PDF Summary:Abundance, by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson

What if America’s biggest problems—unaffordable housing, climate change, and stagnant wages—stem not from too little government intervention but from our inability to build? In Abundance, journalists Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson argue that excessive bureaucracy and regulatory barriers are creating manufactured scarcity in housing, energy, and innovation. Their solution: a new “abundance agenda” that removes obstacles to building while maintaining important protections.

This guide unpacks Klein and Thompson’s vision for a liberalism that produces rather than just redistributes, showing how streamlining approvals and empowering decision-makers could unlock affordable housing, clean energy, and scientific breakthroughs that benefit everyone. You’ll learn why they believe abundance is not just economically sound but politically essential in countering populism and zero-sum thinking. We’ll also examine whether the abundance agenda adequately addresses corporate power’s role in creating scarcity, evaluate the political feasibility of Klein and Thompson’s proposals, and explore how some current grassroots movements demonstrate their coalition-building strategies in practice.

(continued)...

Scientific innovation also suffers from funding constraints. According to the authors, federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) increasingly favor established researchers, while younger scientists with potentially groundbreaking but unproven ideas struggle to secure funding. Scientists spend up to 40% of their time on administrative tasks like grant applications rather than conducting research. (Shortform note: A survey revealed that principal investigators spend an average of 116 hours writing each grant proposal, and co-investigators add another 55 hours—at least a month of full-time work. But with federal funding rates hovering around 20%, many projects go unfunded and substantial time is diverted from discovery to paperwork.)

Representation and Politics in Science

Scientific funding agencies don’t just favor established researchers, as Klein and Thompson suggest; they also exclude marginalized scientists. LGBTQ+ scientists face representation gaps in STEM fields, where they’re 17 to 21% less represented than expected. This exclusion impacts what research gets done, leading to significant blind spots in research ranging from cancer immunotherapy to vehicle safety design. Yet funding agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the NIH haven’t included LGBTQ+ people in diversity initiatives or tracked LGBTQ+ participation, leaving systemic barriers unaddressed and potentially groundbreaking perspectives lost.

Meanwhile, the funding constraints that Klein and Thompson fear are only getting worse. Under the second Trump administration, political priorities have reshaped US research. The NSF has seen its grant funding slashed by 51% in 2025 compared to the previous decade’s average: Physics funding has dropped by 85%, mathematics by 72%, and engineering by 57%. The administration has also terminated more than 1,700 active grants worth $1.5 billion. Scientists say projects are evaluated based on political criteria rather than scientific merit, with cuts targeted at grants containing terms like “climate,” “diversity,” or “disability,” or benefiting LGBTQ+ people.

The Cycle of Scarcity

These scarcities reinforce each other. Housing scarcity in productive cities means talented people can’t access opportunities. Energy scarcity makes addressing climate change harder. Infrastructure scarcity reduces mobility and economic efficiency. Scientific scarcity slows the development of solutions to these other problems. Klein and Thompson argue that we’ve created a system that excels at saying “no” but struggles to say “yes” to building the things we need. This has trapped us in a cycle of scarcity despite having the technological capability and wealth to create abundance.

Breaking this cycle requires recognizing that we’ve structured our institutions to prioritize constraint over creation—a concept we’ll explore in the next section—and then reforming those institutions to enable a future of abundance.

(Shortform note: Klein and Thompson join a long tradition of American writers to chronicle the tension between abundance and scarcity in American life. Joan Didion spent much of her career examining how a society with unprecedented wealth and technological capability suffered from spiritual and institutional scarcity, producing feelings of limitation, constraint, and decay. She suggests the scarcity Klein and Thompson describe doesn’t arise just from material shortages, but from the psychological impact of living in a system designed to say “no.”)

Why Do We Need to Shift From Scarcity to Abundance?

Klein and Thompson present three arguments for why we need to abandon the scarcity mindset: It causes material harm to everyday people, it weakens democratic stability, and its effects on society are morally indefensible.

Lack of Supply Causes Measurable Harm

The most direct case for abundance is improving people’s daily lives. Klein and Thompson note that when essential goods are scarce, everyone suffers—but especially those with fewer resources. For example, Klein and Thompson note that 30% of Americans are “house poor,” spending at least 30% of their income on housing, which reduces resources for other necessities, education, health care, and saving for the future. Meanwhile, our failure to build energy infrastructure means clean energy projects remain disconnected from the grid, while scientific stagnation means that potentially life-saving medical treatments remain undiscovered or undeveloped.

