11 September 2025

Charlie Kirk and Ezra Klein


  
Screencap of the New York Times headline “Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way” by Ezra Klein, with the caption “NO” superimposed over it

Ezra Klein’s New York Times editorial Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way is bad.

The headline

That headline is worse than the editorial itself. It is so unconscionable that Klein has a moral obligation to either:

  • publicly apologize for it and demand both that the Times both change it and publicly apologize for using it
  • resign from his position as an editorial writer at the Times

I do not expect him to do either, which indicts both him and the NYT. I regret that I had only one subscription to cancel, and exercised that measure quite some time ago.

I say this headline is worse than the content of the editorial because it takes Klein’s point out of context:

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.

Klein says this in service of rejecting the assassination of Kirk as a form of political violence which we should not exercise for any reason.

Political violence is a virus. It is contagious. We have been through periods in this country when it was endemic.

As far as that goes, I vigorously agree with Klein. Persuasion is the right way to do politics.

But that points to the failings of the editorial. Klein had an obligation to name the odiousness of both the content of Kirk’s politics and the method of Kirk’s rhetoric. He did not. Very bad.

Charlie Kirk was not the person Klein describes

Many Americans have not heard of him. Klein’s editorial will be many people’s introduction to him, and will become the core of what they know; him failing to explain Kirk and his place in American politics betrays those readers.

Kirk was a nasty piece of work. So it is disingenuous when Klein says this …

American politics has sides. There is no use pretending it doesn’t. But both sides are meant to be on the same side of a larger project — we are all, or most of us, anyway, trying to maintain the viability of the American experiment.

… because no, Kirk was not trying to maintain the viability of the American experiment. He was part of the far right ecosystem deliberately attacking American fundamentals. Turning Point USA helped organize people attending the “Stop The Steal” rally which turned into the 6 January 2021 insurrection against the US government, and Kirk baldly denied the plain truth of J6:

It’s bad judgment, all of a sudden, to climb the Capitol steps and walk in the rotunda; it’s just not wise. However, ‘not wise’ does not mean you’re an insurrectionist, ok? Let me be very clear.

Just because you do something stupid, does not mean you’re Timothy McVeigh. Just because you do something that is regrettable does not mean that you are planning an armed insurrection against the United States government.

The New York Times should be embarrassed that their editors have so much to learn from Teen Vogue and their article Who Was Charlie Kirk? What to Know About the Turning Point USA Founder and His Views.

Far-right political activist Charlie Kirk was shot dead on September 10 while speaking at Utah Valley University. Kirk, the CEO and co-founder of Turning Point USA, was 31.

The shooting occurred as Kirk was speaking in front of a crowd at the Utah university, a kickoff event for Turning Point’s “American Comeback” national tour that had received nearly 1,000 petition signatures calling for it to be canceled, reports the Associated Press. According to CNN, Kirk was asked about the statistics of transgender people linked to mass shootings, an active — and misleading — talking point on the right; Kirk was answering the question when he was fatally shot.

[⋯]

A Trump ally, Kirk was popular among the far-right, known for rallying young people around conservative ideas and around the President. Kirk often travelled to college campuses, where he would debate with students on popular right-wing talking points. He is often credited with rallying young conservatives in a new wave of political activism. During these appearances, Kirk frequently spoke out against abortion and reproductive rights, espoused anti-trans ideology, spread COVID-19 misinformation, spread other controversial and, often, prejudiced opinions. Kirk was gifted at digital attention-grabbing throughout his career as a right-wing commentator; in 2024, prior to another “debate” campus tour, his appearance on the video platform Jubilee debating young liberals went viral.

Kirk has been outspoken against gun control legislation, frequently defending access to guns during debates and speaking engagements. In a Turning Point speech last year, Kirk called shooting deaths as a result of gun access the “cost to liberty,” comparing gun deaths to the risk of driving and auto accidents. He made similar comments in 2023, calling gun deaths “worth” it in exchange for Second Amendment rights shortly after a mass shooting killed three children and three adults at the Christian Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee. Around the same time that Kirk was shot, a shooting at a Colorado school was also unfolding. According to the Denver Post, two teens were injured, with one still in critical condition, and the teenage shooter dead after turning the gun on himself, as of the morning after the shooting.

[⋯]

[Turning Point USA] has long maintained a “Professor Watchlist” to allegedly “expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.” In 2023, an Arizona State University professor on TPUSA’s “Watchlist” was physically attacked by someone associated with Turning Point USA. In 2017, TPUSA was the subject of an investigation by the Chronicle of Higher Education over allegations they had violated their 501(c)3 status by funneling money to student government candidates on campuses across the country.

In short, Kirk was dedicated to destroying the viability of the American experiment. No, that is not practicing politics the right way.

Teen Vogue has more, and I have more below.

Commentaries

Seth Cotlar

As someone who spent many hours listening to Kirk’s show on AM radio, I would say that he made Rush Limbaugh seem like Walter Cronkite by comparison, in terms of rhetorical tone and empirical rigor. The subtext of every show was “You don’t hate the left enough.”

That is the message Kirk devoted his life to spreading. I don’t see how it honors him to turn him into a paragon of democracy, when that is not how he saw himself.


Screencap of Charlie Kirk sharing a meme:
  
  Donald Trump is going to destroy democracy?
  
  I really hope he does
  
  “Democracy” is what North Korea is. We’re a constitutional republic.

Has anyone seen a compilation of clips or quotes that show Kirk speaking to his audience in a manner that illustrates the civic virtues he’s being eulogized for having embodied? If so, I’d be interested to see it. If not, that seems notable, no?

When we eulogize political figures who have died we usually do so with snippets of their own words that exemplify the essence of their life’s work. So let’s see them, all of the Kirk quotes in which we see him urging his followers to embrace the better angels of their nature.

He was a very talented shitposter who was adept at creating selectively edited, “own the college kid libs” content that made his boomer billionaire funders and MAGA Republicans happy. That’s what his fans admired him for. There’s no need to pretend like he was something other than what he was.

I’m choosing to remember Charlie Kirk’s contribution to American civic life in his own words.

Hillary For Prison
If Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or John Adams saw drag queen story hour, they would mobilize the Minutemen
Residents of Springfield, OH are reporting that Haitians are eating their family pets, another gift of the Biden-Harris mass immigration replacement plan. Liberals will soon be lecuting Americans on why they need to sensitive to Haitian culture and accept this …
It’s just so nauseating where this wife … who comes in with her sweet husband who probably works his tail off to make sure that she can go and, you know, have a nice life, provides for the family. And then she lies to him, saying, “Oh yeah I’m going to vote for Trump” and then she votes for Kamala Harris as her little secret in the voting booth.

Derek Chauvin has been found guilty on all three charges leveled against him — Second Degree Murder, Third Degree Murder, and Second Degree Manslaughter

Biden’s “prayers” were answered.

Maxine Waters got her way.

Will it be enough to keep America from burning?

Only a dishonest media would care more about Trump allegedly paying $750 in taxes than Hunter Biden taking in $350 Million from the Russians.

The New York Times game of “gotcha” with the president makes them look petty and small.

This is a tragic and all too familiar sight right now: Athletes dropping suddenly.

All men are created equal but not all cultures are created equal

The West is superior to every other culture because it is the most prosperous, tolerant, and innovative culture to ever exist

That's why America is the only country where even those who hate it refuse to leave

American culture is most accepting on Earth

The world is a better, stronger, and more peaceful place, thanks to the Western values

When a conservative gun enthusiast tried to assassinate Trump, Kirk immediately tried to fan the flames of division by blaming it on “them,” by which he meant the “them” he always blamed everything on, “the left.”

