Everything But the Bagel Liberalism
Dear liberals, let's critique Democrats with our full chests!
In their thought-provoking, hopeful new book Abundance, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson argue that the problem with American liberalism in recent years is that liberals don’t build things anymore.
Hamstrung by pesky environmental regulations and a litany of other progressive wishlist items turned legal requirements, developers and governments in blue cities and states are unable to meet the basic needs of their constituents at all, let alone in an affordable way.
Klein and Thompson assess this problem well, yet I couldn’t help but be frustrated by a central metaphor they employ, that of “everything bagel liberalism.” Call me pedantic, but I don’t think the metaphor makes sense.(1)
Besides being linguistically frustrating, the book’s muddled explanation of the metaphor underscored to me what I see as a main issue in American liberalism today: ideological malaise.(2)
To me, it seems clear that Klein and Thompson are arguing that the liberalism of today’s America is an '“everything but the bagel liberalism,” so why not call it that?(3)
Why not make the full-throated critique of American liberalism the authors want to make?(4) Why dance around the issue?
To be clear, I’m not focusing on the metaphor because, were I their editor, I would’ve recommended they change it.(5) I’m focusing on it because it’s illustrative.
***
Let’s GO forward together.(6)
Overwhelmingly, Democrats agree there’s an issue. The thing is, they don’t know how to solve it. Otherwise, it stands to reason, they would’ve, right?(7)
I’m not convinced we needed a whole book identifying the problem: red tape, bureaucracy, and Democratic legalism.(8) Instead, I wished Abundance would’ve dug deeper in terms of what has caused these overlapping problems and what practical next steps Democrats can and ought to take to undo or sidestep the issues.(9)
Indeed, past a certain point, the book’s prolonged rumination on the failures of twenty-first-century liberal governance juxtaposed with an uncritical nostalgia for the good ol’ days when liberals built things, especially in the absence of an actionable path to a solution, was unhelpful.(10)
By not specifying, or at least hypothesizing about, the underlying root cause or causes for these issues, the book doesn’t actually solve the actual problem.(11)
Democrats need a little less conversing about what ails us and a little more acting on what potential remedies may be. This is as true among liberal podcast bros as it is among liberal elected officials, who I’m pretty sure listen to the liberal podcast bros plenty.(12)
***
Let’s be clear here.
In wondering what Klein and Thompson may contend is preventing Democrats from making necessary policy changes, I’m reminded of a post-2024-election episode of “Pod Save America” in which Jon Favreau and Ezra reflect on how Democrats are losing and have been losing the working class for a few election cycles now.(13)
Favreau sums it up well, “It’s not really about the position you hold; it’s about what you’re focusing on.”
Klein speaks with equal clarity about the trends he sees in the Democratic Party that have led to this growing working-class defection.(13) I wish he had brought more of this insight into the book.
***
Admittedly, I haven’t quite finished the book yet, so maybe I’ll be made to eat my words. Either way, I have more to say about it (stay tuned for another edition of this newsletter), and I did quite like the book overall.
I appreciated its optimism and utopian thinking and would recommend it!
I’d like to thank Ezra and Derek for writing the book, and thank you for reading my writing!
Obligatory Disclaimer: all views expressed here are my own personal views and do not represent the views of my employer nor those of the U.S. government.
End Notes, Side Notes, & Tangents
(1) As they themselves note, everything bagels are awesome; they’re some of the best bagels because they have just the right amount of all the toppings while still maintaining the structure of the bagel.
(2a) whether due to a fear of argument, a lack of imagination, complacency, or something else entirely. There’s so much more to say on this, it must have its own newsletter.
(2b) Now, like the agreeable, conflict-avoidant liberal I often am (at least, I think I’m agreeable), I want to note that Abundance is furthering the ideological debate, thereby being a part of the remedy of this ideological unwellness within the Democratic Party! I just wish it would go further.
(3) Maybe it’s just because I go to Trader Joe’s a lot because it’s affordable and near me, but to me, the metaphor could so effortlessly be improved by adding two words.
(4) By giving it primacy among the bagel varieties, in my opinion anyway, they are paying this failed brand of politics a compliment.
(5) though for the record, I definitely would have and welcome them to use the edited metaphor offered here.
(6) As Bernie says! Also, emphasis added (!!!)
(7a) It is certainly the case that not all Democrats do and that a lot of people are pro-degrowth and such. Fair enough but did we need a whole book to make this point, that liberals ought to focus on abundance rather than scarcity? They had me convinced within the first chapter that, yeah okay, makes sense! Let’s move on to actions, the how-to part.
(7b) I strongly agree, Democrats focus too much on defending what we have rather than aspiring towards what we could have. I think most Democrats do. I strongly agree we should innovate and create more. I think most Democrats do. I think it’s more useful to question what makes Democrats do this and how can we pull them out of that.
(8) if that is the right word for it.
(9) Detailing the problem and outlining the benefits of your proposed solution— supply-side liberalism— is great, but how do we get there? The answer, implicitly and to a degree explicitly, is to forgo the paperwork of environmental and other regulations. But like, how?
(10) Klein and Thompson dedicate so much time to demonstrating the wonders of abundance and innovation and a government that actually does things that you would think their audience was not American liberals who needn’t be convinced of the potential goodness of government. Except, they explicitly state that their audience is American liberals!
(11) that being a collective action problem.
(12a) as they should! I know I do.
(12b) I’m all for replacing red tape with a red marker crossing out unnecessary rules. I’m merely arguing that the Abundance authors pick up the marker.
(12c) For instance, I’d like to ask the book’s liberal authors, given that we agree there’s too much paperwork, which pieces of paperwork do we throw away or is it all of the paperwork? Presumably not, but then, why not specify more clearly what line items Democrats can cross out in terms of the failed housing and railway developments? I’m sure that would be of great interest to Democratic lawmakers and Party elites, whose ears you have!
(13) Nowadays, when I listen to “Pod Save America,” perhaps the bastion of mainstream liberal, Democratic Party thought, I often wonder— when are these guys going to run for office? Forgive me, but the Pod isn’t cutting it these days in terms of saving America.
(14) He mentions the contempt Democratic Party leaders like Hilary Clinton express for working-class voters in her infamous '“deplorables” comment and the way in which Democratic Party politics has regrettably become about satisfying special interest groups as a stand-in for actual American constituencies.