3 ms·

The Rise of the Abundance Faction

8 points by jseliger 2y ago

immibis 2y ago
"abundance" has long been something the right likes to proclaim themselves as. What purpose does it serve naming a party something good, anyway? It's just a domain name grab. May as well call yourselves the "awesome politics" party but I suppose that was already taken. Because who doesn't want abundance, or awesome politics? There are lots of parties that call themselves "freedom" or "liberty" or "make our country great" that do the exact opposite.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 2y ago
> However, given Donald Trump’s hold on the GOP, in the short term, it is hard to imagine such a political faction emerging around these issues anywhere other than the Democratic Party. To the contrary, Trump Republicans are the faction of the GOP most open to government-led intervention into these issues. Trump was the one who killed GOP efforts to privatize Social Security and cut benefits. And the fastest growing part of Trump’s coalition is Hispanics, a demographic that is historically very focused on abundance and prosperity. The unstated subtext is that “abundance moderates” won’t put their economic agendas ahead of their social and cultural values. There’s a large constituency of people who would welcome government intervention to make housing cheaper but also want to deport illegal aliens, and “abundance moderates” aren’t willing to work with those people. Which is fine, but it will doom them to being just a faction of the Democratic Party.
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > Trump was the one who killed GOP efforts to privatize Social Security and cut benefits. Oh? From March 2024: "(CNN) - Former President Donald Trump on Monday suggested he was open to making cuts to Social Security and Medicare after opposing touching the entitlement programs and attacking his GOP presidential primary rivals over the issue." https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/11/politics/trump-entitlements-social-security-medicare/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/11/politics/trump-entitlements-s...
  - rayiner 2y ago
    As stated in the article, he was talking about targeting waste and fraud, not benefits. And he’s already been president and took a hard line against entitlement cuts during his term.
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      > he was talking about targeting waste and fraud, not benefits "Waste, fraud, and abuse" — how many times have we heard that before?
      - rayiner 2y ago
        Trump has already killed any serious efforts to reform social security and Medicare since 2016. We don’t have to speculate.
johnea 2y ago
This is just what you get when saddled with a government organization from the 1700s. After WWII most of Europe reorganized national government into proportional representation. With all parties running nationwide, and receiving a number of seats proportional to the percentage of the popular vote received. In the US, we're still stuck in 1776. And as the article mentions, this leads to a 2 party system where the overwhelming majority of voters don't find representation for their own political position. With neither entrenched party being willing to undermine their own position of power, there is very little likelihood of reforming this antiquarian system in the US. One of the only examples, after the major re-org of Europe after WWII, is New Zealand. Which reorganized into a proportional representation in 1996: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_New_Zealan...

8 points by jseliger 2y ago

"abundance" has long been something the right likes to proclaim themselves as. What purpose does it serve naming a party something good, anyway? It's just a domain name grab. May as well call yourselves the "awesome politics" party but I suppose that was already taken. Because who doesn't want abundance, or awesome politics? There are lots of parties that call themselves "freedom" or "liberty" or "make our country great" that do the exact opposite.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 2y ago

> However, given Donald Trump’s hold on the GOP, in the short term, it is hard to imagine such a political faction emerging around these issues anywhere other than the Democratic Party. To the contrary, Trump Republicans are the faction of the GOP most open to government-led intervention into these issues. Trump was the one who killed GOP efforts to privatize Social Security and cut benefits. And the fastest growing part of Trump’s coalition is Hispanics, a demographic that is historically very focused on abundance and prosperity. The unstated subtext is that “abundance moderates” won’t put their economic agendas ahead of their social and cultural values. There’s a large constituency of people who would welcome government intervention to make housing cheaper but also want to deport illegal aliens, and “abundance moderates” aren’t willing to work with those people. Which is fine, but it will doom them to being just a faction of the Democratic Party.

dctoedt 2y ago
> Trump was the one who killed GOP efforts to privatize Social Security and cut benefits. Oh? From March 2024: "(CNN) - Former President Donald Trump on Monday suggested he was open to making cuts to Social Security and Medicare after opposing touching the entitlement programs and attacking his GOP presidential primary rivals over the issue." https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/11/politics/trump-entitlements-social-security-medicare/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/11/politics/trump-entitlements-s...
- rayiner 2y ago
  As stated in the article, he was talking about targeting waste and fraud, not benefits. And he’s already been president and took a hard line against entitlement cuts during his term.
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    > he was talking about targeting waste and fraud, not benefits "Waste, fraud, and abuse" — how many times have we heard that before?
    - rayiner 2y ago
      Trump has already killed any serious efforts to reform social security and Medicare since 2016. We don’t have to speculate.

johnea 2y ago

This is just what you get when saddled with a government organization from the 1700s. After WWII most of Europe reorganized national government into proportional representation. With all parties running nationwide, and receiving a number of seats proportional to the percentage of the popular vote received. In the US, we're still stuck in 1776. And as the article mentions, this leads to a 2 party system where the overwhelming majority of voters don't find representation for their own political position. With neither entrenched party being willing to undermine their own position of power, there is very little likelihood of reforming this antiquarian system in the US. One of the only examples, after the major re-org of Europe after WWII, is New Zealand. Which reorganized into a proportional representation in 1996: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_New_Zealan...