Yves here. John Ruehl’s post below gives a detailed roundup of how the soi-disant Trump opposition of his first term has been missing from action under Trump 2.0. Ruehl glosses over the fact that the Democrat crushing of Sanders and his agenda helped pave the way for Trump. It was a repudiation of the idea of giving concrete material benefits to working and middle class citizens. And with the old “unifying figures’ having been Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the bench was bad even in supposedly better times.
His post also serves as an excuse for me to discuss only briefly a new book that is making the rounds, Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, which purports to blaze a new path for Team Dem to win back working class families. Otherwise I might have had to undertake a full bore shellacking of it, as recapped in a review in The New Republic. But it’s such an insult to intelligence that even your humble blogger might have lost some brain cells as a result of too much engagement with its prescription.
The disconnect starts with the title: Abundance. Abundance is a term popular in the New Age and perhaps also in evangelical prosperity churches. Basically, it means if you believe hard enough, God (or Spirit, or Laws of Attraction) will make you rich. So the authors are signaling that they expect their solutions to be magicked into existence.
The review presents this as the core of the argument:
Promising truly effective government, they believe, will strengthen a liberalism that has accepted dangerous levels of dysfunction in day-to-day operations, which has made it difficult for fellow Americans to see why market-based solutions are not superior.
Decades of public policies that liberals enacted in the 1950s and 1960s, Klein and Thompson observe, saddled government with multiple layers of regulations, rules, mandates, and paperwork, all of which have since made it nearly impossible to accomplish key objectives. As demand has increased for many social goods, such as reasonably priced homes, clean energy, education, and medicine, the government has failed to supply. Liberals keep throwing money at the problem, but the authors believe that the money is not being well spent. As a result, we have a supply crisis that raises prices because we don’t have enough of what we need: “The problem we faced in the 1970s was that we were building too much and too heedlessly. The problem we face in the 2020s is that we are building too little, and we are too often paralyzed by process.” Personal and public debt exploded as Americans tried to keep up with higher costs for scarce goods.
Help me. I’m sure readers can pile on with what is wrong about this new scheme, but let me provide a few opening jobs.
Notice the utter absence of interest in labor bargaining rights and real wages? How hard is it, operationally, to increase the minimum wage? To strengthen union rights and lower the barriers to their formation? Or how about restoring that great American socialist Richard Nixon’s revenue sharing, giving states and localities bulk funding, subject only to anti-fraud controls? The idea behind revenue sharing was that the Feds were more efficient at revenue collection, while states and municipalities had a better grip on community needs and could often set up and run focuses programs better.
The problem here is political, not niggly rules and procedures. Or more accurately, the niggly rules and procedures are to a fair degree due to means testing for the poors. It’s not hard to see that as an effort to deny them aid, given that the less well educated who would find it hard to deal with paperwork requirements, skew low income.
And as far as “reasonably priced homes” a big obstacle is not “the government” but NIMBY-ism in the form of communities resisting the construction of multi-family units as well as mixed-income developments. With medicine, IM Doc has recounted that the reduction in the size of US med school programs started in the 1980s as a matter of policy out of concern over an expected doctor glut. The belief then was that any shortfall (and one was expected) would be filled by foreign-trained doctors recruited to work here. That largely fell apart as those non-American MDs recoiled when they encountered US practice, as in having to spend substantial amounts of time fighting with insurers to get paid.
To put this more simply, “What about neoliberalism and rentierism don’t you understand? And what are your ideas for rolling that back?” What were the radical conservatives of the 1960s set up an open-ended program of think tankery and messaging to move the values of the US to be much more business friendly. If you aren’t prepared to engage in a similarly long-term propaganda/organizing campaign, what do you propose to truncate this process?
By John P. Ruehl is an Australian-American journalist living in Washington, D.C., and a world affairs correspondent for the Independent Media Institute. He is a contributor to several foreign affairs publications, and his book, Budget Superpower: How Russia Challenges the West With an Economy Smaller Than Texas’, was published in December 2022. Produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute
During his address to Congress on March 4, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump faced brief heckling from Democratic Representative AI Green and scattered jeers from his colleagues. But the overwhelming response was silence, reflective of the reality that opposition to Trump has sharply weakened, even as his administration pushes sweeping domestic and international policy upheaval.