If an NHL enforcer known for taking out players on the opposing team died, we wouldn’t eulogize him for his grace and nimbleness on the ice. Kirk was a skilled propagandist who had a very loose and opportunistic relationship to what most people would call “the truth.” Why pretend otherwise?

On the GOP FB pages I follow I’ve seen dozens of comments from Kirk’s fans in which they say it’s time to “take off the gloves” and do to Democrats what they did to Kirk.

  1. we don’t know who the killer is.
  2. I thought we didn’t do vigilante violence and collective guilt in “the west.”

No one is responsible for what their followers say or do. But it’s noteworthy that so many of Kirk’s admirers are calling for political violence in response to this act of political violence. They apparently didn’t get the memo from him that such attitudes run counter to his beliefs.

One final thing. It’s odd to see Ezra Klein, a total policy nerd, say Kirk did politics the right way when Kirk had almost no interest in either policy, or the empirical rigor necessary to get policy right. Kirk’s approach to politics was 99% culture war rage stoking with almost no policy content.

There’s a reason Kirk rarely engaged with his fellow adults who knew things about things. It’s because Kirk was not interested in or adept at knowing things about things … which, IMO, is not an admirable quality in a figure whose entire brand is to engage in public/political debate.

As we learn from the New York Times Daily podcast, Kirk cut his teeth as the manager of Don Jr’s social media accounts. From a young age Kirk aspired to be the Rush Limbaugh of his generation. His goal was to be the most polarizing figure possible.

So again, one might ask how an empirically-grounded journalist who wrote an entire book lamenting the polarized state of American politics, might describe one of the most intentionally polarizing fabulists of our era as someone who did “politics the right way.”

Seth Cotlar again

American politics has sides. There is no use pretending it doesn’t. But both sides are meant to be on the same side of a larger project — we are all, or most of us, anyway, trying to maintain the viability of the American experiment. We can live with losing an election because we believe in the promise of the next election; we can live with losing an argument because we believe that there will be another argument. Political violence imperils that.

Kirk and I were on different sides of most political arguments. We were on the same side on the continued possibility of American politics. It is supposed to be an argument, not a war; it is supposed to be won with words, not ended with bullets. I wanted Kirk to be safe for his sake, but I also wanted him to be safe for mine and for the sake of our larger shared project. The same is true for Shapiro, for Hoffman, for Hortman, for Thompson, for Trump, for Pelosi, for Whitmer. We are all safe, or none of us are.

I read this part of the Klein article and asked myself, “hm, I wonder what Charlie Kirk said about the 2020 election? Did he ever acknowledge that Biden won?” The answer, unsurprisingly, is no.

Charlie Kirk did not believe in recognizing the results of elections his side lost, which, in my opinion, is the definition of doing politics the wrong way.

This is just a tiny sampling of his election denial posts.

WOW. Director Tulsi Gabbard confirms that she’s uncovered multiple “burn bags” tucked away in safes and random back offices, that contain intel on the politicization of the 2020 election.

Was 2020 really the most secure election in history?

And when will that all come out.

[Video from TheStormHasArrived]

STEVE BANNON:

“You are the sovereign will of the American people. Handed down generation to generation. Through every patriot’s grave, down to the current time.

They steal the 2020 election. Did you give up? Did you go back and cry? Did you go into the fetal position and suck your thumb? Hell no. You didn’t.”

Republican Wisconsin senate candidate Eric Hovde breaks his silence:

“At 4am, Milwaukee reported ~108K absentee ballots, with Sen. Baldwin receiving nearly 90% of those ballots. Statistically this outcome seems impropable.”


Eric Hovde was up big in Wisconsin on election night. But just like in 2020, in the middle of the night, Milwaukee County posted a huge number of absentee ballots (~108K) all at once, that overwhelmingly went for Democrat Tammy Baldwin (~90%), and erased Hovde’s lead completely.

A new study by The Heartland Institute finds that mail-in ballot fraud significantly impacted the results of the 2020 election and that Trump would have “almost certainly won” without the massive, often illegal expansion of mail-in voting.

zerohedge.com/markets/mail-b…

Republicans who ignore the con of the 2020 election should leave the party.

Why haven’t the any of the 2,000 mules who committed multiple crimes surrounding widespread ballot trafficking in the 2020 Election been arrested yet?

šŸ¤”

[Blurry images of election workers]

If Twitter hadn’t interfered in the 2020 election, there never would have been any issue on January 6.

Imagine how many of these pro-Hamas thugs we could have deported if Joe Biden and the Democrats hadn’t rigged the 2020 election.

Isaac! At the Butler! responds to Klein

I feel like I am taking crazy pills. Charlie Kirk’s ultimate goal, which he said time and time again, would have been the suppression, through threat of violence and the use of state power, of the rights of those he disagreed with, including freedom of expression.

Like, yes, what Kirk built, the speed at which he did it, and his ability to speak to college students etc. is impressive. But you can’t lionize that without also explaining what he actually stood for and what he was actually advocating.

I think I understand where this is coming from— we’re all scared about the violence of our political culture spinning wildly out of control— but this kind of dishonesty simply abets Kirk and his allies’ project.

I’m also fairly sure Klein didn’t write anything like this after the assassination of multiple Dem politicians in Minnesota. I’m not saying this as a gotcha, but rather the show the implicit assumption of our discourse, which is that Right Wing violence is to be expected, and thus tacitly accepted.

On some level this bugs me way more than the Times’s euphemistic way of describing Trumps’ authoritarian power grabs, because the not-very-online segment of the Times readership likely has little idea who Kirk was, and are going to come away very misinformed from the way they’re treating this.

Like … my parents have no fucking idea who Charlie Kirk is. What they’re going to get from the Times coverage is that he was a compelling speaker and gifted organizer who was martyred for free speech.

Also, sorry, too worked up and my first cup of coffee just hit… Kirk was part of the effort to overthrow the elected government of the United States on January 6th! In what sense was that “practicing politics the right way”????

Charlie Kirk may have been good at showing up at college campuses and talking to anyone who would listen etc. But the org he headed built a database of professors to target with harassment campaigns in the hopes of drumming them out of academia. Is that practicing politics the right way?

It’s also interesting that Klein mentions the reichstag fire because what’s going on feels a lot more like the canonizing response to the murder of Horst Wessel, a response that Klein is now participating in with this reprehensible piece.

Btw since this thread has now escaped the ecosystem of people I normally interact with I just want to reiterate / clarify something: i am very pro free expression. I think Skokie was correctly decided etc. if all Kirk was doing was saying hateful nonsense into microphones, Klein would have a point

But that’s not what Kirk actually did. Beyond frequent comments that could arguably amount to incitement, his actual operation (Turning Point) is a Thiel backed intimidation racket that explicitly opposes academic freedom and targets people for harassment campaigns.

He also provided material support to an effort to overthrow the government. You can’t lionize his persuasion campaigns and not mention these things. He was an outspoken defender of free expression for people he agreed with and worked to silence those with whom he disagreed.

If you’re going to write an appeal to our better angels piece after Kirk, it’a gotta be an appeal to do politics the way he pretended to do it.

Mother Jones | Charlie Kirk Doesn’t Really Seem to Mind White Nationalism

Worth reading the whole thing. Mentions of two of my anti-favorite people jumped out at me: Sailer & Yarvin:

In October, he invited veteran white supremacist Steve Sailer, whose bonafides include writing for overt white nationalist publications including VDare and the Unz Review, on his podcast. During their interview, Kirk called Sailer his favorite “noticer”—a word frequently used in internet conservative spaces as a euphemism for individuals willing to publicly draw bigoted conclusions linking race and criminality. Sailer did exactly this during their conversation, insinuating that Black people commit crimes because of innate characteristics: “Blacks tend to commit murder about 10 times as often per capita as whites… it’s not just all explained by poverty.”

