Steadily and increasingly over the last 7 years following Waleed’s thoughts, I wish he would run the Democratic Party. Grateful for your ability to represent what we need with brilliance and strategy and
New to Waleed' Substack. Great article, but probably only fully digestible by a small circle of like- and/or open-minded intellectuals already steeped in the cited literature. I would like to see it translated into more ordinary language. Not asking for sound bites. Just ordinary language.
Here's an attempt: The Democratic Party is caught in a fight between two camps I care deeply about: populists who want to confront corporate power and fix inequality, and abundance advocates who want government to actually deliver results—like housing, transit, and clean energy. But instead of building together, these camps have turned on each other. The abundance crowd often sees populists as unserious—good at diagnosing the problem but not at winning or governing. Meanwhile, many populists see the abundance project as captured by Silicon Valley and billionaire donors, out of touch with the anger people feel toward elites and the status quo. If you’re taking money from the people we need to fight, how can you really stand up to them?
I believe we need both sides. We can’t fix what’s broken in this country without taking on the concentrated power of corporations—and we also need a government that’s capable of delivering for people at scale. History shows that the biggest wins—from the New Deal to civil rights—came from blending bold populist clarity with real state capacity. The future of the left depends on building a synthesis: populism that knows how to govern, and abundance that never forgets who holds the power and who it's supposed to serve.
I think you definitely have a good handle on the issue, but it's still hard to concede that these things can work as a binary. I think we need to discuss an order of operations to these two ideas, because Neo-libearalism is already leading the democratic party.
If you slot abundance in under Neo-liberalism you get a stripmined country with luxury infrastructure benefitting the top while the working class are left with decaying districts and landscapes.
If you start by replacing Neo-liberalism by taxing wealth not work as Populist redistribution, you get an empowered working and middle class. After five or ten years slot in an abundance agenda and you have created a fertile ground for equitable prosperity.
Instead of a housing development of twenty renters under one landlord, you have twenty home owners and the deserved rights that come with that. Most millennials will aim to power their home by solar and run an electric car from that while also powerfully lobbying for public transport. Meanwhile in the neoliberal system, the landlord is running each building off of gas and any lobbying from the renters is completely futile as transient inhabitants.
Pools of wealth will appear in long forgotten communities because with their hard earned wealth people can return back to the places they grew up and communities will develop there, creating jobs funded by local people. Local journalism could even return as more people will have the wealth, power and optimism to be engaged with the community.
It's a cart before the horse scenario where Democrats are backing the cart of abundance, promising the horse of Populism that he'll eventually take the lead. Before they get to that though they're much more likely to shoot the horse and replace it with a new Tesla Cyborg Horse that they're proud to have bankrolled.
"Power concedes nothing without a fight." That's as true of entrenched Democratic Party leadership as it has been of every other power center.
Why should they concede anything to the populist wing when they have everything they want? Merely because it would enable them to win elections?
Recall the Iron Law of Institutions:
Institutional leadership becomes far more interested in growing its own power _within_ an organization than in helping that organization grow more powerful. That is current Dem leadership.
In short: populists have to win more victories against "centrist" Dems, and fight to win actual power within the party, before the "abundance" people will admit that populism might be a good idea.
Thank you for your post, I’m not an American. Democracy, at its core, requires meaningful participation, accountability, equitable representation, and the protection of civil liberties. When political systems become dominated by concentrated economic power, when public debate is reduced to false choices, or when governance fails to deliver for the majority of people, democratic principles erode.
Franklin D. Roosevelt himself warned that "economic tyranny", the unchecked power of concentrated wealth, could undermine political freedom. His vision for democracy was not passive; it required active government intervention to ensure fairness, opportunity, and dignity for all citizens.
If current systems fall short of these ideals, it underscores the need for reform, not resignation.
Real democracy demands:
- Limits on corporate influence in politics
- Transparency and accountability in governance
- Equal access to economic and political opportunity
- Strong civic institutions that empower citizens, not just elites
Roosevelt’s insight is still valuable today, democracy must work for everyone, or it will end up working for no one
Waleed, this essay deserves further discussion with people in political power, leaders who understand it all and can put it into digestible segments. I would love to see (and hear) a discussion of your ideas with people who could translate this wisdom into planks of a political program for candidates of a progressive stripe throughout the U.S. in the near future. Do you have anyone in mind who could put it in such terms as "What would make housing more affordable for everyone, including people without a steady income?" ( + "How can this be done?") (and "How is this being done in any other countries?") As one example for a progressive political plank, on the environmental scene, Bill McKibben and Sam Matey have recently dialogued on the practical steps for solar power to advance and at the same time to aid agriculture by replacing corn fields that serve ethanol production with large solar fields for public power at low cost that would still enable plants to grow that would serve pollinators and other wildlife. (See the website for Climate Action Now.) They also pointed out that 40 percent of global shipping serves the fossil fuel industry. A national commitment to solar energy would drastically cut that huge shipping cost and environmental harm at the same time. The 1980 Jimmy Carter platform indicated such a vision.
Steadily and increasingly over the last 7 years following Waleed’s thoughts, I wish he would run the Democratic Party. Grateful for your ability to represent what we need with brilliance and strategy and
nuance and heart.