These scarcities compound each other. When housing costs prevent people from moving to where their skills are most valuable, productivity suffers. When infrastructure is inadequate, businesses face higher costs. When scientific progress slows, technological solutions to other problems remain out of reach.

The Material Benefits of Abundance in Action

Iowa City has implemented abundance-oriented policies that make it one of the “best” and most “livable” cities in the US In housing, the city launched the South District Home Investment Partnership Program to purchase and rehabilitate properties with energy-efficient upgrades, then sell them at below-market prices to help long-term renters become homeowners. On the energy front, Iowa City reached its 2030 goal of reducing emissions by 45% a full decade early, primarily through renewable energy development. The city has streamlined solar permitting—applications are reviewed within just three business days—and solar installations now power municipal buildings, lowering energy costs.

Iowa City’s climate action grants also fund solar installations for homeless shelters, community clinics, and affordable housing projects, showing how increasing supply can specifically benefit those with fewer resources. Plus, the community itself is invested in the city’s research sector and its benefits (like medical advances and economic development). For instance, residents rallied to “Stand Up for Science” when the NIH was threatened with cuts that could cost the University of Iowa $33.4 million in funding.

Political Instability and Zero-Sum Thinking

Perhaps less obvious but just as important are the political consequences of scarcity. Klein and Thompson argue that scarcity fuels zero-sum thinking, feeding movements that thrive on division and undermine democratic norms. When people believe there isn’t enough housing, jobs, or opportunities to go around, they become susceptible to narratives that pit groups against each other. If resources seem fixed, then one person’s gain seems to require another’s loss. This mindset underpins arguments that immigrants take jobs or housing from others who need it, or that environmental protection comes at the expense of economic growth. Abundance, conversely, creates conditions where more people can thrive simultaneously.

(Shortform note: Harvard research reveals that zero-sum thinking—the belief that one group’s gain comes at another’s expense—drives political polarization in specific ways. On immigration, Republicans who exhibit zero-sum thinking tend to view immigrants as taking jobs, housing, or resources from native-born citizens. On economic issues, Democrats with zero-sum tendencies believe wealth accumulation by the rich diminishes resources available to others, strengthening support for progressive taxation and universal health care. Zero-sum thinking is also linked to decreased democratic engagement: weaker commitment to voting rights, greater willingness to compromise democratic processes, and increased acceptance of political violence.)

The consequences of scarcity extend to governance and regional population shifts. When governments fail to deliver visible improvements in people’s lives—such as affordable housing or reliable infrastructure—public trust in institutions erodes. Both progressive and conservative administrations suffer when they can’t demonstrate tangible results.

Meanwhile, the population is shifting from states with high living costs, like California and New York, to states with more affordable housing, like Texas and Florida. This migration reflects economic reality: people move where they can afford to live, which increasingly means leaving regions with regulatory barriers to building. The authors note that these demographic shifts have significant electoral implications that could reshape political power for decades to come.

(Shortform note: The population shift from liberal to conservative states seems driven largely by housing affordability: States gaining population have less restrictive building regulations, while the median home price in the 10 states with the largest population gains is 23% lower than in the 10 states with the largest losses. The growth within majority-conservative states is primarily in metropolitan areas, many of which lean liberal, which suggests people aren’t seeking conservative policies, but economic opportunity. If the trend continues, liberal states could lose significant representation in Congress and the Electoral College after the 2030 census.)

Abundance Is a Moral Imperative

Beyond material benefits and political stability, Klein and Thompson make a moral case for abundance as essential to human flourishing and addressing our greatest challenges. They argue that chosen scarcity is morally indefensible when we have the technological capacity to overcome it. If we can build enough housing for everyone but choose not to—because of regulatory barriers or local opposition—that represents a collective moral failure. Similarly, if we have the knowledge to develop clean energy but fail to deploy it at scale, we betray future generations.

The Ethical Obligation to Create Abundance

When Klein and Thompson argue that we have a moral obligation to create abundance, they draw on the ethical principle that human flourishing requires certain material conditions to be met. Aristotle argued that a good life doesn’t hinge on experiencing pleasure, but on realizing one’s full potential as a human being. For Aristotle, this meant developing and exercising virtues within a community that supports human excellence. Klein and Thompson’s abundance agenda can be seen as a modern application of this idea: Rather than seeing sustainability and growth as opposing values, they suggest our central moral failure isn’t that we consume too much, but that we’ve created unnecessary barriers to meeting human needs.

