Coming off a successful round of elections in 2025 and a government shutdown triumph, the Democratic Party seems to be exhibiting a united front. But appearances belie reality. Beyond the headlines, a civil war is raging between the “abundance” wing and the “populist” wing of the party. After a strong effort by the abundance crowd last year, the populists are pushing back hard and appear to have the upper hand.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) issued a blistering denunciation of abundance Democrats at the National Press Club this month, accusing them of “watering down our economic agenda and sucking up to the rich and powerful.” She even named names, singling out for disapprobation venture capitalist Reid Hoffman and authors Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, who wrote the book on abundance.
To the extent that abundance is about “making government more effective,” Warren is for it. But she argued that abundance has become a “rallying cry” for “wealthy donors and corporate-aligned Democrats who are putting big-time muscle behind Democrats more favorable to big business.” She then specifically mentioned Hoffman’s support for reforming regulations that are impeding data center construction. Warren argued that data centers drive up utility costs and should therefore be opposed. Fellow populist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has even called for an outright ban on new data center construction.
Warren was right, in a narrow sense, that data centers increase demand for electricity. But as long as utilities can also increase supply, this does not have to mean higher electricity costs for consumers. Almost all economic growth involves higher energy use. Every leap in living standards, from agriculture to steam power to electricity, came not from using less energy, but from learning how to produce more of it reliably and cheaply.
What consumers really need is permitting reform so it’s easier and less expensive to build new power plants and transmission lines, whether those new energy sources are gas, nuclear, or solar power. Populist Democrats oppose new energy production unless it is “clean,” but useful as those sources may be in an all-of-the-above policy, they cannot, alone, keep up with rising demand.
The contrast between populist and abundance Democrats on housing is equally stark. Populist New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani wants to make the city cheaper to live in by freezing rents and tightening rent control. Abundance Democrats would instead increase supply by deregulating the city’s burdensome Uniform Land Use Review Procedure and the state’s State Environmental Quality Review Act.
There is even a divide on how populist and abundance Democrats approach healthcare. Populist Democrats see high costs as a problem of corporate power and profiteering, so they emphasize price controls, tougher regulation, and expanding public options. Abundance Democrats see high costs as a problem of scarce capacity and inefficient delivery, so they focus on increasing supply by training more providers, building more facilities, and cutting red tape that slows care.
The common theme running through all these issues is that abundance Democrats want to get burdensome government regulations out of the way so that private actors can increase supply and lower costs. That is the right approach, and it is far from saying we broadly agree with any wing of the Democratic Party. Populist Democrats, on the other hand, think greed and inequality cause high prices, and can be solved through price controls and redistribution. This is just the age-old politics of envy and the siren song of statists who prefer oligarchic government to free people and free enterprise.
Sens. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Tina Smith (D-MN) joined Warren to release a memo backing populist Democratic policies over abundance policies. They believe Democrats can win control of Congress in November if they argue that “billionaires and big corporations” are to blame for high prices and that the solution is higher taxes and more regulations.
KEEP UP THE PRESSURE ON STATE VOTER ROLLS
We hope Republicans will respond by asking Democrats how their populist policies are working in states they control. California, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Massachusetts are some of the most expensive states in the country to live in, especially when it comes to housing and energy costs. If taxing billionaires and breaking up big corporations is the key to affordability, why are Democratic states the most unaffordable places to be?
Populists want voters to believe affordability is a morality play: greedy corporations versus heroic regulators. But blue states are living proof that this story fails in practice just as badly as it fails in points of morality and principle. Where Democrats govern, they don’t build, they block. Prices rise because supply is strangled. Until Democrats can make affordability a reality in the states they already run, they should not try to force it on the rest of us.