“Steve, what you’re doing is so important,” Kirk gushed.

In January, Kirk hosted Curtis Yarvin, a neo-reactionary, anti-egalitarian who has described slavery as “a natural human relationship” and argued the biological roots of intelligence vary between populations. (He has tried to walk such claims back.) While Kirk seemed uncomfortable when Yarvin’s expressed his affinity for monarchy, he mostly remained effusive and praised his guest for “thought-provoking ideas” that “I love.”

Noah Berlatsky | Whitewashing Charlie Kirk Promotes Political Violence

The main problem with this is that it is a lie. Kirk was not especially interested in persuasion. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the January 6 insurrection; his organization, Turning Points USA, bussed people to the coup — including one man who stormed the capital and beat police with a fire extinguisher. Kirk continued to defend the insurrection and TPUSA’s role in it for years.

Kirk’s assault on democracy did not start on January 6. TPUSA has been touted (by Klein and others) as some sort of righteous free speech advocacy group promoting debate on campus. But that (again) is a lie. In fact, TPUSA’s main purpose is summed up by its “Professor Watchlist” a website which lists teachers and professors who TPUSA believes “discriminate against conservative students, promote anti-American values and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”

In short, the Watchlist is intended as, and functions as, a mechanism to stifle academic freedom by targeting those on the left—especially women and BIPOC professors — for stochastic terrorism and harassment. Professors on the list say that they regularly receive hate mail and death threats — and that the threats accelerated after January 6, the insurrection that TPUSA supported. The link to the recent firing of a children’s literature professor reported by a conservative student for talking about “gender” is quite clear. TPUSA was a leader of a conservative moral panic designed to terrorize liberal professors and drive them from the academy—a moral panic which has metastasized into Trump’s unprecedented, openly ideological campaign to defund universities.

Kirk has also just openly called for political violence himself; he praised as Biblical and “perfect” the idea of stoning LGBT people to death, and argued that gun deaths were “worth it” to preserve Second Amendment rights. Klein says it’s not fair to argue that Kirk deserved to die by gun violence because he was opposed to gun control, and that is true. What Klein refuses to grapple with, however, is that, Kirk claimed that the Second Amendment needed to be preserved through violent death. That’s an argument which explicitly says that we should see children killed in school shootings as an inevitable necessary sacrifice to politics. It’s a justification of political violence

