Abundance 2025 - Review

Answers to the five questions I brought with me

This week I attended the Abundance 2025 conference in Washington, DC. Today, from the airport lounge, I answer the five questions that I posed in my conference preview from earlier this week.

Is “abundance” really anything new?

Yes and no.

I went into the conference pretty skeptical that there was anything new here. After all the study of public policy is focused on figuring out how to make government work better to deliver more of the things that people value. That’s how many of the abundance advocates describe what they are doing.

Similarly, from Al Gore’s “reinventing government” to Donald Trump’s “department of government efficiency,” politicians have promised (with varying results!) to make government work better, faster, cheaper in serving the needs of citizens.

So from that perspective, abundance is old wine in new bottles — Which is perfectly fine. Improving government is a perennial challenge, worthy of our time.

However, one aspect of Abundance 2025 did surprise me — call it temperament or a vibe, but it was incredibly refreshing to be alongside 700 others who expressed a commitment to bipartisan cooperation, active debate and discussion, and productive disagreement. Political collegiality, curiosity, and collaboration do seem pretty new in 2025.

In my perusal of commentary about the conference, I came across the following criticism (via BlueSky, of course):

The conference taking place today makes it clear that the vast majority of abundance supporters are comfortable sharing a political movement and a stage with groups funded by big tech figures, oil barons, and committed Trump supporters.

The horror! Welcome to democracy, where people with different values, interests, goals, and incentives come together committed to a common purpose.

Today, Nate Silver has a timely post on what he calls “Blueskyism,” which he says is characterized by small-tent-ism, credentialism, and catastrophism. It is worth a read.

If the abundance movement represents a coalition of the willing seeking to rediscover a temperament of democratic politics seemingly forgotten, then Bravo.

Is “abundance” just a euphemism for “growth”?

Yes.

A telling moment for me came in a panel with three members of the bipartisan Build America Caucus in the House of Representatives — whose members have at times associated themselves with the abundance movement. In the panel both Rep. Richie Torres (D-NY) and Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-UT) both stated that they do not use the term “abundance “ in their districts.

That fact alone tells me that “abundance” is never going to become an electoral political movement, but even so, it can provide a legitimizing umbrella to help us rediscover shared interests apart from partisan politics. Perhaps that rediscovery will makes it way into both the Republican and Democratic parties as they each move into the post-Trump and post-progressive era, respectively.

The Build America Caucus describes their mission as follows:¹

Americans have lost faith in government because they don’t see results - they see gridlock, red tape, and delay. This self-imposed scarcity has led to out-of-control housing costs, a constricted energy grid system, and decades of infrastructure delays, all while foreign adversaries race ahead.

It’s time to get back to building.

I was happy to see Republicans and Democrats on a stage talking about shared interests and cooperation.

Rep. Maloy (R-UT) shared some political science 101 when she explained that “durable” policy cannot come from just one party, as we have seen for several decades now, as policies will flip flop when “the other guys” inevitably take control.

It is good to see that some members of Congress have found that making people’s lives better through growth is one area where we can all find agreement.

Do “abundance” advocates really want greater state capacity?

Sorta.

There was exceedingly little discussion of our current president in the sessions that I observed, almost none. At the same time, chatter in the hallways reflected concerns about the Trump administration’s approach to governing (aka —Just do it!).

So I came away with a mixed perspective that many of the abundance folks want more state capacity to do the things they want to do (like build houses) and less that they don’t (like restricting legal immigration of those who might work in construction to build those houses).

There was not much discussion of how to reform or improve government itself, which as I stated in my preview, is central to any agenda focused on better policy and policy implementation.

Where is Congressional reform in a “abundance” agenda?

I did not hear this discussed.

Is “abundance” coherent?

Yes and no.

Many of the people I met for the first time at abundance were young (30s-ish) and brought into the movement out of a desire to see more housing built and lower house prices Some expressed that this motivation was personal — they couldn’t see themselves or their peers owning a house in the places that they wanted to work.

They expressed that the energy that had built on that issue could be applied more broadly to other issues.² Perhaps.

However, if abundance is to morph into anything with electoral consequences it will have to broaden, rebrand, and lose the urban, hipster, elite vibe that it carries with it. Building houses in San Francisco, Seattle, and Colorado is great, but it is not going to lead to a coalition that has any national impact, especially with the coalition that elected Donald Trump. But perhaps local and state impact is good enough.

I’ll continue to follow the abundance movement and wish them well!

Comments welcomed!

Before you go:

• Remember to sign up to watch (and attend if you are in DC) our panel discussion of the EPA Endangerment Finding at AEI on September 17th at 9:00am. My colleague Ben Zycher and I have different views on the topic, and I’ll have a post up on it before the event.

• An abundance of Likes means that more people will get to see THB — Please click that “❤️ Like” to let everyone else know that THB is a great place for informed debate and discussion among people of good will. More likes mean that THB rises in the Substack algorithm and gets in front of more readers. Thanks!

THB exists because of your support. Please consider sharing, subscribing, or upgrading to a paid subscription. Paid subscribers know that they are supporting independent analyses and writing that you’ll find no where else — They also have access to THB Pro, with PDFs of some of my books and an ever-growing number of paywalled THB posts (THB Insider, Five Figures). Thank you!

1. I was very pleased to see Joe Neguse (D-CO) and Jeff Hurd (R-CO) as members of the Build American Caucus. Neguse is my congressman - You go Joe!

2. While energy infrastructure was a minor theme at the conference (there was a breakout group) there was vanishingly little focus that I saw on climate change from anyone.