At a time when political discourse is dominated by teardown culture and regulatory battles, an unlikely voice has stepped forward to champion beauty as a core public policy concern. Ezra Klein, the prominent liberal journalist, used his platform at last year’s Abundance Futures / Live conference to argue that restoring aesthetic beauty to architecture and urban planning is essential for building political consensus and unlocking abundance.
For decades, the mantle of aesthetic preservation has been carried by figures like King Charles III, philosopher Roger Scruton, and architectural critic Leon Krier — voices often relegated to the conservative fringe. Klein’s call, therefore, marks a notable departure from the usual left-of-center stance that treats beauty as subjective and politically suspect.
“We cannot have a politics afraid of having a view about what is beautiful because a politics that is not beautiful is a politics nobody wants,” Klein said. “An abundance that is not beautiful is an abundance nobody will allow you to build.”
His comments, reported by the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, suggest a growing recognition that aesthetic considerations are not merely nostalgic or elitist, but practically essential. As Paul Shakeshaft, Director of Development & Policy Initiatives at the Manhattan Institute, writes in a new essay, Klein’s position echoes what cultural conservatives have argued from the margins: if cities, homes, and streets are not appealing, citizens will oppose their construction. Beauty, in this view, is the key that unlocks the door to necessary development.
Beauty Without Consensus
Shakeshaft acknowledges that defining beauty is no simple matter. But he argues that the mere willingness to debate it represents a strategic victory for those who want aesthetics back on the table. “Part of the solution is simply to open debate on the question,” he writes. “For proponents of beauty, this is a strategic advance, as the debate implies the possibility of an answer.”
The reluctance to engage, he suggests, stems from a fear that reaching any consensus on what is beautiful would undermine the liberal commitment to a values-neutral politics. But as Klein pointed out, two architects of modern liberalism — Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson — held distinct views on beauty and acted on them. Roosevelt dedicated Timberline Lodge in Oregon in 1937, a project built by the Works Progress Administration. Johnson, in his 1967 conservation speech to Congress, declared, “We must not only protect the countryside and save it from destruction, we must restore what has been destroyed and salvage the beauty and charm of our cities.”
Shakeshaft argues that a metaphysical consensus on beauty is unnecessary. Just as we debate religious freedom without agreeing on the ultimate meaning of religion, so too can we engage politically on aesthetics. And he insists beauty can be advanced on purely liberal grounds, citing Immanuel Kant’s pragmatic approach: while we may not all perceive beauty identically, most human beings find similar objects beautiful.
Evidence Supports Consensus
Empirical research bolsters this view. A recent study by political scientists David Broockman, Christopher Elmendorf, and Joshua Kalla found that aesthetic judgments play a central role in whether people support or oppose housing construction. When presented with examples of more attractive housing, respondents were significantly more likely to support development, even when the projects were not in their own neighborhoods. The study concluded that beauty and perceived visual fit are causal determinants of voter support for pro-housing policies, not just post hoc rationalizations for resistance.
Surveys from the United States, the Netherlands, and the Asia-Pacific region consistently show wide majorities favoring buildings typically described as beautiful, Shakeshaft notes.
For those who fear that imposing beauty standards might violate John Stuart Mill’s harm principle, Shakeshaft offers reassurance: widespread agreement on beautiful architecture causes no obvious harm to anyone — quite the opposite. Building in a way that pleases the senses is not inherently right-wing, he argues, and can be done comfortably within a center-left framework.
“Constructing a physical environment that pleases the senses is not right-wing,” he writes, concluding with a twist on a familiar phrase: “let’s build back beautiful.”
The piece is part of a collaboration between the Manhattan Institute and Daily Wire, bringing policy research and commentary to a broad audience.
Source: www.dailywire.com — https://www.dailywire.com/news/establishing-the-beauty-mandate-in-a-teardown-culture