Just as Aristotle recognized that some external goods were necessary for people to live a virtuous life, Klein and Thompson contend that housing, energy, and innovation form essential foundations for human flourishing in the modern world. This ethical framing helps explain why the authors see abundance as morally necessary. When we limit the supply of housing or clean energy we’re curtailing the possibility for everyone to live a good life.

Abundance represents a commitment to possibility over constraint. Klein and Thompson envision a future where we solve big challenges rather than merely managing scarcity. They reject what they see as false choices between environmental sustainability and economic growth, urban density and livability, or scientific progress and safety. This moral vision emphasizes that removing constraints on production and innovation can create a world where more people have what they need. Rather than abandoning progressive values like economic justice and environmental protection, the abundance agenda would fulfill these commitments more effectively by expanding production rather than just redistributing existing resources.

(Shortform note: Other experts agree that environmental protection and economic prosperity aren’t inherently opposed. Environmental regulations have had minimal negative effects on employment in regulated industries—and can stimulate innovation, create new markets, and generate jobs. For example, the transition to renewable energy has created more jobs per dollar invested than fossil fuel industries. This aligns with what some researchers call the “decoupling” of economic growth from environmental degradation, which began around 1980 when GDP continued to rise while pollution levels fell. Cities like Los Angeles and New York now have cleaner air and water while maintaining larger economies than they had decades ago.)

How to Advance an Abundance Agenda

Klein and Thompson argue that several factors make this the right moment to embrace an abundance agenda. They explain that public frustration with institutional failures has created an openness to new approaches: Americans across the political spectrum recognize something is broken in our capacity to build for the future. Meanwhile, compounding crises—from climate change to housing shortages to pandemic-exposed vulnerabilities—demand responses beyond mere incremental adjustments. Technological advances in renewable energy, AI, and biotechnology have created vast potential for improvements in living standards and sustainability—if we remove barriers to deployment and scaling.

Could This Be the Moment for Abundance?

While Americans across political lines are deeply pessimistic about the country’s direction, as Klein and Thompson suggest, this frustration might not translate into support for expanded government action. Trust in the federal government has remained low for decades, with less than a quarter of Americans expressing faith that Washington will make the right decisions. This represents a modest increase from 2023’s near-historic low of 16%, but remains far below the 70-75% levels seen in the late 1950s and early 1960s. A 2025 survey found that 10% of Americans feel effectively represented by their government, and a significant majority believe wealthy interests and corporations exert excessive control over political decisions.

Recent polling shows a growing bipartisan consensus that federal authorities should take responsibility for certain core public functions, including providing reliable energy sources, securing borders, and maintaining environmental quality. Yet there remain stark partisan divides on whether the government should ensure health care, education, and income support. Americans have much higher trust in local government (around 70%) than in federal government, suggesting the problem isn’t with government action per se, but with centralized control. Therefore, while Americans may support building more housing, energy infrastructure, and innovation, they may be skeptical of federal leadership in these efforts.

Klein and Thompson also contend that abundance offers a positive vision when many feel pessimistic about the future. Rather than simply opposing negative trends or defending an unsatisfactory status quo, an abundance agenda presents a concrete, aspirational alternative that could inspire broader political engagement. The authors outline a roadmap for implementing their vision, addressing their message to both policymakers and grassroots activists who can push for reforms at every level of government.

(Shortform note: Both the abundance agenda and “solarpunk”—a movement that emerged out of speculative fiction and social activism—envision sustainable cities with verdant architecture, renewable energy, and regenerative agriculture. But while both reject environmental pessimism, they differ in their posture toward capitalism: Klein and Thompson propose reforming existing systems, whereas solarpunk yearns for an end to capitalism. Solarpunk imagines how decentralized power systems, open-source technologies, and community ownership could prioritize people and the planet over profit. This raises a question: Can abundance be achieved through market reforms, or does it require the more radical changes that solarpunk envisions?)

Streamline Without Sacrificing Protection

First, a central theme in Klein and Thompson’s reform agenda is that we can streamline processes without abandoning important protections. They reject what they characterize as the false choice between progress and safeguards. Throughout these recommendations, Klein and Thompson maintain that the goal isn’t deregulation but better regulation: rules that achieve their intended protections more efficiently and with fewer unintended consequences.

