insist that they know how to properly model power, when their model boils down to "black, gay unions = good", is a fucking joke
It's Abundance that actually manages to model how HOAs influence policy by
The Abundance Movement is unpopular with most voters because it carries the same elitist flavor that their constituents hate.
The establishment has drifted so far away from being the party of the working class. They lean more on supply side economics and deregulation as a
The problem with this view is that it's an easy one for a rich, privileged dude to have.
Of course, you'd downplay morality when people like you aren't the ones who are crushed under the weight of compromise as sacrificial lambs. That's reserved for the poor.
There is no such thing as a โpopulistโ theory of power. There are structural theories of power and there is a goofy market theory of interest groups
One Nation, under Trump, Stronger THAN EVER. Are you Trump Tough?
Tough T's Here: rockpapersizzle.shop/pages/trump-to
In otherwards, you're still stuck in the late 2000's when you're entire society has moved on and away from its dogmas.
Honestly, I wish you would do more than simply try to reinvent liberalism in an age when its been thoroughly discredited due to the hardening of so many
What does theory of power even mean? That they believe electoral democracy (power resides in the electorate) to be a sham?
The difference between when Clinton and even Obama were in office is that we've had the largest transfer of wealth in human history.
The only abundance that's available is the abundance of wealth that a small portion of people are hoarding.
This is late-stage capitalism to a tee
This view of power per is not even so much necessarily โliberalโ rather than โpopulist,โ though it may correlate with those labels. Itโs even more deeply Augustinian rather than Rousseauianโand empirical instead of inane. In other words, itโs how the grown-ups (ie,
Why do I need power or a theory thereof in a world of Radical Abundance?
I agree with this - the problem is that "liberals" throughout the Western world themselves perverted this very thought.
This should incentivice civilizing political power by putting a limiting procedural corset of constraints around the use of political power.
But by
The 12 Democrats who make the most sense for 2028.
Yes we know your theory of power is to coddle billionaires and cozy up to democratic party elites.
That's what you have done your entire career!
The fact you name checked Bill Clinton and Barack Obama kind of gives away that its neo liberalism you are talking about not โclassicalโ liberalism.
I feel like what you say here is so obvious that it's hard to imagine anybody with a modicum of intelligence and reason disagreeing with it. And yet some people do!
"There are good and bad people in the world. Good people have good goals and are united, bad people have bad
Marxists are naive utopian useful idiots who don't understand 2nd order effects, aid enemies, inadvertantly egalitarianism
Tudeh and MEK help Islamist lRGC come to power.
KDP help the Nazis.
Nationalist Stalin takes over from Utopian Lenin
Utopian Maoism becomes Fascist Chicom
egalitarianism
Tudeh and MEK help Islamist lRGC come to power.
KDP help the Nazis.
Nationalist Stalin takes over from Utopian Lenin
Utopian Maoism becomes Fascist Chicom
Again with the Bill Clinton campaign worship.
Quote
Ollie
@olzhu
I wouldnโt mind if Democrats try to distance themselves from some of the current culture war stuff but why do we assume that anything Clinton did was electorally effective? He won 43% of the vote in a bizarre 3-way race with Bush and Perot. x.com/_rotimia/statuโฆ
weird to say that it is both not neoliberal triangulation but also is "how Bill Clinton approach his presidency" ie neoliberal triangulation
The issue isn't the theory of power, it's the theory of politics. That's what seems to be absent (or covered over if it's there). You obviously don't win back the WC midwest with coastal housing breakthroughs.
Did you know renewables now generate nearly half of EU electricity? Fossil fuel power has dropped 14% in 2024, with renewables hitting a record 49% share. What's driving this massive shift? #CleanEnergy #EUPower
This is just charisma analysis. Abundance is Clinton lite, Obama was the beginning of the end of abundance. They luterally have nothing in common.
