Right-Wing Anti-Regulation Ideals Dominate Abundance Conference

Last week, Washington’s policy circles were buzzing over two sharply contrasting conferences, each offering a distinct vision for America’s future. While one event leaned heavily into nationalist rhetoric, the other promoted a techno-optimistic agenda centered on deregulation and innovation. Despite their ideological differences, both gatherings grappled with fundamental questions about resources, belonging, and progress in modern society.

On the right, NatCon brought together Trump-aligned figures advocating for strict immigration controls and heightened scrutiny of tech developers. Across town, the Abundance Conference envisioned a future where reduced regulations could unlock unprecedented prosperity. Though their methods diverged wildly, both conferences addressed core anxieties about who benefits from American resources and how technology should be governed.

Few observers attended both events, but those who did noted intriguing parallels. One reporter described NatCon as “the Scarcity Conference,” highlighting its focus on preserving resources for a narrowly defined group. In contrast, Abundance proponents argued that innovation and growth could benefit everyone, if government would simply get out of the way.

Abundance thinking has roots in the YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) movement, which champions deregulating housing construction to increase supply and lower costs. Supporters point to local zoning laws and building codes, like single-stair requirements, as barriers to progress. The conference blended these practical concerns with more speculative ideas, including futuristic concepts like drone-delivered “star medicine,” illustrating a blend of pragmatic policy and aspirational vision.

The liberal argument for abundance suggests that the regulatory state, once necessary to curb industrial excess, now stifles innovation. By cutting red tape, proponents believe society can achieve better health, safety, and quality of life. This represents a notable shift for some Democrats, who have traditionally supported robust regulation.

Abundance’s coalition included voices from across the political spectrum, from socialists to center-right thinkers. This diversity sparked lively debate, particularly around artificial intelligence. While some speakers championed rapid AI development, others called for introducing “friction” into technological systems, questioning the assumption that all innovation is inherently positive.

Immigration discussions at Abundance focused narrowly on high-skilled reform, such as replacing the H-1B visa lottery with a more merit-based system. This stood in stark contrast to NatCon’s emphasis on border enforcement and cultural preservation.

Where NatCon sought to define and defend a exclusive version of Americanness, Abundance aimed to expand opportunity for those already here. Panels explored issues like housing affordability, family policy, and cost of living, challenges that resonate across partisan lines.

Some attendees framed abundance as a potential winning strategy for Democrats, though the conference included conservative voices like Utah Governor Spencer Cox. The emphasis was on practical, bipartisan solutions rather than partisan rhetoric. One observer summarized the difference between the two conferences succinctly: “NatCon is all vibes, no policy. Abundance is all policy, no vibes.”

Despite efforts to inject more energy into their messaging, abundance advocates remain focused on white papers and policy details. Their challenge lies in translating complex ideas into compelling public narratives, a task that has often eluded policy-oriented movements in the past.

In the end, these parallel conferences revealed a broader realignment in political thinking about technology, regulation, and national identity. While they offered contrasting answers, both grappled with a shared question: how should America navigate an era of rapid change and growing uncertainty?

(Source: The Verge)