The opening weeks of his first term in January 2017 were met with fierce resistance, and not just from combative Democrats. People came together to protest against Trump’s immigration policies and his proposed travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries. Republican politicians openly defied him amid constant media scrutiny. Clashes with the so-called “deep state” due to intelligence leaks escalated when the FBI publicly confirmed an investigation into the Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election. These combined tensions defined his first term, culminating in him being temporarily banned from most major social media platforms and leading to widespread condemnation and isolation after the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.
Now, at the start of his second term, opposition is notably subdued. The Women’s March that drew millions in 2017, becoming “the largest single-day public demonstration in U.S. history,” according to the New York Times, seems to have “lost its luster” during his second term. The February 5protest against Trump and Elon Musk’s policies drew a low turnout, mostly confined to liberal enclaves, and the 2025 Oscars—once a stage for political grandstanding—avoided directly critiquing the president. Even Green’s disruption caused dissent within his own party, with 10 Democrats censuring him the next day.
Political and institutional fatigue, shifting cultural dynamics, and strategic alignment by corporations, billionaires, politicians, and other public figureshave blunted resistance, leaving the Trump administration with fewer obstacles as it pushes forward with its agenda.
One major factor is the weakness and division within the Democratic Party, preventing grassroots progressives from working with top-level establishment Democrats. After years of Biden attempting to balance the party’s competing factions, tensions rose significantly following his response to the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas. Trump’s victory a year later—securing both the electoral college and popular vote—has only deepened these fractures, fueling a blame game that contrasts with the unity following Trump’s narrower 2016 election victory.
The party’s electoral failures are compounded by the absence of a unifying figure. Nancy Pelosi is no longer speaker, and while Chuck Schumer is the Senate minority leader, both of them are old and unpopular. Bernie Sanders, who is in his 80s, represents a sidelined progressive movement that has struggled to elevate new, dynamic leaders due to years of suppression by establishment Democrats. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has failed to offer new solutions, only deepening apathy and fatigue.
Without organizational cohesion and the ability to inspire its base, the Democratic Party has been unable to marshal its diverse coalition against Trump’s agenda. The issue that has mobilized progressives in large numbers in recent years is Palestine, which establishment Democrats are reluctant to support, including the recent arrest and threatened deportation of pro-Palestinian student Mahmoud Khalil. Losing young male voters has further weakened the party’s ability to generate active dissent.
Its association with progressive identity politics has meanwhile alienated broader segments of the electorate, with Biden having failed to address glaring economic issues and matters like crime and immigration during his presidency.
On the Republican side, dissenting voices like Mitt Romney and the late John McCain are gone, and those who still might challenge Trump within the party fear backlash and isolation. “Never Trump” conservative groups have struggled to pull voters away, while Trump’s systemic dismantling of government bureaucracy (historically staffed with left-leaning officials) and the appointment of loyalists to key positions have cemented his control over the government and prevented institutional attempts to undermine him.
With Republican control over all three branches of government, a conservative-majority Supreme Court, and Trump loyalists installed across federal agencies, his power—though often overstated—far surpasses that of his first term. Executive orders, constrained by previous presidents, are now being deployed at an unprecedented rate. His administration’s ambitious federal restructuring efforts, tied to the Project 2025 framework, go beyond the government overhauls of Ronald Reagan’s Grace Commission or Bill Clinton’s bipartisan National Performance Review. Yet, Democratic disarray has left these efforts largely unchecked.
Trump’s progress also hinges on the support of the ultrawealthy. The Democratic Party is experiencing a funding shortfall, not just from grassroots donors but from major oligarchs as well. Meanwhile, Trump has secured broader public backing from America’s corporate elite. Years of frustration with Democrats and the political left over issues like diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, taxation, and regulations have pushed many business leaders toward his camp.