Kirk quotes via Brad Johnson

I think it’s worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal.
Chicago, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Portland, San Francisco. We got a big military. We should be willing to use it.
Kamala Harris wants to see the elimination of the United States of America.
Kamala Harris seeks to kidnap your child via the trans agenda.
Jews are experiencing the hate that we white people have been experiencing the last decade, and we've been warning against
We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.
You might go out to dinner, go see a movie and come back to a bunch of illegals sitting in your living room, and it will then become their home.
The American Democrat [sic] Party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white. They love it when America gets overwhelmed.
The great replacement strategy, which is well underway every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.
They hate those of you that own land and have guns and believe in a better country, and they have a plan to try and get rid of you.
You believe in God, country, family, faith, and freedom, and they won’t stop until you and your children and your children's children are eliminated.
By the way, I would totally tune in to see some pedo get their head chopped off.
The problem is that the MAGA patriots on January 6th, when they went into, for example, the Senate — where the Senate votes, or they went into some of the hearing rooms, they should have stripped naked and filmed themselves having gay sex. That would have solved all the problems.
Native-born Americans, you better buy weapons, everybody. Have a lot of guns at your disposal. I would never leave your home without a weapon.
I can say declaratively this guy [Martin Luther King, Jr.] is not worthy of a national holiday. He is not worthy of godlike status. In fact, I think it’s really harmful.
The left would love to see a race war.
Climate change is the wrapper around Marxism. You have Marxism at its core and you have climate change on the exterior. Climate change activism, environmentalism, pseudo-paganism — we call it a Trojan horse, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, it all sounds so clichĆ© but it’s totally true.
I know this sounds controversial, but peaceful and constitutional defiance of the federal government will actually strengthen the nation.
If they can make you put a mask on, they’ll take your guns. They can make you take a vaccine, they control your children.
Black people tend to be more athletically inclined to be good at basketball. It’s just the way it is.
Twelve thousand Haitians are now your fellow citizens. Did they earn it? Did they come here the right way? Did they apply? Did they wait in line? No.
We’re going to talk about how the other side has openly admitted that this is about bringing in voters that they want and that they like and honestly, diminishing and decreasing white demographics in America.
A properly defined government is a government supposed to fear the people, not the people fear the government. And one of the ways this is possible is to be able to have hundreds of millions of people own firearms."
Ketanji Brown Jackson — is what your country looks like on critical race theory. KBJ is your country on CRT. KBJ — Ketanji Brown Jackson — is an embodiment of the tyranny that we currently live under. She’s an ideological, unintelligent, yet confident fanatic.
Let’s talk about this war on white people. That’s a thought crime … the one type of racism you’re not allowed to talk about, of course, is the war against people who look like you and I.
Kamala Harris has now become the jive-speaking spokesperson of equity.
Ideological purity tests are an interesting approach, but let’s break up the federal government first and then we’ll go from there.
There is a deliberate and venomous anti-white campaign in our country and it drives me crazy and we shouldn’t put up with it.
Western culture is better and it’s a thoughtcrime to say it out loud. Blacks were sold into slavery by other Blacks. Thomas Sowell wrote that in great detail. When Blacks were given opportunities to return home, they did not want to return home. Blacks didn’t want to leave.
I don’t believe Black History Month is worth the kind of full month that it is, at all.
I’m not a fan of democracy.
Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.
Men know the game is rigged against them — especially young white men.
Women are wired to be more emotional and liberal policies appeal to their emotions. The women project’s a whole different thing. Men are rational, hopefully so, in their politics.
Joe Biden is a bumbling dementia-filled Alzheimer’s corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.
Now, the 14th Amendment is unbelievably important, obviously, but it’s way too broadly written.
This is left-wing ideologues that allowed the island to burn. That there is blood on the hands of the water worshippers. Christianity broke us free of pagan slavery … Could it be that Maui did not have to burn if they didn’t believe such wacky, goofy, pagan stuff?
If you have a male brain versus a female brain in chess you have a competitive advantage … Chess is very similar, by the way, to why women do not get into coding. Some do, but most do not. Why women don’t get into science, technology, engineering, and math.
Women are notorious for still remembering the details of arguments that they had from years ago.
We should not send women into the frontlines of a conflict nor should we send men into the frontlines of educating our preschoolers. Let's understand our differences and the denial of them creates moral chaos, panic, and confusion.
If you’re a Christian, they consider you a terrorist. If you’re a gun owner, they consider you a terrorist.
The entire Third World is moving into America, and the Democrats want that
I used to love New York City. It’s an unrecognizable city, but that’s what the left does. They’re parasites. The left are cockroaches. They just take things over. They don't build anything. They take stuff over and they destroy it.
Hakeem Jeffries and the Democrats, they are cleaning up. They’re raising record amounts of money … We’re dealing with maggots, vermin and swine here. This is not — these are not good people, they’re not even a little bit good. They are coming after our throats.
Jews have been some of the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas and supporters of those ideas over the last 30 or 40 years … Until you cleanse that ideology from the hierarchy in the academic elite of the west, there will not be a safe future.
You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken seriously. You had to steal a white person's slot … It’s very obvious to us you were not smart enough to get it on your own.
We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.
I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made up New Age term that does a lot of damage.
They’re trying to make the country less white. They’re trying to make the country more like the third world, the dumping ground of the planet is the United States southern border.
It’s important to note that Haiti is legitimately infested with demonic voodoo.
The Mamdani effect is going to metastasize in the Democrat [sic] Party … A very dark and sinister vision — one that is anti-Western, anti-American, anti-civilization.
“We will flood your country with unvetted foreigners, mutilate kids, worship criminals, and demonize half the population for simply breathing and existing.” … I want to see a Democrat [sic] Party at peace, not a Democrat [sic] Party at war with the country.
The only men who are gravitating toward the Democrat [sic] Party are men who want to become women.
We have to tell our babies to stop crying. … I believe we’re broken by sin upon birth.
White privilege is a myth and a lie. It should be completely destroyed. It is a racist idea. Why don’t they ever talk about Asian-American privilege?
Just because you have a group of people who look the same doesn’t mean they think the same, and we have great intellectual diversity in our organization.
We are up against a group of individuals that are going to use the rest of their lives and all their resources to try to take our freedoms and liberties away. These are liberals.
If we do not have the capacity to defend our freedoms, which the Second Amendment allows us to do, then our rights and freedoms can be just written away in an instant.
The rise of anti-Americanism on college campuses is so dramatic. I believe the greatest threat to Western civilization is what's happening on our college campuses today. I really do.
Professors that never could have succeeded on the outside … Bitterly unhappy people that want to try to indoctrinate and deprogram America’s youth away from our fundamental values, because they’re just so malevolent towards the world that they could never succeed in themselves.
Are liberals really unhappy people or is it just me? It seems like a liberal would rather see rich people become poor than poor people become rich. A liberal would rather tell you how to live your life than actually improve the life of their own.
We as conservatives, as free thinkers, and as members of the National Rifle Association, we're never gonna tell you how to live your life.
The left would like nothing more than the most effective, the most powerful grassroots organization in America — the NRA — to be decapitated, because they know as long as the NRA is powerful, they cannot obtain unilateral political power.
The six million members of the National Rifle Association are the greatest threat to the American left that exists today and the greatest protector of American freedom now and for the rest of 21st century.
Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.
If you actually believe that climate change is an existential threat, which is complete gibberish, nonsense and balderdash—and all of you guys should be unafraid to push back against all that garbage, because it’s designed for one thing: power and control and let me just tell you something that is a general rule, if your biggest worry in life is existential, you live a great life. If your biggest worry is the sky falling and not sanitation, nutrition, getting murdered on the way home, or being beaten, you live a very nice life.
This climate change nonsense can only happen in a rich, generally peaceful society. You think that the people in the slums of India, the 300 million that don't have access every single day to functioning toilets, you think that they're worried about the sky falling?
There’s not this huge call for gun control, even from the citizens of Chicago. We have a lack of father problem in the Black community … and that has contributed to this endless cycle of gang violence and gun violence … the bottom line is a broken culture problem.
You look at what Mayor Giuliani did in New York in the early 2000s, that’s how he cleaned up the streets. He did not divide people based on racial ethnic lines, he built strong partnerships and he cleaned up the streets.
We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one. You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel.
Never give up our guns! If we do, only criminals will have guns.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
The only purpose of a federal gun registry would be eventual confiscation.
“Gun control” is not about safety, it is about power.
Every time there’s a tragedy, the left talks about banning guns. But you cannot prevent evil by restricting the rights of the innocent.
The statistic out there is that 35,000 people die of gun deaths in America … Two-thirds of that number are death by suicide with a gun. We have a horrible mental health crisis. It’s deceiving to say it’s a gun death. It’s a suicide with a gun.
One in five gun deaths are gang violence, men between the ages of 18 to 30. That's a byproduct of institutional poverty. You’d argue that’s more of a problem of failing schools, failing government programs, lack of economic opportunity, than have much to do really with guns.
New York City councilman Yusuf Salaam, who once took part in the gruesome gang rape of a jogger in Central Park, is now furious that an NYPD officer dared to pull him over for having illegally tinted windows. Salaam wasn’t even arrested or given a ticket, but after getting away with gang rape he apparently thinks he deserves to be completely above the law.
MLK, in my opinion, and based on every objective analysis, he actually gave us more race focus and less emphasis on character and conduct.
[MLK] would be actually to be closer to a race Marxist, almost akin to DEI-type philosopher, if you go deep into his writings, especially later in his life.
Who was MLK? A myth has been created and it has grown totally out of control. While he was alive most people disliked him, yet today he is the most honored, worshipped, even deified person of the 20th century.
Maybe once you break the mythical sainthood of someone like MLK, black voters will realize it’s being used against them to suppress the individual, and even more will realize they are on our side.
Telling the truth about MLK should not be trampling sacred ground. He was just a man. And a very flawed one at that. Worship God, not a mythological anti-racist creation of the 1960s.
MLK was awful. He’s not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn’t believe.
Husbands should do everything he can to not force his wife into the workforce.
How many of you, every single day, it’s your purpose for being is finding a husband? Every hand should go up. But I thought you said you wanted an amazing family. You have to prioritize and aim at what you want the most.
If you’re not married by the age of 30, you only have a 50% chance of getting married. And if you don’t have kids by the age of 30, you have a 50% chance of not having kids … Having children are are a gift from the Lord. And unfortunately, our culture deemphasizes it.
I don’t think the church talks enough about purity, right? I think it’s incredibly important and we should tell young men and young ladies to save themselves for marriage.
Young men have serious problems. We’re working on fixing that. And it’s easy to laugh, but you need young men. Young men are in a far sicker position right now than young ladies are. They’re committing suicide more. They’re checking out of society.
It’s easy to make fun of young men, but a society needs strong men and we need husbands and we need fathers. And everyone in this room should be part of that project of making men strong again. Everyone.
Young ladies need to be willing to submit to a godly man when you meet one. And if you’re not willing to do that, then you got to pray about that because a lot of young men in the dating pool say, “I don’t want to be bossed around all the time.”
The hypertoxic feminism is very off-putting to young men.
They’re called toxically masculine. They're called, you know, “Who needs men,” “the patriarchy,” and so then they just largely disengage or they do even a worse thing, which is they get involved like, “I’m just going to sleep with a bunch of women, but not going to marry them.”
Men will do anything to solve the problem of scarcity. And if men can get you quite easily, that is not an attractive quality to be able to have a man go on a journey with you … And there is one thing that men want more than anything else and it’s not Bitcoin. You know what it is.
As women have not been saving themselves for marriage and men too in the last 30 or 40 years, we’ve seen marriage rates collapse. There is a one-to-one correlation on those two things.
If everyone here basically said, “Nope, we’re going to combine our our power and be pure and trust in Jesus and in God for our future husband,” you would be shocked at how much the dating pool improves.
You must understand that a man might forget to shower for three days because he’s too worried that we’re going to go to a nuclear war with Iran. Men are obsessed with the macro and they often forget the micro.
Corporations want to hire you so badly because you are incredibly good at microtasks. That is why young women have been so well paid in the corporate environment because when it comes to getting details done, women are much better than men.
Obviously your marriage actually comes before your kids … Your relationship with your kids is important. But it’s not covenantal. Your marriage is a covenant. Your relationship with your kids is an outgrowth of a covenant. They’re under your stewardship.
Of course you should be able to use whips against foreigners that are coming into your country. Why is that controversial?
Don’t follow your heart. It’s a bad idea. Do not do that. You laugh, but the Bible is very clear. The heart is wicked. Do not follow your heart.
The most important thing as a parent is that you must instill self-control, not self-esteem for your kid. Whatever it takes, you must have them understand the power of restraint, which is a fruit of the spirit. Remember, self-control is a fruit of the spirit.
You are not your kid’s friend. You are their parent. It is an up-and-down relationship. It is not a horizontal one.
I see in public these parenting displays, that it’s so sad, where it’s just placation. The parent is being held hostage by the child. It is an ongoing blackmail operation. Where it’s like, give me candy or else I riot. It's no different than BLM.
He doesn’t need a whole feeling session. We don’t need that as men. We don’t need emotionality. No. You need conviction and order and a challenge. And we need high stakes.
You must understand God wired us a lot differently … Men look at we we have a problem where we think we are the firefighter to put out a fire. We see problem, we want to fix it … Sometimes the solution is just talking about the problem which for us is an incomprehensible thing.
Our brains work differently. For women, conversation, especially conversation about nothing, is therapeutic. It’s very cathartic. For men, it’s exhausting. And for us, we like to unplug and we like to watch or see somebody else do something hard. That’s what sports is.
Do not talk down to men, do masculine masculinity bashing of men. Not only do we need men, the civilization is God created men and women. And it’s very tempting to get into the whole kind of girl-dominant society. You do not want to live in that world.

