There is a low-level battle going on within the Democratic Party which pits the proponents of “abundance” against advocates of the redistribution of wealth. The two are not mutually exclusive, but it is likely that the 2028 primaries will be a debate between the two sides. What are the pros and cons of “abundance?”
“Abundance” is not synonymous with economic growth; it is an effort to identify and eliminate systemic problems which unnecessarily slow down public improvements and drive up the costs of essential services provided by the market. It is about making the system faster and more efficient without resorting to Trumpian overreach and capriciousness.
The great advantage of “abundance” is that it doesn’t cost much money, which will be important in an environment in which the deficit is enormous and climbing and interest rates are correspondingly elevated. As a result, it will appeal to centrist swing voters who want better government without higher taxes. The great disadvantage is that there is no single “abundance” magic bullet. Finding and eliminating systemic blockages will be a lengthy and prosaic process which operates at all levels of government, not just in Washington, and threatens powerful vested interests, including some that are vital to the Democratic Party.