The Pragmatism of One Billion Americans
A Review of One Billion Americans by Mathew Yglesias
By Benedict Wright
What if there were one billion Americans? What would it take to reach that number (up from the current figure of 330 million), and, if we could, why would we want to? In his new book, Vox co-founder Mathew Yglesias makes the case that substantial population growth in the United States would be far more beneficial than it is often imagined by both the right and left. In his straightforward explanatory style, Yglesias argues for the various benefits of a more populous and productive United States and tries to connect a host of his progressive policy preferences to the goal of population growth. Increasing housing stock (the subject of Yglesias’ 2012 book The Rent is Too Damn High), investing in transit and renewable energy, expanding federal child support, and increasing legal immigration all figure prominently in his list of solutions to what he claims is the problem of an underpopulated America. However, the benefit of population growth turns out to only ostensibly be the author’s primary contention.
In One Billion Americas, Yglesias does indeed attempt to weave together a kind of progressive natalism—much heavier on policy proposals than handwringing about the birthrate. However, what is more notable is his commitment to the ultimately artificial and arbitrary conceit of the goal of one billion Americans. Yglesias makes it clear that he is doubtful that one billion Americans is really a practical or achievable goal. It may be conceptually straightforward, he says, but in reality, it may turn out to be “impossible and absurd.” So why entertain the idea at all? Importantly, Yglesias situates the aim of significant population growth within the larger goal of maintaining U.S. global power and national greatness. From the beginning, the book argues that if America wants to remain the global superpower, it must either intentionally keep growing nations like China and India poor (a solution the author roundly rejects), or the U.S. must grow its own population and wealth to keep pace. Entertaining the pie in the sky of one billion Americans leans on the premise that U.S. global hegemony is a politically motivating ideal and, Yglesias claims, “one of the least controversial” issues in American politics. Given its connection to U.S. power, population growth therefore serves as a trojan horse for Yglesias to lay out his preferred policy agenda.
In doing this, Yglesias offers an unorthodox strategy for defending an array of progressive goals—from addressing climate change to creating a more humane immigration agenda to reinvigorating the declining American heartland without demagoguery or appeals to racial resentment—all under the guise of population growth. Pragmatic and dispassionate, Yglesias subtly argues that appeals to national pride, economic prosperity, and stable families are more politically effective than moralizing appeals to climate justice, economic equality, open borders, or multiculturalism. While Yglesias periodically nods to the moral dimension of his claims about building housing, addressing climate change, or expanding immigration, these are always icing on the politically pragmatic cake. Moralizing aside, he says, it just makes good economic sense to build more densely in pricy areas, to invest in non-carbon sources of energy, and to grow the U.S. labor force. And furthermore, it makes good political sense to couch those projects in a rhetoric of American greatness.
Importantly, the book does not ignore the influence of culture when it comes to creating a better and more prosperous nation. Yglesias talks specifically about the importance of a “family-friendly culture”—one in which families are empowered to have the number of children they want and spend the time child-rearing that is beneficial for kids and rewarding for parents. However, such a culture, for Yglesias, is decidedly downstream of policy. “I’m focused primarily on policy change,” he says, “because that’s the main lever we have. The hope, however, is that policy change spurs larger changes.” Thus, if policy is the primary lever, then the task of making a given policy platform politically appealing to a large constituency is of paramount importance.
In the realm of policy ideas, One Billion Americans is very compelling. It is difficult to argue against the logic behind paid family leave, the sound economic data behind the benefits of immigration, and the desirability of denser housing in prosperous metro areas and federal action to coax population growth in in areas where it is shrinking. In terms of climate policy, Yglesias will likely not change the minds of anyone already committed to de-growth as the only real climate solution. However, for the broader constituency that would like to believe that growth and prosperity can coincide with low-carbon living, One Billion Americans should not be controversial. And while population growth turns out to be a second-order argument in the book, it is nevertheless a compelling case for reorienting the common thinking about the benefits and drawbacks of more people.
The tougher sell is the theory of change that One Billion Americans puts forth: that, in the author’s words, “a renewed political focus on the big questions—economic growth, international competition, and the future of the American project—might help heal a political system that seems currently trapped by internecine conflict.” Within this theory arise the key arguments that 1) progressives should perhaps don the mantle of nationalism and economic prosperity, emphasizing less their moral outrage about inequality and societal injustice, to get their agenda passed; and that 2) passing acceptable policy through pragmatic politics is more effective than engaging in morally charged debates about culture (a lesson that Yglesias believes factions of both the left and right would do well to learn). In the end, this pragmatically optimistic theory of change is what makes One Billion Americans distinctive and worth paying attention to.