Podcast Summary: The Realignment | Episode 595

Guest: Ned Resnikoff

Host: Marshall Kosloff

Title: One Year In – Taking Abundance Back to Its Fundamentals

Date: February 19, 2026

Overview

This episode marks a reflective moment for host Marshall Kosloff as he winds down a year-long exploration of the "Abundance Agenda." Joined by Ned Resnikoff, fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and urban policy expert, the discussion centers on the origins, ideological varieties, and future prospects of the abundance movement—especially its relationship to left-of-center policy goals, its (often fraught) quest for bipartisanship, and how abundance must be understood as a set of flexible policy tools rather than a unifying political movement.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Abundance Agenda: Origins and Evolution (00:00–12:12)

• Marshall’s Context: After sustained focus on abundance over the past year, Marshall notes increasing openness among left-leaning policy organizations toward abundance ideas—contrary to a narrative of implacable left-wing opposition.
• Abundance as Left Analogue to Reform Conservatism: Drawing a historical parallel, Marshall sees abundance playing a similar role in the center-left as reform conservatism did for the right in the 2010s: a policy-focused, modernizing project.
• YIMBYism as the Root (12:12–19:27): Ned provides a detailed history of "Yes In My Backyard" (YIMBY) organizing, starting in San Francisco circa 2014, emphasizing the professional-managerial class’s response to urban housing shortages—and how local activism grew into state-level policy work.

Quote [Ned, 12:12]: “The sort of standard historical narrative of YIMBYism is that it really kicks off in 2014 in San Francisco ... It creates this real supply crunch, but it’s in the mid-2010s where the supply crunch becomes so bad... that a lot of young members of the professional managerial class... even they’re finding themselves rent-burdened.”

• Abundance as a Broader Framework (19:27–23:20): By the early 2020s, metropolitan housing activism morphs into a larger focus: “supply-side progressivism,” or more simply, “abundance”—expanding from housing to encompass other issue areas like education, healthcare, etc.

2. Varieties of Abundance: Ideological Factions and Tensions (06:53–29:25)

• Defining Factions: Drawing on Steve Teles’s “Varieties of Abundance,” Marshall and Ned identify several ideological camps: Red Plenty (left/progressive), Cascadian (decarbonization-focused), Liberal/Moderate, Synthesis, Dynamism, and Dark Abundance (right-populist, national conservative).

• Ned’s Position:

Quote [Ned, 08:49]: “I think the one that’s probably the best fit for me is the leftmost one, Red Plenty Abundance ... I also think that the focus on decarbonizing the United States, decarbonizing the world, really is also a fundamental part of why I think this stuff is so important.”

• Importance of Ideological Precision:

Quote [Marshall, 09:43]: “In this moment where everything is up for grabs ... being precise with this language really, really matters. So I want to defend your instinct to push back against that and say, no, for at least the next five years. We need to get that specific.”

• Factions as Divergent, Not Complementary (29:25–31:52): Ned argues the different abundance subgroups do not simply represent “wings” of a movement but are often pursuing mutually exclusive aims. For example, left-of-center abundance proponents advocate mass immigration and social programs, while some on the “Dark Abundance” right push for restrictionism and exclusion—

Quote [Ned, 29:25]: “... their vision of abundance involves welcoming in many, many more immigrants into the United States. ... And then you have people on the other side who are talking about deportation abundance ... You can’t really build a movement around just the idea of, oh, well, we should have a larger supply of something, but what the thing is, and why we need a larger supply of it, we’re just going to bracket that question.”

3. Abundance, Bipartisanship, and Strategy (31:52–49:16)

• Limits of Bipartisanship:
  • Marshall cautions against making bipartisanship the starting point: transformative change often comes from one political faction prevailing in argument and proving results, with the other adapting later (see the shift on China policy).
  • Ned notes that in the current political moment, pluralist democracy vs. autocracy is the true dividing line; efforts to bracket this central conflict (in the name of “post-partisanship”) are doomed or, worse, risk enabling anti-democratic forces.

Quote [Ned, 36:14]: “It’s pretty clear that in 2026 America, the sort of central political question is, is the United States going to remain... a trending in the right direction, pluralist liberal democracy, or is it going to fully transition into [autocracy]? ... I don’t think you can have a movement ... that says, well, we’re going to just kind of stick a pin in that question.”

• Effective Coalitions:
  • YIMBY movement’s pragmatic coalition-building is cited as a model: start from clear stated values, then “code-switch” to connect with potential allies (e.g., rural Republicans on property rights). But “code-switching” is not dishonesty; it’s about translating core goals for different audiences without hiding one’s own agenda.