05 September 2025

The proposed gun ban for trans people

The Trump administration trying to deny gun rights to trans people has very ugly implications. Many Trump supporters talk a lot about how gun ownership is a “fundamental human right” which provides a necessary bulwark against “tyrannical” government. Do the math.

A wise friend passed this along, from a person they respect who asked folks to share it without attribution:

However you feel about guns, please understand that the move to restrict trans people specifically from gun ownership would create legal precedent that is dangerous and far-reaching. We are in a very bad situation here.

I don’t post here anymore. I don’t trust US corporations or the United States, so, yeah.

But I’m going to do this post. Because right now, there is a very real move to ensure trans people in the US are stripped of their rights in a further step towards our extermination. The most recent bit is reported talks within the DOJ to consider us unable to own firearms.

Regardless of how you feel about gun ownership, I need you to understand how they plan on doing this: 18 USC 922(g)(4). It’s illegal to own a firearm if you’re “adjudicated as mentally defective”.

What this means? From the federal register:

A person is “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority has made a determination that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

  • Is a danger to himself or to others;
  • Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs;
  • Is found insane by a court in a criminal case; or
  • Is found incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility, pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 850a, 876b.

Which means? They can in essence restrict the rights of every trans person to defend themselves in an increasingly hostile country with the wave of a hand by saying that by our trans status we are mentally defective.

I want you to think about what this means. It means, that by “adjudicating as mentally defective” every trans person in the United States, that the ability to imprison us without trial is right there, on the doorstep. I saw this coming 10 years ago. Everyone thought I was being paranoid. Unfortunately, I wasn’t.

So.

To my US based cis friends

There aren’t many trans folks out there. And even if we had a loud enough voice? There are enough transphobic pricks in both parties (looking at Newsome-stans) that no one would give a shit. We need you to be our voice. We need you to protect us. We need you to shout so damn loud, that what I see coming, doesn’t.

To my non-US based friends

The US is no longer a safe country for LGBTQA+ folks, for migrants, for a lot of people. Please. Petition your governments on removing the US as a safe country for asylum reasons.

To my US based trans friends

If it’s not time, it’s getting real close. Get ready, please. Have a plan to run. Get your documents in order, get a go bag ready. Have a destination or 3.

More

I have a big index post about guns & policy if you need it.

The National Rifle Association

A widely reported pleasant surprise from the National Rifle Association:


      
The NRA supports the Second Amendment rights of all law abiding Americans to purchase, possess and use firearms.
      
NRA does not, and will not, support any policy proposals that implement sweeping gun bans that arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of the Second Amendment rights without due process.

04 September 2025

The Abundance agenda


  
Cover image from Klein & Thompson’s book ‘Abundance’, showing a globe with both lush greenery and shiny skyscrapers

Having said that the Democratic Party needs a vigorous agenda which both is and reads as a break from the past, I have had an eye on the “Abundance” movement around the proposals of the Abundance book by the journalists / commentators Ezra Klein & Derek Thompson. It is the kind of thing I think the Dems need to do.

Even considering that K&T have done an extensive promotional tour, it has generated a surprisingly vigorous constellation of commentary, which I take as a sign of the appetite for ideas which I think the Dems need to offer.

Abundance calls for a government agenda of more active intervention to make more resources available. It seems unmistakable to me that this attempts to articulate a next generation of the post-neoliberal Dem policy agenda which Biden was moving toward but did not name.

For Klein, the central policy exemplar is housing and urban infrastructure. He is a YIMBY who wants to reduce the cost of housing by eliminating roadblocks which prevent us from building more of it, and wants to support that with investments in transit and other resources. Having lived through the damage left-NIMBYism did to the San Francisco Bay area, that’s music to my ears. But I have fundamental ambivalence about Klein. I first encountered him in the early blogosphere days, and while I admire his serious interest in policy wonkery, I have a distaste for his transparent careerism seeking a place as a political insider, which creates ugly alliances.

Thompson I understand less well. He seems to be the driver of the Abundance note of starry-eyed “tech” industry optimism, which arouses my skepticism, and him doing an interview with repugnant racist Richard Hananina about Abundance demonstrates mortifying bad judgment.

I have not read the book, but I have wound up listening to a lot of interviews with K&T about it while doing chores, and looking at a lot of commentaries which I have been threading on Bluesky.

I am not just wary of K&T; Abundance has other supporters I like even less. And I doubt that most policy domains suffer the same problems I know about from housing & urban infrastructure.

Despite those reservations — despite standing well to the left of K&T — I feel a contrarian impulse to stand up for Abundance because most of the critiques I have seen from lefties have been gawdawful. I see a lot of people calling it just a fresh coat of paint on Reagan-ish neoliberal deregulation, which is risibly false if one looks at anthing K&T actually say. As even many of the critiques I link to below admit, there are a lot of things to like about the Abundance agenda.

I find a lot of criticisms of K&T’s take on specific policy domains more persausive. Jeff Hauser summarizes those by snarking

I finally figured it out: Abundance is to economic policy what “Invade Iraq in order to bring democracy to the Middle East” was to foreign policy.

It’s baseless optimism as strategy, and then mocking the cautious people pointing out the downsides of, eg, natural gas plants to fuel AI data centers.

… which I think is too strong, but not wrong. Even just at the level of a podcast discussion, even given Klein’s knack for making policy proposals he likes sound more sophisticated than they are, it seems obvious that Abundance over-generalizes from SF Bay Area administrative NIMBYism. So while K&T do not have the Reagan-ish neolib presumption that all de-regulation is good which critics misread them as offering, they do seem to imagine that most domains are burdened with policy cruft that clear-eyed people could easily tidy up. I am very skeptical of so much low-hanging fruit.

Worse, the Abundance movement is too cozy with support from bad actors on the right; check out the example of bad bedfellows at the 2024 Abundance Conference, below.

On Bluesky, Starshine sums up the state of the Discourse:

i think part of the reason it gets such strong reactions is no ones talking about the same things. theres
  1. yimbyism + green energy
  2. trojan horse for thiel / yarvin / collison / manhattan institute / heritage policies
and then anti abundance is
  1. leftist affect nimbyism
  2. people sketched out by 2

Maybe I’m posting this right at the point when this has become a dead letter, but if one is catching up:

Niskanen
Varieties of Abundance

How can Abundance be one thing, but also many? At its base, Abundance is best understood as having one central aspiration that requires tackling two interlocking challenges. The aspiration is to escape from a political economy defined by artificial scarcity, to create a world in which we solve problems primarily by unlocking supply. This vision is not inherently hostile to redistribution—my version certainly is not, and in fact, I think a strong system of social insurance is essential to an abundant future. But what makes it Abundance is an obsession with reducing zero-sum conflicts by creating more—more energy, more housing, more high-quality schools, more scientific discovery, more world-leading firms, and more, cheaper healthcare. Abundance seeks to create a surplus rather than divvy up a shrinking pie.