At our inaugural convention, John Dougall (Utah State Auditor) gave his keynote speech on the "3 languages of politics" which is very helpful for understanding the narrative/lens that different people view the world and their policy preferences. Liberalism = Freedom
As an observer of this debate, I think a main sticking point here is that your opponents do not think Obamaโs presidency was a success.
In general, we need less โtheoryโ to understand the world. Power isnโt an abstraction in need of a perfect framework. Itโs a dynamic playing out on micro and macros scales. Current manifestations map to historical parallels, and our language should be kept specific and empirical.
Iโm glad to hear! The โtankiesโ will be disappointed.
Now, work with libertarian Arnold Kling, whose โThree Languages of Politicsโ is a fine erisology (study of disagreements), and you might be able to market it to big-tent Republicans as well as libertarian liberals.
You need to test people a bit harder on whether they've read your book, when you do interviews. You get a lot of questions that are explained pretty thoroughly - across several chapters - in the book. It's incredibly obvious that many haven't even given it a cursory glance.
Wow, worked out well for you that this โtheory of powerโ is precisely what billionaires would prescribe (and indeed have since founding the DLC 30 years ago). Wouldโve been very awkward for you and the NYT crowd if class politics were more effective. Whew! Dodged a bullet there!
Do you support or oppose Elon's & Trump's positions on Women? Bathrooms & sports?
Take the Survey: traditionalvalues.us/Trump-Survey.a
The weirdest thing about the passage quotes here is that much of Abundance is an argument for unshackling government for good -- and the book came out at the exact point in American history when government unshackling is being used for unprecedentedly evil ends.
Power today is expressed most emphatically through economic inequity (class difference); as Foucault proposed, power is a social relation, and todayโs social frictions are often governed by class/economic differences. Wealth tends to have a way of glossing over other differences.
First thing I did was search for "Kuan" (LKY); not present.
(will read it though)
Liberalism is the best argument for controlled semi-benign soft power there is. The other examples inevitably and nearly immediately overreach and only descend further into authoritarianism whereas liberalism has stability so long as the population is educated enough.
Youโre conflating classical liberalism/libertarianism with liberalism as defined by most Americans. The latter, at its best in New Deal & Great Society eras, WAS populist. It was pro-labor and often hostile to the corporate interests/oligarchs Abundance courts.
This is not a theory of power. This is just โsome people are badโ
As far as I understood it, your book makes the strong argument for liberals to think about public infrastructure instead of redistribution only. This kind of argument, no matter if one agrees with it or not, *does not need* a theory of power.
Abundance is using a hammer when you need a small screwdriver. Improving efficiency provides you distributable elegant solutions.
Solutions that are pleasing, graceful, stylish, clean and affordable. Don't roal coal.
George Soros may have better politics than Elon Musk, but ultimately neither should have more political influence than an average American.
Ezra, abundance just isnโt nearly as popular of a policy to beat Republicans. The answer is staring you right in the face, and itโs populism.
Quote
Axios
@axios
Poll: Democratic voters prefer "populism" over "abundance" trib.al/3zUyvIU
President Trump issued an executive order indicating that he will focus on using the Alien Enemies Act to combat international cartels that have become entwined with โmafia statesโ.
Your theory of power is power can always be mishandled, so we shouldn't demonize all corporations, BUT that power be used in worse ways than other ways.
Ok, true, awesome. Now can you understand that corporations wield power in a worse way than unions, non-profits, and local...
but your book uncritically trusts private for-profit landlords and developers, and advocates removing checks on their power
Here we have rhetorical flourishes, high felutant phrases that hint at insights. Yet no substance or clarity delivered. Didn't rtfa because nothing of any meaning was encoded here.
This is very standard output per design of ivy league rhetorical education.
Hey Ezra remember when you praised Paul Ryan for years until his budget was revealed to be an obvious fraud and you were too embarrassed to bring it up ever again?