Game Theory Explains Why Some Regulations Succeed While Others Fail

The challenge in streamlining regulations is finding the balance between progress and protection, which researchers are now studying through game theory: a mathematical approach that models how people or organizations make decisions when the outcome depends on others’ choices. One study used computer simulations of AI regulation to study the back-and-forth between companies building machine learning systems (like those powering facial recognition or loan approval algorithms) and regulatory agencies.

In the study’s simulations, companies primarily want their models to be accurate and efficient, privacy regulators aim to prevent personal data exposure, and fairness regulators work to ensure models don’t discriminate against certain groups. The research as a whole found that the most efficient and effective regulations focused on outcomes: Instead of dictating how companies should build their AI models, successful regulators specified the results they required (like maximum acceptable levels of demographic disparity) and let companies innovate on solutions while still meeting protective goals.

For environmental impact assessments, Klein and Thompson propose reforming laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to maintain substantive environmental protections while reducing procedural burdens. Rather than eliminating assessments of how projects affect the environment, they advocate clear timelines, narrower grounds for litigation, and expedited pathways for projects with clear environmental benefits like renewable energy. The goal is a process that genuinely protects natural resources without becoming a tool for blocking change.

(Shortform note: The NEPA’s evolution from a modest five-page law into a procedural behemoth has created an unusual political realignment. While progressives have traditionally defended NEPA, many climate advocates now support reform because environmental laws block more clean energy projects than fossil fuel developments. The debate reveals a deeper tension within progressivism: Environmental justice advocates prioritize community input and local control, while climate-focused environmentalists worry this approach privileges neighborhood concerns over broader climate goals. The former emphasize democratic process regardless of outcome; the latter argue that rapidly building clean infrastructure is the only way to meet climate targets.)

For housing development, Klein and Thompson call for zoning reforms that allow greater population density and diversity without abandoning standards for safety or livability. They point to successful reforms in Minneapolis, which eliminated single-family zoning citywide in 2019, allowing duplexes and triplexes in previously restricted neighborhoods while maintaining building codes and other protections. By removing arbitrary restrictions on housing types, cities can increase supply without sacrificing quality or neighborhood character.

Why Are People Really Against Eliminating Single-Family Zoning?

Klein and Thompson highlight Minneapolis as a success story in zoning reform, but across the country, environmental laws have become a tool for blocking housing development. In Minneapolis, opponents sued to prevent the elimination of single-family zoning by invoking environmental law, claiming the city hadn’t considered how higher-density housing would harm migratory birds. Similarly, in Seattle, appeals against zoning changes have been filed on behalf of the “73 remaining Southern resident killer whales,” arguing that increased density threatens this endangered species.

Richard Kahlenberg argues in Excluded that these justifications often mask the true historical purpose of single-family zoning: to protect property values and exclude certain populations from opportunity-rich neighborhoods. He notes that in Minneapolis, the fight over zoning reform wasn’t between Republicans and Democrats, but between older and younger Democrats, with younger officials recognizing connections between housing, racial justice, school segregation, and climate issues. This explains why environmental arguments against density can feel disingenuous. The real concern isn’t birds or whales but protecting neighborhood “character,” the same motivation that has always driven exclusionary zoning.

For government contracting, Klein and Thompson recommend simplifying procurement requirements for companies bidding on public projects, while maintaining core standards. For example, they critique San Francisco’s affordable housing program, which requires using small contractors rather than larger, more efficient firms—adding millions to costs and months to timelines. The authors advocate focusing on essential requirements that directly ensure project quality and safety, rather than procedural box-checking and excessive documentation that adds costs without improving outcomes.

The Nonprofit Versus For-Profit Housing Paradox

Mandating small contractors increases costs. Yet simply favoring larger firms—as Klein and Thompson suggest—could unintentionally disadvantage those who are most committed to affordable housing: mission-driven nonprofit developers who typically operate at smaller scales than their for-profit counterparts. The financing system for these projects already tilts heavily toward large for-profits. In the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, developers receive tax credits, which they sell to investors for equity financing.

Large for-profit developers can secure better terms in these deals because of their market power and pipeline of projects. They extract more equity from the same amount of tax credits and negotiate more favorable payment schedules than nonprofits can. This imbalance affects who gets public resources and what gets built: Between 2014 and 2016, for-profit developers received 90% of New York City’s public land for new housing.

Yet nonprofit developers consistently build homes for extremely low-income households at nearly twice the rate of for-profits and maintain affordability long-term rather than converting to market-rate when financially advantageous. This suggests the path to housing abundance might require recognizing that who builds affordable housing matters as much as how efficiently they build.

