Thomas Richard Harry is a resident of Scottsdale, Arizona.
Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye!
With experience gained from his first four years in office, Donald Trump and his close supporters believed that they knew exactly what he would need (1.) to win reelection in 2024 and, if reelected, (2.) what their approach needed to be to achieve a broad conservative takeover of government. To win, they would need an effective, suggestive slogan. To achieve a takeover, they would need a far-reaching increase in the power and authority of the presidency.
As a slogan suggesting purpose, “Make America Great Again” — following in the footsteps of Teddy Roosevelt’s 1910 “Square Deal” and Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 “New Deal” — captured the people’s imagination, expanding their perception of government moving in the wrong direction. They expressed this belief Nov. 5, 2024. “The Donald” was their choice for making “a change.” Trump, along with many from his previous administration, supported by a broad range of right-wing conservative elites, were ready for the challenge. The Trump platform, Agenda 47, along with Project 2025, were developed to lead the conservative takeover once back in office.
Project 2025 is an independently produced policy agenda developed under the coordination of more than 100 politically/socially right-wing organizations by the influential, conservative Heritage Foundation think tank. It’s a roadmap, drawn up in anticipation of Donald Trump winning the 2024 presidential election, to downsize the federal government and fundamentally change how it works. It’s a public document, published in April 2023 and one of “four integrated pillars” that will be available to the next “conservative president.” The other pillars are:
I stress “independent” policy agenda because, throughout the months running up to the election, Trump’s campaign took efforts to distance itself from it. Some might find this curious, since at least 140 people who worked in the first Trump administration had a hand in developing Project 2025. A number have returned to join the current administration (interesting coincidence!). Further, Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, is quoted as saying he had discussed it with the campaign.
In addition, Trump personally distanced himself from it, calling some of its proposals “ridiculous” and “abysmal.” His denials were received with skepticism, considering the many people close to him directly involved. Project 2025 may simply have been considered too toxic to the group of independent voters he needed for election to be associated with it at the time.
For what it’s worth, four days into Trump’s second term, an analysis conducted by Time found that nearly two-thirds of his executive actions “mirror or partly mirror” proposals from Project 2025! Hum.
There you have it. Project 2025 put in place a conservative consensus of how major federal agencies must be governed. It sounds like good forward planning for what’s — in conservative circles — being partisanly attempted. So, what’s wrong with that? Why would the candidate and his campaign feel a need to “distance themselves from it”? Recall, Americans voted for change last November.
What’s wrong with it is that, even as we witness it unfold, while it may suggest change — rather extreme change, challenging limits of legal authority, some argue — it questionably represents progress, as a preponderance of voting Americans (political independents) might have assumed, some while holding their noses and casting their vote for “The Donald” last November.
I suggest three observations supporting this conclusion.
First, it is an exclusively ultraconservative view of what change(s) need to be carried out to MAGA. This demonstrates the limited inclusivity this government deems necessary to consider governing for all the people, even just some of the time. It is implicitly meant to (1.) overwhelmingly benefit “business,” (2.) placate its far-right social conservative political base and (3.) fortify its base of power over control of government, depending heavily on expanding the president’s personal ability to control civil service rules and regulations (hire and fire). Admittedly, that clear political statement makes sense for its own team. But it might be seen as a red flag to nonteam members, possibly foreshadowing a move away from “oligarchy” — a fact of organizational life — toward “autocracy” — a system of government by one person with absolute control.
Secondly, it does little to nothing to reduce the ultrapartisanship that has increasingly beguiled our country and our federal government’s ability to fulfill its citizens’ confidence that it remains a reliable servant of the people. Haven’t we, by our limited choice at the polls, simply traded an ultraliberal, self-interested machine for an ultraconservative one?
Thirdly, a careful look at the ends and objectives of Project 2025 clearly reveals its true goal: to restrain government for the benefit of business and, by implication, ultraconservative political and social interests. Again, nothing is conceptually wrong with that, until you examine it closely.
Elsewhere, I have spoken of the need for balance in society and that the main protagonists in our society are the private capitalistic sector (business, in the broadest sense) and government. The struggles for power and dominance between these two are as old as the history of our country. In 1820, the great Massachusetts orator Daniel Webster profoundly forecast the dynamic dichotomy in American politics after 1870, as political power became increasingly diffused, and economic power became increasingly concentrated.
Webster suggested that, if the tendency of the laws were to create a rapid accumulation of property in a few hands and to render the great masses dependent and penniless, “the popular power must break in upon the rights of property and wealth (revolt), or else their influence must limit and control (subvert) the exercise of popular power.” Webster had clearly foreshadowed both conservative and liberal political strategy in the distant years ahead.
Project 2025 begs the question of its intent: Is it what Webster feared, just another effort to subvert the exercise of popular power? Or has popular power indeed overextended itself and merits reform (reform, that is, not elimination)?
Both protagonists are essential to our society. Both benefit from the presence of the other. The ongoing struggle should be for balance, but in fact, today, it’s become one of dominance, of power. After almost half a century of liberally aligned (progressive) government expanding rules and regulations upon money and property (business), the deciding factor in our democracy — the people, via their vote — has indicated that change (in the direction of government) is wanted.
We are now witnessing the rather messy early stage of such a change. Will it ultimately result in better balance or is this simply the ongoing political game of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic to better suit the opposition?
You tell me!
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