This repositioning was on full display at Trump’s inauguration, where Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and many more wealthy individuals were given front-row seats. Google’s decision to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America,” a Trump executive order, signals the larger realignment across corporate America.
No billionaire has played a more consequential role than Elon Musk. Though his relationship with Trump was rocky just a few years ago, Musk’s endorsement of Trump in July 2024 cemented a powerful alliance between them. Musk’s control of X (formerly Twitter) not only reintroduced Trump to the media platform but also helped normalize his return to other social media networks. Meanwhile, Democrats have struggled to maintain their online presence amid declining engagement and financial strain.
This realignment has extended into the corporate media landscape. The aggressive anti-Trump narratives that dominated his first term have softened, driven by audience backlash against media institutions and wider progressive messaging. With traditional media outlets facing declining viewership, and the growing influence of oligarchic forces now backing Trump, the media’s pivot is as much about survival as it is about political recalibration.
Signs of this emerged even before the election. Jeff Bezos, who has owned the Washington Post since 2013, withdrew the paper’s endorsement of Kamala Harris, as did billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of the Los Angeles Times. CNN, under new leadership since 2023, has steadily adopted a more centrist tone, shedding high-profile anti-Trump figures like Don Lemon. MSNBC is undergoing an even more dramatic transformation, with outspoken Trump critics like Joy Reid and Alex Wagner losing their primetime slots in February 2025, while there has been scaling back of influence of others like Rachel Maddow in favor of less combative voices.
Emboldened by a changing media environment, Trump is increasingly punishing outlets. The Associated Press was banned from presidential events in February after declining to adopt the “Gulf of America” name. CBS remains embroiled in a $20 billion lawsuit filed by Trump over an edited interview with Kamala Harris, with Musk declaring that CBS reporters “deserve a long prison sentence.”
Meanwhile, Disney-ABC settled a defamation lawsuit with Trump for $15 million and recently replaced a transgender character from a new series with a Christian one. Meta, too, in January 2025, settled for $25 million for banning Trump from Facebook and Instagram after January 6. While these are small fines for corporate giants, they symbolize an increasing subservience to Trump, with both payments directed toward funding Trump’s presidential library.
It’s hardly surprising that Trump appears so powerful at this moment. Political opposition is fractured, leaving no effective barriers to Trump’s agenda. Many oligarchs have given him their quiet or public approval, as seen during his inauguration. The media’s softened stance has shaped a perception of reduced conflict. The absence of strong opposition has created new momentum as political, corporate, and media institutions adapt to this shifting power balance instead of fighting it, reducing the public’s appetite for resistance as well. For now, Trump is riding high after his election victory.
But cracks are beginning to show. Public resistance to Musk’s influence is growing, and the economic turbulence triggered by Trump’s policies is stirring unease. Without a strong and combative adversary, Trump and his most ardent supporters may find themselves without a rallying cause. International stability could further test his power, and the reality of governance may prove far more challenging than dismantling what came before.
Is this already the peak of Trump’s power, or can it be sustained? Opposition to Trump fluctuated during his first term, yet today, the political, business, and cultural landscapes have adjusted in his favor. His greatest advantage, however, may be the quiet acquiescence of elites from various backgrounds. While some may oppose him openly, many are content to let events play out due to self-interest or inertia.
It’s hardly surprising that Trump appears so powerful at this moment. Political opposition is fractured, leaving no effective barriers to Trump’s agenda…cracks are beginning to show – Ruehl
Ruehl glosses over the fact that the Democrat crushing of Sanders and his agenda helped pave the way for Trump Yves
I think YS is spot on here. The article is long and has many links, too many to take in right now. I would just note that Trump’s “power” is eroding among some Conservatives, although conservative Christians specifically, the ones who buy into Dispensationalism are still about ~80% supportive from what one pastor I listen to claimed this past Sunday.