Empower Decision-Makers to Act

Klein and Thompson’s next recommendation is to restore agency and authority to government officials who can make decisions and take responsibility for outcomes. This emphasis on empowered decision-making represents a shift from progressive politics that has often sought to constrain authority through procedural requirements and diffused power.

In scientific funding, Klein and Thompson propose giving program officers at agencies like the NIH more discretion to fund promising but risky research without excessive peer review. They suggest looking to models like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which empowers program managers to make bold bets on potentially transformative technologies. Under the DARPA model, expert managers can approve innovative projects quickly, rather than requiring researchers to navigate multiple rounds of conservative peer review. This approach would reduce administrative burdens on scientists while encouraging more innovative research.

Can Empowered Decision-Makers Remain Independent?

Klein and Thompson’s recommendation to empower government officials faces a practical challenge: lobbying influence. Americans overwhelmingly believe special interests have too much say in politics. Lobbyists’ influence isn’t abstract—it’s a lucrative industry that explodes whenever power shifts. For example, after Trump’s 2024 election victory, lobbyists with connections to his administration saw an immediate increase in demand for their services, with some clients offering increased retainer fees on election night. This dynamic creates an asymmetry where empowered officials may be structurally captured by the interests with the most resources to influence them.

DARPA, which Klein and Thompson cite as a model of decision-making, has protections against this influence. Unlike most government agencies, DARPA program managers operate with relative opacity and independence, particularly in their funding decisions. Their temporary tenure (four to five years) reduces incentives for long-term industry capture, and the organization’s focus on technical merit over political considerations helps maintain its independence. This suggests safeguards like term limits, technical review councils separate from political influence, and funding streams not directly tied to industry lobbying might be necessary for Klein and Thompson’s model of empowered decision-makers to work.

For infrastructure projects, the authors argue that responsibility is often diffused across multiple agencies and levels of government, making it unclear who can approve or reject projects. They recommend designating clear authorities who have both the power to greenlight important projects and the accountability for their outcomes. For example, they suggest that state governors or federal agency heads should have more direct authority over critical infrastructure, rather than allowing decision-making to be fragmented across numerous bodies with overlapping jurisdictions.

Klein and Thompson extend this principle of clarifying authority to local governance as well, arguing that state governments should limit the power of local authorities to block housing and infrastructure projects that serve broader public interests. They suggest that issues like housing supply and clean energy deployment are too important to be left entirely to local decision-making, where narrow interests often prevail over wider needs.

(Shortform note: Experts say infrastructure improvements are difficult to prioritize since roads, bridges, and power lines function silently in the background until they fail. This means voters rarely see or appreciate their value, which creates a misalignment between long-term needs and short-term decisions. We want quality infrastructure but resist paying its full cost when the benefits seem abstract, and politicians hesitate to champion projects that won’t be completed until long after they’ve left office. The problem persists regardless of whether authority lies with local or federal decision-makers: Our inability to value what we can’t see means we struggle to invest in essential systems that only become visible when they break down.)

Balance Competing Interests

Third, Klein and Thompson recognize that abundance requires making tradeoffs between competing values and interests. The goal is to make these choices transparently and with greater weight given to broader public interests over narrow private ones.

For housing, Klein and Thompson acknowledge the tension between existing homeowners’ interests and broader needs for affordability and access. Their solution isn’t to ignore current residents’ concerns but to rebalance decision-making to include the interests of people who would benefit from new housing—future residents who currently have no voice in the process. This would require reforms that limit the ability of small groups to block development that serves wider community needs.

In energy development, they recognize conflicts between local opposition to infrastructure and national climate goals. Here, Klein and Thompson recommend stronger federal authority to override local vetoes of projects that serve essential national purposes, such as building electrical transmission lines. For instance, they suggest that for critical interstate transmission projects, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should have enhanced powers to approve routes and override local objections, while still requiring reasonable mitigation measures for affected communities. This approach ensures that narrow interests can’t block projects with broad benefits, while still addressing legitimate local concerns.

For scientific research, Klein and Thompson propose balancing accountability for public funds with the need for risk-taking in pursuit of breakthroughs. They recommend creating dedicated funding streams specifically for high-risk, high-reward research alongside more conventional grant programs. For example, they suggest setting aside a percentage of NIH funding specifically for young scientists pursuing novel ideas, with streamlined application processes and greater tolerance for failure. This approach would ensure both innovation and responsible stewardship of taxpayer money.