Interesting but SO repetitive
New to Waleed' Substack. Great article, but probably only fully digestible by a small circle of like- and/or open-minded intellectuals already steeped in the cited literature. I would like to see it translated into more ordinary language. Not asking for sound bites. Just ordinary language.
Here's an attempt: The Democratic Party is caught in a fight between two camps I care deeply about: populists who want to confront corporate power and fix inequality, and abundance advocates who want government to actually deliver results—like housing, transit, and clean energy. But instead of building together, these camps have turned on each other. The abundance crowd often sees populists as unserious—good at diagnosing the problem but not at winning or governing. Meanwhile, many populists see the abundance project as captured by Silicon Valley and billionaire donors, out of touch with the anger people feel toward elites and the status quo. If you’re taking money from the people we need to fight, how can you really stand up to them?
I believe we need both sides. We can’t fix what’s broken in this country without taking on the concentrated power of corporations—and we also need a government that’s capable of delivering for people at scale. History shows that the biggest wins—from the New Deal to civil rights—came from blending bold populist clarity with real state capacity. The future of the left depends on building a synthesis: populism that knows how to govern, and abundance that never forgets who holds the power and who it's supposed to serve.
I think you definitely have a good handle on the issue, but it's still hard to concede that these things can work as a binary. I think we need to discuss an order of operations to these two ideas, because Neo-libearalism is already leading the democratic party.
If you slot abundance in under Neo-liberalism you get a stripmined country with luxury infrastructure benefitting the top while the working class are left with decaying districts and landscapes.
If you start by replacing Neo-liberalism by taxing wealth not work as Populist redistribution, you get an empowered working and middle class. After five or ten years slot in an abundance agenda and you have created a fertile ground for equitable prosperity.
Instead of a housing development of twenty renters under one landlord, you have twenty home owners and the deserved rights that come with that. Most millennials will aim to power their home by solar and run an electric car from that while also powerfully lobbying for public transport. Meanwhile in the neoliberal system, the landlord is running each building off of gas and any lobbying from the renters is completely futile as transient inhabitants.
Pools of wealth will appear in long forgotten communities because with their hard earned wealth people can return back to the places they grew up and communities will develop there, creating jobs funded by local people. Local journalism could even return as more people will have the wealth, power and optimism to be engaged with the community.
It's a cart before the horse scenario where Democrats are backing the cart of abundance, promising the horse of Populism that he'll eventually take the lead. Before they get to that though they're much more likely to shoot the horse and replace it with a new Tesla Cyborg Horse that they're proud to have bankrolled.
Yes! This is a powerful historical argument for a both/and politics in the Democratic Party.
"Power concedes nothing without a fight." That's as true of entrenched Democratic Party leadership as it has been of every other power center.
Why should they concede anything to the populist wing when they have everything they want? Merely because it would enable them to win elections?
Recall the Iron Law of Institutions:
Institutional leadership becomes far more interested in growing its own power _within_ an organization than in helping that organization grow more powerful. That is current Dem leadership.
In short: populists have to win more victories against "centrist" Dems, and fight to win actual power within the party, before the "abundance" people will admit that populism might be a good idea.
Brilliant. Thank you 🙏🏻
Excellent sober and clear eyed analysis. This synthesis is the way forward for the party, and I hope we can chart it.
Thank you for your post, I’m not an American. Democracy, at its core, requires meaningful participation, accountability, equitable representation, and the protection of civil liberties. When political systems become dominated by concentrated economic power, when public debate is reduced to false choices, or when governance fails to deliver for the majority of people, democratic principles erode.
Franklin D. Roosevelt himself warned that "economic tyranny", the unchecked power of concentrated wealth, could undermine political freedom. His vision for democracy was not passive; it required active government intervention to ensure fairness, opportunity, and dignity for all citizens.
If current systems fall short of these ideals, it underscores the need for reform, not resignation.
Real democracy demands:
- Limits on corporate influence in politics
- Transparency and accountability in governance
- Equal access to economic and political opportunity
- Strong civic institutions that empower citizens, not just elites
Roosevelt’s insight is still valuable today, democracy must work for everyone, or it will end up working for no one
Waleed, this essay deserves further discussion with people in political power, leaders who understand it all and can put it into digestible segments. I would love to see (and hear) a discussion of your ideas with people who could translate this wisdom into planks of a political program for candidates of a progressive stripe throughout the U.S. in the near future. Do you have anyone in mind who could put it in such terms as "What would make housing more affordable for everyone, including people without a steady income?" ( + "How can this be done?") (and "How is this being done in any other countries?") As one example for a progressive political plank, on the environmental scene, Bill McKibben and Sam Matey have recently dialogued on the practical steps for solar power to advance and at the same time to aid agriculture by replacing corn fields that serve ethanol production with large solar fields for public power at low cost that would still enable plants to grow that would serve pollinators and other wildlife. (See the website for Climate Action Now.) They also pointed out that 40 percent of global shipping serves the fossil fuel industry. A national commitment to solar energy would drastically cut that huge shipping cost and environmental harm at the same time. The 1980 Jimmy Carter platform indicated such a vision.
Great unpacking and I feel like I need to read or listen again! Thank you ☺️