As the promises of releasing the Epstein Papers, opening JFK archives, peace with Ukraine in 24 hrs, Syrian atrocities, Gazan starvation, etc…mount, those “barriers” Ruehl refers to will come down. The problem is the opposition, there is none, not on foreign policy and the creation of the “common good”, or if you reject the notion, like many do, the plural, a role for gov’t to support common goods (clean air, safety regulations, social security etc.). Those cracks that Ruehl sees are always shored up buy the oligarchs unless there is leadership to break it wide open.
The response to Trump now by Democrats looks a lot like their constant pointing to Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema as excuses. A bit of heckling at a President’s speech does not show a lot of effort.
I haven’t read the book ‘Abundance’, but I’ve seen a few reviews of it, sufficient to know its probably not really worth reading. As one review pointed out, the core problem of Californias HSR project was not ‘regulations’ per se, but that the original line was misconceived and motivated by politics more than engineering. The French SNCF was originally interested in the project but withdrew when they realised the problems. France, Japan and China built up successful HSR networks not by necessarily bypassing regulations and bureaucracy (both France and China have very complex interlocking local government systems that can be bafflingly opaque to outsiders – Japanese systems are opaque, full stop), but by starting out simple – the first lines were direct city to city lines utilising wherever possible existing transport corridors. By getting these initial ‘easy’ routes right and learning the correct lessons they were then able to build in more complexity to their projects while keeping costs down. Mind you, both Japan and China then ran into the problem of local interests (local politicians and business interests) simultaneously learning to ‘game’ the system to gum things up with it suited them – the new Chuo Shinkansen line between Tokyo and Osaka a case in point. French elite ruthlessness more or less stopped this process going out of control.
In my experience the key failure in governmental systems has been the loss of direct construction abilities due to the application of ‘market’ rules (i.e. neoliberalism). Governmental systems which don’t employ people who actually know how to build railways or homes or reservoirs or power systems, will almost inevitably graduate to what they know – developing increasingly complex checklists and rules. Bringing in specialized contractors can make things much worse if those contractors know they can profit by building in additional complexity. The only outside contractors usually worth using are those who have actually delivered finished projects – which is why California would probably have HSR now if they’d just invited the French in with a property incentivized contract (i.e. one related to actually delivering trains rather than notional ‘outputs’.)
Regulatory systems do tend towards excessive scale over time (its easier to make a new rule than to remove one), which is why unfortunately they tend to get more and more complex over time – which is why Doge type clearouts are not necessarily a bad thing in principle. Specific interest groups, whether its established PMC bureaucrats, or local wealthy landowners/businesses, tend to be very good at ensuring that the slow sclerosis of governmental systems works to their benefit – at least in the short to medium term.
I think the major issue with the nearly complete failure of the US regarding rail infrastructure is a lack managerial, engineering and trades expertise to pull off such projects. The US and Canadian rail networks are “inverstor” owned entities operating monopolies. Since Carter era deregulation they’ve been in a constant shrink-mode. There is very lite-touch regulation (derailments are an everyday occurrence). Beginning the mid-teens adherents of so-called Precision Scheduled Railroading. this decimated the workforce and further reduced infrastructure and CapEx. The amount of carload freight is well below amounts pre-PSR and container volumes are flat. But the profit nargins are 40-50%!
The result is if the industry hardly builds anything, where is the talent pool to build HSR or even higher speed conventional rail? It has absolutely nothing to do with regulation. The only example of successful new higher speed passenger rail is Brightline between Miami and Orlando. But that is a special case, as it has a large real estate development component.
Abundance citing Canada as a place that builds rail is laughable; Montreal’s 26 mile (mostly on existing rail lines) new light rail is 5 years behind schedule and costing almost C$10B. The New Siemens trainsets for Quebec to Toronto service are failure plagued and take 1.5 hours longer for a Montreal-Toronto trip 50 years ago. The neo Liberal party has been touting a greenfield HSR for 25 years; consultants have made millions talking about it.
Abundance is Musk and Trump lite.
After reading what the Democrats plan on doing for the next coupla years, it amounts to that piece of advice from that recent film “Don’t look Up” which came down to ‘Sit tight and assess.’ You might as well rename them His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.
I’d sum it up as: they’ve tried nothing and they’re all out of ideas.