How do you get that bigger pie? All varieties of Abundance believe the path goes through two chief obstacles. The first is the problem of asymmetric power between concentrated incumbent interests and diffuse challengers. Yesterday’s winners, whether they are homeowners seeking to block new housing or doctors using licensing to prevent competition, have a strong incentive to organize to obstruct new entrants by gaming the rules to their advantage. When enough of these interests have captured the laws that govern the economy, the consequence is the seeming paradox of slowing growth and increasing inequality.

Abundance advocates seek to intervene in this toxic cycle of economic decline by changing the rules to favor market entrants over incumbents, to empower builders, whether public or private, over blockers. They also try to create new forms of participation that mobilize those who would benefit from a societal surplus. In doing so, they take inspiration from the YIMBY movement, which cracked what seemed like an impossible collective action problem by organizing those in favor of new housing over the NIMBY interests that social scientists were certain would always dominate politics.

The second challenge Abundance advocates agree on is helping the government regain its ability to manage complex tasks competently and decisively. This problem of diminished “state capacity” is both a cause and an effect of the power asymmetries identified above. ⋯

The article offers a taxonomy of different strains in the movement:

  • Red plenty — “Abundance for those who dream of state-led economic development aimed at publicly determined goals”
  • Cascadian Abundance — “combines deep environmental commitments, especially around the need for rapid decarbonization, a commitment to urbanism, and a faith in technological solutions to environmental problems”
  • Liberal Abundance — “wants government to do big, ambitious things (just as the varieties to its left do) but thinks that this is a project of restoration through idealistic reform, rather than revolution”
  • Moderate-Abundance synthesis — “victories require defeating ‘the groups’ in the Democratic Party, both to deliver on Abundance policy goals and to avoid thermostatic electoral backlash”
  • Abundance dynamism — “syncretic with libertarianism [⋯] interested in spurring mostly decentralized, privately managed, and financed innovation”
  • Dark Abundance — “seeks to wield national power to disrupt deep-seated institutions in American life to spur economic growth and revive American hegemony”

The Atlantic
A Simple Plan to Solve All of America’s Problems

Thompson’s original 2022 article which led to the book.

Zoom out yet more, and the truly big picture comes into focus. Manufactured scarcity isn’t just the story of COVID tests, or the pandemic, or the economy: It’s the story of America today. The revolution in communications technology has made it easier than ever for ordinary people to loudly identify the problems that they see in the world. But this age of bits-enabled protest has coincided with a slowdown in atoms-related progress.

[⋯]

In the past few months, I’ve become obsessed with a policy agenda that is focused on solving our national problem of scarcity. This agenda would try to take the best from several ideologies. It would harness the left’s emphasis on human welfare, but it would encourage the progressive movement to “take innovation as seriously as it takes affordability,” as Ezra Klein wrote. It would tap into libertarians’ obsession with regulation to identify places where bad rules are getting in the way of the common good. It would channel the right’s fixation with national greatness to grow the things that actually make a nation great—such as clean and safe spaces, excellent government services, fantastic living conditions, and broadly shared wealth.

New York Times Editorial
The Economic Mistake the Left Is Finally Confronting

Ezra Klein’s 2021 argument for “supply-side progressivism” linked by Thompson above.

I don’t think these various policies have cohered into a policy faction, a way progressives think of themselves, at least not yet. But I’d like to see that happen. Political movements consider solutions where they know to look for problems. Progressives have long known to look for problems on the demand side of the economy — to ask whether there are goods and services people need that they cannot afford. That will make today fairer, but to ensure tomorrow is radically better, we need to look for the choke points in the future we imagine, the places where the economy can’t or won’t supply the things we need. And then we need to fix them.

The Nation
The Abundance Debate Is Broken. Here’s How to Fix It.

Progressive skepticism of the contemporary abundance framework often stems from how closely it appears to echo the Atari Democrats and neoliberals of the 1980s. But the abundance coalition fundamentally diverges from the Atari Democrats on key ideological grounds. While today’s abundance advocates similarly highlight efficient governance, market-oriented reforms, and streamlined regulatory frameworks, their agenda isn’t merely a neoliberal revival: its proponents clearly frame their project as restoring robust state capacity, expansive public infrastructure investment, and effective governance—rather than deregulation or corporate dominance alone.

While the Atari Democrats distanced themselves from New Deal–era labor protections and Keynesian social spending, courting suburban professionals and embracing deregulation, many of today’s abundance proponents draw directly from a New Deal–inspired vision of active government, especially through ambitious public investments in infrastructure and industrial policy.

Yet this encouraging side of the abundance vision remains vulnerable to legitimate skepticism, given some of the prominent people floating around the movement. ⋯

Bad bedfellows at the 2024 Abundance Conference

Check out the speakers list at last year’s Abundance conference. It includes Derek Thompson, notoriously wrongheaded-yet-influential center-left commentator Matthew Yglesias, and … people Dems should refuse to share a stage with. Paul Crider called attention to the problem, cautioning:

This thread of fascist ghouls present (and presenting!) at the Abundance conference is worth reading. But I caution against assuming this is what “abundance” means. There are fascists calling themselves liberals too (e.g. Stanford's “Classical Liberalism Initiative”). Socialism has its ghouls too.

As I like to say, something like the abundance agenda is a precondition for a Green New Deal. If the GND gains traction, you'll see fascists touting Green Gulags powered by wind and solar, and mass deportation as a jobs guarantee for white workers.

Wouldn’t mean the Green New Deal is bad.

[⋯]

I’m starting to suspect Abundance is a nefarious plot to discredit YIMBYism.

Worrisome, since I am an enthusiastic YIMBY myself. Doing my own digging has been unnerving. Like Crider, I don’t want to throw out a baby with the bathwater, but the bathwater looks pretty gross.


Garrett Jones is known for his book Hive Mind: How Your Nation's IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own, which argues that the West is rich because the people are smarter, The Culture Transplant: How Migrants Make The Economies They Move To A Lot Like The Ones They Left which argues that immigration from poor countries drags rich countries down, and talks about the cost of ethnic diversity. He doesn’t seem to rest his argument on genetic superiority, mind you, it’s something about culture so don’t call him a racist, heaven forbid.

I don’t want to blame Thomas Hochman for having a brother who is a fascist, but he also has a creepy sense of humor about concentration camps, is worried about the fantasy “issue” of public schools teaching critical race theory, celebrated Trump’s 2024 win, and boasts about his affiliation with the Foundation for American Innovation …

… who are among the think tanks on the right very well-represented on the speaker list. FAI are a weird tech-right affiliated org who feed a lot of policy & staff to the Trump regime. Max Bodach and Samuel Hammond (who offers the Effective Altruists case for Trump) are also among the speakers.

From the American Enterprise Institute (sponsors of such luminaries as Dick Cheney, Dinesh D’Souza, and Jonah Goldberg) we have Kevin Kosar & Vincent Smith (who seem to be ordinary conservatives), James Pethokoukis (Tech Right bootlicker), and Adam White (who tells us Justice Samuel Alito is a great American).

The Manhattan Institute has an even bigger footprint. This is an organization with ties to the Koch brothers, Big Tobacco, creepy transphobic anti-antiracist Christopher Rufo, and other shenanigans on the right. Institute members on the speaker list include their president Reihan Salam, Charles Lehman (who jokes about “deportation abundance” and advocates more prisons with nonsense), and Oren Cass (a Trump policy apologist who worries about doing too much to address climate change).

