![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Three months ago, I wrote that one reason I was paying less attention to the online abundance debate is that I saw a clear and significant "Poster-Politician Divide."
That is: Online, the response from progressive posters to abundance has been consistently and highly negative. But if you listen to progressive politicians—Ro Khanna, Chris Murphy, Zohran, Bernie, etc—their response to the substance of the book tended to be much more positive.
Today, the NYT interviews Bernie Sanders and asks him directly what he thinks about abundance. The screenshot below is his response. You should read it all, but I'd note that the words "absolutely correct" are uttered.
I doubt Sanders is pulling punches here; he doesn't seem like that kind of guy. I think it's more likely that the reason our critique of government rings true for those closest to the levers of govt bureaucracy is that our argument is true, and those who would know best agree with us.
There's a good and necessary debate within the Democratic Party on whether its candidates should run on socialism, or economic populism, or cultural moderation, or abundance. I agree with Ezra's latest column, one message of which is: use whatever works, wherever it works.
But Abundance was never just about fine-tuning the language for the bumper stickers you use on the way to winning power. It was also about what you do if the bumper stickers work and you win. The "38 meetings" problem that Bernie identifies here is rampant throughout govt bureaucracy, but I think it really is worse within the culture of left-of-center governance. And if we suck at doing the stuff we say we're going to do everywhere we have power, people will notice. In fact, they have, and that's partly why we're in this mess.
