My take on the issue is that Progress is a more objective (neutral) movement that starts with the question of what is progress and how do we generate it? Abundance seems more of a movement by Democrats to shore up weaknesses in their party related to growth and competence.
In other words, those in the progress movement are widely focused, and politics is a tool they consider and use. The question is what positions advance humanity. If the answer is is libertarian or conservative or liberal, so be it.
For abundance, the question seems more about how they can advance the interests of the party. I get the sense that if there was a choice between abundance and tribal allegiance to their party, the abundance crowd would drop it like a hot poker.
I will be sending this to like 100 people thank you for writing it
My take on the issue is that Progress is a more objective (neutral) movement that starts with the question of what is progress and how do we generate it? Abundance seems more of a movement by Democrats to shore up weaknesses in their party related to growth and competence.
In other words, those in the progress movement are widely focused, and politics is a tool they consider and use. The question is what positions advance humanity. If the answer is is libertarian or conservative or liberal, so be it.
For abundance, the question seems more about how they can advance the interests of the party. I get the sense that if there was a choice between abundance and tribal allegiance to their party, the abundance crowd would drop it like a hot poker.
Let's join the two movements together and call it "Abundant Progress"
The problem I see with the abundance people is that they will drop any and all parts of their agenda the moment some leftist says "boo".
See Ezra Klien's endorsement of Mamdani for a recent example.
And both progress and abundance rely on a mindset of optimism :)