And a lot of conference speakers have bylines at their publication City Journal: Kosar from AEI, Alex Armlovich, Jon Askonas, Timothy Bartik, Arnab Datta, Eli Dourado, Christopher Elmendorf, Samuel Hammond, Alex Termbath, and Gary Winslett.

I don’t want to cast having a City Journal byline as an indictment. A lot of those people seem to be pretty good. It seems evident that City Journal publishes a wide range of YIMBYs who seem entirely respectable. But they also have Heather Mac Donald (“The Thinking Bigot’s Ann Coulter”) as a contributing editor, Andy Ngo (fascist-aligned psuedojournalist), John Yoo (the Torture Memo guy), Victor Davis Hanson (creepy warmongering Trump apologist), and Walter Olson (in “race science” Steve Sailer’s “Human Biodiversity” discussion group), and other creeps. It sure looks like a project of credibility-washing bad voices & ideas by publishing them alongside smart voices & ideas, in the Quillette model.

So all this suggests a Big Tent which is so big that it allows far right entryism.

Niskanen | Hypertext
What left-wing critics don’t get about abundance

While most of the reviews have been positive, there is a particular and peculiar line of left-wing critique. As a figure in the academic discussion, I haven’t been surprised by this reaction, but I have been somewhat surprised by how uncurious these reviews are. They seem to have studied one or another of the new books, but done almost no reading beyond the four corners of the work they are reviewing. That’s not a criticism of the books but of the readers; the books incorporate a lot of ideas by reference and do not take the form of party platforms. Instead, they are efforts to either address specific policy areas (Stuck, On the Housing Crisis) or to provide a broader ideological orientation (Abundance, One Billion Americans). A critic should make an effort to familiarize themselves with the broader milieu in which the book sits, to click through some of the links. Most of these reviews don’t. As a result, it’s worth noting what the reviews miss.

The UnPopulist
Abundance Offers a Sounder Way Forward for the Left than Degrowth or Redistributive Progressivism

Abundance, perhaps unsurprisingly, has attracted a slew of left-of-center critiques. Some have been measured; others have analytically relied on targeting the authors’ class position (“the abundance vision … [an] upper-middle class experience that might well reflect the authors’ lives … reads like a rich suburb gone green.”) or on subsuming Abundance within Silicon Valley reactionary futurism (“Abundance is a de facto book-length companion piece to [Marc] Andreessen’s pandemic-era essay ‘It’s Time to Build.’”), despite Klein explicitly disavowing key planks of that perspective in print. One consistently leveled charge is that the book is neoliberal: it celebrates the market and denigrates government — or, as a swarm of angry people will yell at you if you mention Abundance on Bluesky, “Abundance is just rebranded Reaganism.” Despite Klein and Thompson’s repeated defenses of government, there is a certain crowd that is convinced that Abundance is just a stalking horse for a familiar Republican program of deregulation and tax cuts.

[⋯]

A suspicion of the authors on a personal level appears to be at the core of much of the criticism. But then, if you announce that you are coming to slaughter the sacred cows, you should not be surprised when the cows object. But this is the big political bet of Abundance: that Klein and Thompson can go around the progressive intellectual gatekeepers and speak directly to the progressive base, to ordinary people. This is not a matter of speculation; they discuss the place of Abundance in a hoped-for political realignment in some detail in the concluding chapter.

[⋯]

But in all this I have not answered a simple question: Is Abundance right? In the broad strokes: absolutely.

[⋯]

What I disagree with is Klein and Thompson’s confrontational strategy. But progressives are right: Corporate power is also a problem! Wealth inequality is also a problem!

[⋯]

This is the power of a master narrative to shape intellectual terrain. If your narrative is about disciplining capital, then anything that looks like capital discipline seems good — even if it strangles the green energy we desperately need. On the other hand, the abundance narrative is not immune to such seductions. If your narrative is “regulations are hampering growth,” then anything that looks like a regulation might be a candidate for attack — even if there’s no evidence that it’s the source of our problems. It does not take much imagination to understand how this can serve right-wing ends.

Jacobin
Abundance for the 99 Percent

Perhaps the most common charge that Abundance is neoliberal rests upon its alleged promotion of “deregulation.” But this is either a willful misrepresentation or, more generously, a result of not reading the book.

[⋯]

If Klein and Thompson are only offering a new version of “warmed over neoliberalism,” they go to great lengths in the book’s conclusion to argue the opposite. They situate their “abundance” framework as a contender to replace the crumbling “neoliberal world order,” deploying the analysis of historian Gary Gerstle. They also point to the state-led expansion of solar technology in the 1970s — an effort crushed by Reagan’s form of slash and burn neoliberal austerity — as a lost opportunity for a more abundant future.

Another common critique from the Left is that Klein and Thompson’s approach is explicitly opposed to the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor and working class. But more accurately, they are simply pointing out that redistribution alone is not enough unless the public sector can actually reliably deliver and build real public goods cheaply and efficiently. As Klein recently put it in an essay for the New York Times, “If Democrats are taxing people to build high-speed rail, that high-speed rail should exist; if they are taxing people to build electric vehicle chargers, those chargers should get built; if they are promising lower drug prices in Medicare, those lower prices should show up quickly.”

[⋯]

We applaud Klein and Thompson’s advocacy of a “liberalism that builds” through effective capacity. But they underplay the extent to which capitalism and class power will prevent their agenda from yielding the political fruit they envision. ⋯

Washington Monthly
The Broadband Story Abundance Liberals Like Ezra Klein Got Wrong

In late March [2025], the New York Times columnist and podcaster Ezra Klein went on the Weekly Show with Jon Stewart podcast to talk about his new book, Abundance, which Klein had co-authored with journalist Derek Thompson, then of The Atlantic. The book’s thesis is that over the years Democrats, often bowing to left-wing interest groups, have encouraged various forms of red tape — from federal environmental statutes to local zoning rules to minority contractor set-asides — that have gummed up the workings of government to the point that it is no longer possible to build things the country desperately needs, like new housing and clean energy infrastructure, in a timely and cost-effective manner. To illustrate his point, he regaled Stewart with a tragicomic tale of the government failure to expand rural broadband access.

[⋯]

In a subsequent New York Times column, Klein admitted that he had gotten some of the facts wrong—that “portions of [BEAD’s] 14-stage process were insisted upon by congressional Republicans.” But rather than concede the broader argument, he doubled down, saying that after further talks with “various people who’d been part of the broadband program,” he discovered that “much of the process was worse than I’d known.” One official, he wrote, told him that “he’d wasted 40 to 50 percent of his time on internal government requirements he judged irrelevant to the project,” though Klein didn’t name the official or the specific requirements the official was referencing. Similarly, Klein’s coauthor, Derek Thompson, acknowledged in an interview with the journalist Mehdi Hasan that Klein initially “got some things wrong” about BEAD, but insisted that “rules we’ve put in our own way” (he didn’t specify which) had derailed the program.

So, what’s the real story here? Was it liberal proceduralism or corporate power that incapacitated Biden’s rural broadband effort?

[⋯]

To resolve this question, we spoke with nearly two dozen government officials and outside experts who were involved in the design and implementation of the BEAD program, pored over hundreds of pages of program documentation, and researched rural broadband policies of previous administrations going back to the 1990s. What we found is that while abundance liberals are certainly right that some infrastructure projects have been slowed or stalled by regulations and public engagement processes put in place by Democrats to placate progressive interest groups, that is simply not the case with Biden’s rural broadband initiative. Rather, the complexity and delays of the BEAD program and the broader failure of Washington over many years to solve the digital divide is overwhelmingly the result of telecom monopolies whose economic and political power previous administrations unleashed. And this misjudgment by abundance liberals is not a one-off mistake, but part of a pattern.