Ahhh, so easy for the liberal to go "all is bad, I am the enlightened centrist who goes where the wind blows" 
Guess useful to clarify your theory of power. But not sure why it was necessary. Pretty obvious what it is ....
"
I send this message from behind walls that separate worlds.
I donโt have much left but I try to extend my hand into the deep void in front of me.
Weโre always encouraged by an enigmatic force to do that; donโt you agree?
"
Extension. Passing Clouds.
amazon.com/dp/B0C5T9YV5N
You have an oligarchy problem. Clinton sold out the party to special interests and thatโs a BAD thing NOT a โsuccessfulโ thing
This is the exact stance I'd expect from people who are immune to consequences of elections.
Eric, you do know that people were alive during Obamaโs presidencies, right? It seems like you are trying to make it seem like your audience arenโt aware of its failure to even address tent pole campaign promises. The โteam of rivalsโ thing is still common knowledge.
lol. Iโve never seen this many words put into saying LITERALLY nothing.
My theory of power? Well, politics isnโt a morality playโฆ to get things done you need human power but also the kind of power that Obama and Bill Clinton had.
Friends, enemies, uh issues. Letting her rip.
โThere are often different corporations on different sides of the same issue. There are often different unions on different sides of the same issue.โ Iโm cherry-picking this part of the nothing-burger this entire post is, thereโs nothing substantive here. Pointless, circular talk
This theory relies on the idea that "reservoirs of power" randomly decide to change what they believe in and do not have incentive structures that determine their interests overall. For example corporations have one incentive structure: profits. They will never side against that.
I still remember when you said that you had an personality type usually associated with right wingers, an authoritarian parenting style - makes sense given how much of a syncopant you are for established power.
UK's carbon emissions fell 12.5% in 2023 as power sector slashed output by 12%, driven by renewables growth & coal plant closures. But aviation emissions soared 13% amid travel boom. #ClimateAction #NetZero
Strange. I've been told time and time again that your book was simply policy advocacy. So much that I've considered I was schizo. Thanks for confirming my suspicions!
kept waiting for an actual point to show up in this essay and just kept getting posturing
The people who abuse power donโt do so because they are corporations, or because theyโre law-enforcement, or because theyโre republicans, or because they have inherited wealth (although members of each group may do so), they abuse power primarily because theyโre powerful.
That's not a theory of power; that's just describing managing interests--with absolutely no attention to their history or how they came to be in relation to each other. The "left" critique is not about morality, but that you have a pedestrian understanding of how power functions.
UK's carbon emissions fell 12.5% in 2023 as power sector slashed output by 12%, driven by renewables growth & coal plant closures. But aviation emissions soared 13% amid travel boom. #ClimateAction #NetZero
There's no such thing as democracy without populism or ignoring public opinion.
Instead in the West, we see that the elites manipulate ordinary people in what is called "managed democracy", which has the outward appearance of democracy, but the rich really run policy.
This is not a theory of power, it's a theory of complacency. Very stupid, Ezra!
You don't need to write that much to explain why we must always support and trust corporations
I wish you liberals would drop your purity tests and embrace pragmatism. We need to win elections to get anything done.
I donโt think Iโd say I โdislikeโ this, I just think itโs very dumb and tells us basically nothing about power. Youโre clearly trying to dumbfound ppl into backing a strain of anti politics your corporate backers can live with. They arenโt biting because they arenโt stupid.
That's a lot verbiage to say your main goal is union busting. I can tell you that us union construction workers aren't going to work for less. There will be no construction without us. And our work is skilled, you're not just going to bring in schumcks off the street to scab.
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama brought us to where we are now. They aren't models to emulate, they are the dead weight that must be shed if you dipshits are to have any hope of resisting what's coming
Thinking about subscribing to Hedgeye? Donโt take our word for it. Listen to portfolio manager โone of the best in the gameโon why Hedgeye is a must-have for investors.
Yes Clinton and Obama's policies were so popular they gave us 8 years of Bush and Trump right after