The Paradox of Balancing Interests

While Americans say they value compromise in principle, they often reject it in practice, especially on issues they care about most. In a Georgetown poll, 85% of voters said compromise and finding common ground should be a goal for political leaders, yet 79% were also “tired of leaders compromising their values.” A Pew Research study found that when asked about specific issues like abortion, just 25% chose compromise over standing firm, even if it meant no progress would be made. Klein and Thompson’s approach to balancing competing interests offers a potential way out of this paradox.

Longtermism, a philosophical framework championed by William MacAskill in What We Owe the Future, provides a helpful lens for understanding Klein and Thompson’s perspective. Longtermism argues we have moral obligations to future generations who will be affected by our decisions but have no representation today. Housing policies affect both current and future residents; energy infrastructure decisions shape the climate future generations will inherit; and scientific research priorities determine what technologies will be available to solve tomorrow’s problems.

Just as social movements have expanded moral consideration to previously marginalized groups, longtermists advocate extending this consideration across time. This doesn’t eliminate the difficult tradeoffs Klein and Thompson describe, but it provides a moral framework for making them with a broader perspective. This can inform our approach to challenges like climate change—though, as Klein cautions, we must balance abstract future concerns with addressing the urgent needs of people suffering today.

Build Political Support for Abundance

Finally, Klein and Thompson recognize that policy recommendations alone aren’t enough: Abundance requires building political coalitions capable of implementing reforms. They offer several principles for effective political advocacy. First, they argue for focusing on tangible outcomes that matter to people’s daily lives. When people see concrete benefits—more affordable housing, cheaper clean energy, faster commutes—they’re more likely to support the policies that enabled them. This outcomes-focused approach can neutralize abstract ideological objections and build broader constituencies.

Second, Klein and Thompson recommend highlighting how abundance serves diverse values and interests. Aspects of the abundance agenda appeal across the political spectrum: Progressives value climate action and expanded opportunity; moderates appreciate practical problem-solving; business interests support reduced regulatory barriers; and young voters are drawn to solutions for clean energy and climate resilience. By emphasizing these varied benefits, abundance advocates can build coalitions broader than traditional political alignments.

Third, Klein and Thompson suggest using successful local and state reforms as proofs of concept for wider implementation. They point to “Yes in My Backyard” (YIMBY) victories such as California’s laws allowing homeowners to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and Minneapolis’s elimination of single-family zoning as examples of how policy innovations can spread. These local successes create demonstrations that can inform broader adoption.

(Shortform note: YIMBY emerged as a response to NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”) opposition to housing and infrastructure projects. YIMBY advocates for building more housing as a solution to affordability crises. Progressives see increased housing supply as necessary for equity, businesses support development for economic growth, younger voters see it as their path to affordable housing, and moderates like YIMBY’s pragmatism. California’s effort to legalize ADUs demonstrates this approach: The state passed more than 100 pro-housing laws, resulting in dramatic increases in ADU permits. By focusing on concrete achievements, YIMBY creates templates that can gain support across communities with different political compositions.)

Finally, the authors propose reframing political debates around abundance versus scarcity rather than traditional left-right divides. For example, they suggest reframing climate policy as a competition to build clean energy infrastructure quickly and effectively, not as a debate about whether the government should regulate carbon emissions. Klein and Thompson believe this approach can transcend current partisan deadlocks by shifting focus from ideological differences to shared goals of material progress.

The Psychology of Abundance Versus Scarcity

Klein and Thompson’s approach to building political support by focusing on tangible outcomes and reframing debates around abundance versus scarcity taps into fundamental aspects of human psychology. Behavioral economics research shows that humans often struggle with “public good problems,” where we have to decide whether to contribute to resources that benefit everyone. Game theory predicts that the rational, self-interested choice is to “free-ride” on others’ contributions without contributing yourself. Yet in real-world situations, many people do cooperate—but conditionally. They’ll contribute if they believe others will too, and reduce their contributions when they see others free-riding.

This conditional cooperation helps explain the appeal of abundance framing. When politics is presented as a zero-sum game where resources are scarce and one person’s gain is another’s loss, it triggers defensive, self-interested behavior. But when we highlight how expanding the supply of essential goods creates outcomes where everyone benefits, it can activate our cooperative instincts. Trust in institutions plays a crucial role: Studies show Americans are more willing to support tax increases for public goods when they have confidence the funds will really deliver tangible improvements.

The challenge for abundance advocates might not be persuading voters that expanding housing or energy supply benefits everyone, but convincing them that the institutions implementing these policies will follow through effectively.