From Silicon Valley to The New York Times: When Builders Agree

In an era defined by political polarization, it’s striking when two public intellectuals—one a libertarian-leaning venture capitalist, the other a progressive journalist—arrive at the same fundamental conclusion: we’ve become far better at stopping things than building them. It’s a theme that has recently surfaced in our own election discourse, with both major parties acknowledging the problem, albeit offering different solutions.

Marc Andreessen, billionaire co-founder of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, made waves in 2020 with his manifesto “It’s Time to Build.” In it, he delivered a passionate plea to revive ambition in the Western world. Andreessen decried societal inertia and regulatory bloat as forces that have paralyzed progress across sectors—housing, healthcare, education, and infrastructure. He challenges both the political right and left, quoting Milton Friedman’s adage that “the great public sector mistake is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” But rather than treat this as an insult, Andreessen reframes it as a call to action: “Build new things and show the results.” His message is simple and urgent—build, or fall behind.

From a different ideological starting point, Ezra Klein—co-founder of Vox and now a columnist for The New York Times—echoes many of the same concerns in his 2024 book “Abundance.” In my view, it should be required reading for public-sector planners. Where Andreessen points to overregulation and complacency, Klein identifies what he calls vetocracy: a form of governance where too many actors have the power to say no, and too few are empowered to say yes. The result is a progressive movement that often talks about equity while unintentionally blocking the very housing and infrastructure needed to achieve it.

Both perspectives ring true. Over the years, well-intentioned—mostly provincial—legislation has created a dense thicket of overlapping and sometimes contradictory rules. This regulatory layering has introduced uncertainty and stifled development, especially in the areas that need it most.

Despite their differing politics and communication styles—Andreessen is bold and techno-optimistic, Klein is measured and institutional—their shared frustration is clear: in North America, it has become far too difficult to build. Whether it’s urban housing in San Francisco or clean energy infrastructure in the Northeast, both advocate for streamlined processes, bolder leadership, and a renewed societal commitment to progress.

That convergence should be a wake-up call to policymakers, planners, and citizens alike. When two thinkers from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum diagnose the same systemic failure, it’s time we start listening—and more importantly, building.