Techdirt
ARPA Is Delivering The ‘Abundance’ Ezra Klein Claims To Be Looking For

The primary culprit of bad regulation isn’t progressive reform. It’s corruption and regulatory capture. It’s careerist revolving door regulators who stopped caring about the public interest a decade earlier, assuming they ever did. It’s a Congress so heavily lobbied by corporate interests it’s literally too corrupt to function or pass even the most basic reforms (see: our lack of internet privacy laws).

As somebody who has studied and written about telecom policy for several decades, corruption is at the very heart of that sector’s bureaucratic dysfunction. If you’re talking about abundance and you think corruption and consolidated corporate power is some kind of afterthought in the conversation of why the government consistently fails to deliver, I’m going to have a hard time taking you seriously.

Boston Review
The Real Path to Abundance

The strongest argument I have seen that K&T’s book is too enthusiastic about deregulation.

The authors back these claims with anecdotes of regulations and bureaucrats supposedly stifling development. This is not rigorous argument, however, but a “story,” as the authors themselves put it on the last page of the book. The problem is that stories can be deeply misleading. Where this one doesn’t give a mistaken impression through sins of omission, it simply gets things wrong. It often blames government for bad outcomes where it should be blaming the whole structure of the market—including other government policies (among them too little regulation of the private sector) and, especially, the nature of private investment (even when spurred by government subsidy).

Jacobin
To Get Abundance, We Need to Discipline Capital

I think this article rests too much on an assumption that Abundance “really” means neolib-ish assumption that private industry can be “unleashed” from regulation, but it offers an instructive warning about the financial logics of private development.

Proponents of abundance sometimes couch their fundamentally deregulatory project as an effort to shore up “state capacity.” These claims shouldn’t be taken at face value, as some on the Left seem all too willing to take them. Rather than interrogating the assumptions underlying abundance, some on the Left are allowing themselves to be led down a primrose path. Despite the occasional nod to, say, bringing outsourced project consulting back in-house, what abundance advocates mean when they invoke “state capacity” is not a powerful state steering, directing, and commanding private capital, or investing and provisioning on its own. Rather, abundance advocates offer a rather more constrained vision: what economist Daniela Gabor has called a “derisking” state.

Liberal Currents
Is Abundance based?

As a testament to this agenda’s appeal, some conservatives argue they are the natural home for abundance. Conservatism is supposedly best suited for promoting abundance and prosperity through its focus on free markets and disinterest in the supposed things that hold back the American economy: regulations, “wokeness”, and an obsession with trying to solve problems by throwing money at them.

While this may have been true in your father’s conservatism, the unfortunate reality is that conservatism today is difficult to reconcile with the Abundance Agenda. ⋯

[⋯]

This is not to say that people on the right cannot be allies in the Abundance Agenda. But abundance must be led by those who prioritize material concerns, common dignity for all people, and a “live and let live” approach to social values.

The sort of folk you might know as liberals.

Liberal Currents
Abundance Does Not Offer A Viable Electoral Strategy

Klein and Thompson establish early on that abundance will be the way for Democrats to come back from the political wilderness. They argue that this will happen if, on the state level, Democrats model what successful governance looks like. “A good way to marginalize the most dangerous political movement is to prove the success of your own. If liberals do not want Americans to turn to the false promise of strongmen, they need to offer the fruits of successful governance.” Make abundance work in California and Massachusetts, and voters in Pennsylvania and Georgia will want that too. This logic on its own is not wrong. When Franklin Roosevelt ran for president in 1932, much of his argument was showing that he could bring his success in New York to the entire nation. But that depends on voters linking those specific policies to the Democratic government in charge.

Liberal Currents writer & editor Samantha Hancox-Li disagrees with that critique:

part of being a home for mere liberalism means accepting a diversity of viewpoints--which is to say, sometimes we publish pieces i do not agree with. so, in the spirit of collegial disagreement, some remarks on why i think glick is wrong.

to start: glick argues that yimby reforms will lower housing prices, leading to an electoral loss. i think this is wrong both economically and politically.

on a political level, we don’t need to speculate--we can just look to jurisdictions that have made yimby-style reforms. the Minneapolis 2040 plan, for example, radically upzoned minneepolis--but did not lead to an electoral wipeout for its authors. scott weiner is a popular senator!

likewise, glick argues that harris campaigned on abundance and lost. this is true … but it’s also true that harris ran a good, persuasive campaign and lost. she did better in the areas she campaigned in! she lost because of association with biden and inflation--as were incumbents across the west.

more deeply, as demsas and broockman discuss here, the “homevoter hypothesis” doesn't appear to be true. nimbys are ideological, not cynical. they'’e not in it for housing prices--they want to save the neighborhood / the environment / etc. and the thing is, the economics of yimby reform are more complicated that the simplistic homevoter hypothesis allows. most homeowners are also landowners. while yimby may decrease the price of housing, it should increase the price of land. where that balance falls for any given tract is … complex.

and this is setting aside the boon to home equity (and one’s economic fortunes generally) that should follow from overall increased growth

fundamentally, as i argued here, blue states and cities should be the showroom floors of the democratic party. and they are, demonstrably, not well governed. we need to unfuck our own house if we want america to trust us!

Dave Karpf
Abundance is a book for an alternate timeline

I don’t have a grand solution to that problem. But my main critique of the book — or at least the publicity tour surrounding the book — is that Abundance is being treated as a big, ambitious solution to the woeful current state of the Democratic Party. And it really is only partway there. We’re also going to have to do something about the tech billionaires and the private equity ghouls who have amassed such power and accept no social responsibility. We’re going to have to face up to the malicious propaganda machine that is the conservative media ecosystem (the topic of Ezra’s previous book, incidentally). We’re going to have to fight the antiscience ideologues head-on, rather than hoping a grand social vision will win them over to our side.

No single book ever has all the answers. And Klein and Thompson at their best are really quite good. In the alternate timeline where we weren’t dealing with the collapse of the goddamn Republic, I think this would be a vital-but-incomplete book, setting the table for some quite-necessary conversations. But we do not live in that timeline.

Critical Point with Kevin Riggle
Climate, Energy, & the Future —
The Future is Literally Bright

Video of an interview. (There’s also a transcript.) I greatly admire Chachra’s book How Infrastructure Works, which Riggle praises thus:

She does the ‘abundance’ pitch from a place of deep knowledge and understanding

Revolving Door Project
All About Abundance

Another overview of commentaries. It’s a little too sympathetic to readings that take Abundances as just neoliberalism by another name, but is quite good on the Big Tent being so big that it admits a lot of bad bedfellows. See also Revolving Door’s mapping of movement sponsors and critique of movement ideas.

Ned Resnikoff
When Is A Tent Too Big?

The differences between Dark Abundance and Red Plenty or Cascadian Abundance run considerably deeper than, say, those that separate left-YIMBYs and libertarian YIMBYs. Left-YIMBYs and libertarian YIMBYs may very often chafe at one another, but I don’t think one wing of the coalition would summarily execute the other, even if they could get away with it. I can’t exactly say the same of Dark Abundance, which includes people who have cheered on the ethnic cleansing campaign being run out of Trump’s DHS and people who think the entire trans community should be erased from existence. If cosmopolitanism is at the heart of YIMBY thought, then it can’t possibly occupy the same movement as a faction that wants to violently purge U.S. cities and is currently cheering on the military occupation of Washington, D.C.

[⋯]

The thing about having a tent, even a big tent, is that you have to place its outer boundaries somewhere. Personally, “deportation abundance,” and the entire worldview it implies, falls well outside of where I would mark those boundaries. I don’t think you can have a coherent abundance coalition that makes room for such a thing. And even if you could, it certainly wouldn’t include me.