Quote [Marshall, 42:10]: “The code switch in this case is, hey, Republican, especially rural Republican ... what if your neighbor told you how you could use your farmland? ... So we’re trying to do the same thing there too.”

• Proof of Concept and Changing Alliances:
  • Bipartisanship is easier once a policy has demonstrable benefits (“proof of concept”), e.g., well-governed, affordable, walkable cities replace theoretical arguments.

4. Abundance as Tools, Not Ideological Doctrine (49:16–57:14)

• Focus, Not Everything Bagel: There is a risk of diluting the abundance agenda by making it mean “everything”—from housing to AI to energy to “human flourishing.”

Quote [Marshall, 45:17]: “... the problem of abundance for the past year is we’ve had everything bagel abundance. So by saying abundance is state capacity and abundance is housing and abundance is nuclear power and abundance is AI and abundance is human flourishing ... We’ve tried to turn it into an everything bagel.”

• Regulation/Deregulation Nuance (51:57–53:52):
  • Ned argues we should move beyond binary regulation/deregulation tropes of the 1980s: all markets are structured by state policy, so arguments should focus on how they are structured, not whether they are “regulated.”

Quote [Ned, 51:57]: “I start with the ... insight that the market itself, as currently constituted, is ... a creature of law ... so when we talk about regulation and deregulation, it’s less precise than just talking about different ways of structuring that market or different ways of sort of tweaking the design of the market or its relationship to the state.”

• Public Investment as Complement (54:26–57:14):
  • Public investment is a crucial tool for addressing market failures and ensuring equitable outcomes. For instance, regulatory streamlining for housing enables public investment to go farther—e.g., more effective affordable housing initiatives.
  • Massive R&D investments, public options, and direct subsidies remain indispensable, especially for populations market solutions won’t reach.

Quote [Ned, 54:26]: “You can create a housing market that has a lot of what’s called naturally affordable housing without subsidies ... but you’re still going to have some population of people who have close to zero income ... And so there’s no way to do that without public subsidy ...”

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

• On the Fragmentation of Abundance:

  • [29:25, Ned]: “It’s not possible to build a coherent synthesis ... between someone who has one goal and then someone else who not only has a different, mutually exclusive goal, but also wants to deport person A.”

• Marshall on Political Strategy:

  • [31:52, Marshall]: “I want this set of ideas to be quote, bipartisan. But I don’t think you get there by starting with bipartisanship as the goal.”

• On Regulation as Market Shaping:

  • [51:57, Ned]: “Good regulations that do what I want them to do are good and poorly designed or, you know, ill intended regulations that don’t do what I would want them to do are bad.”

• On the Need for Focused Policy Coalitions:

  • [45:17, Marshall]: “What if our goal is bipartisanship? What are like three authentic things ... you could actually get people just unabashedly saying, like this is really great.”

Important Timestamps for Segments

• 00:00–06:47: Marshall’s Abundance Agenda review/history, the realignment context, and intro of Ned Resnikoff.
• 08:49–12:12: Ned describes his ideological position: "between Red Plenty Abundance and Cascadian Abundance."
• 12:12–19:27: Ned contextualizes YIMBYism’s origins and its transition into state and international policy.
• 19:27–23:20: Influence of policy thinkers on the abundance agenda; distinction between supply- and demand-side approaches.
• 23:20–29:25: Ned's assessment of the Abundance book and its limits as a "movement."
• 29:25–31:52: Ned critiques the idea of broad, ideologically incoherent coalitions.
• 36:14–43:15: How real change happens: comparison with the US-China policy shift; YIMBY organizing as a model.
• 49:16–53:52: The problem with turning abundance into an “everything bagel”; regulation/deregulation nuance.
• 54:26–57:14: The role of public investment in abundance.

Takeaways for New Listeners

• Abundance is best understood as a flexible policy toolkit, not a stable coalition or ideological “movement.” Common principles—like expanding housing supply, improving state capacity, or facilitating innovation—can be interpreted in divergent, even opposing, ways.
• Successful policy coalitions require both strategic clarity and authenticity—not “watering down” agendas for bipartisanship from the start, but proving concepts and building trust across divides.
• The abundance debate is entering a new, more mature phase: one of focus and separation from its "everything for everyone" origin, prioritizing actionable, targeted reforms over grand, undifferentiated visions.

Closing Note

Resnikoff teases that he’s at work on a book applying these abundance lessons to urban policy—framing abundance as a modern New Deal—and both he and Kosloff look forward to more targeted, constructive engagement from across the abundance “cinematic universe.”

[57:40, Ned]: "Yeah, thank you."