Project 2025

Have you heard of it? What do you think? Their website is worth a visit with lots of details.

If you lean conservative how do you feel about their agenda on the topics you care about? Considering that in America’s winner take all partisan political world, how do you feel about the parts you may not agree with?

Project 2025 | Presidential Transition Project

It is not enough for conservatives to win elections. If we are going to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left, we need both a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on Day One of the next conservative Administration.

This is the goal of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. The project will build on four pillars that will, collectively, pave the way for an effective conservative Administration.

Questionnaire (project2025.org)
The easy to cut and paste bit of the questionnaire. I find it is an interesting set of questions to self measure.

Do you agree with the following statements?

  1. The U.N. should have authority over the citizens or public policies of sovereign nations.
  2. The U.S. has the right to select immigrants based on country of origin.
  3. The education industry should be opened to increased competition through vouchers or tax credits for private schools.
  4. Life has a right to legal protection from conception to natural death.
  5. The permanent institutions of family and religion are foundational to American freedom and the common good.
  6. Government should subsidize the use or production of energy, particularly for new and innovative energy technologies.
  7. Union membership should be at the option of the employee, not a requirement for employment.
  8. The federal government should guarantee a universal basic income.
  9. The U.S. needs nationalized health care.
  10. The U.S. should increase legal immigration.
  11. The police in America are systemically racist.
  12. We should be proud of our American heritage and history, even as we acknowledge our flaws.
  13. The gender wage gap is the result of prejudice and discrimination.
  14. The U.S. should scale back its strong military presence overseas.
  15. In combatting censorship by Big Tech, we must look to more than just the free market.
  16. The President should be able to advance his/her agenda through the bureaucracy without hinderance from unelected federal officials.
  17. The federal government should recognize only two unchanging sexes, male and female, as a matter of policy.
  18. The U.S. should impose tariffs with the goal of bringing back manufacturing jobs, even if these tariffs result in higher consumer prices.

Fixed.
Oh, I could go on, but DNGAF Friday.

1 Like

Ignoring my partisan issues with it, one big, ideally non-partisan, problem I have with it is the notion of support of the strong unitary theory of the executive. The idea of putting that much power in the hands of one individual is terrifying to me. I realize that some founders of the country supported the strong unitary theory, but they also supported having a much weaker federal government to balance it out.

1 Like

Fixed for accuracy.

2 Likes

Dying while pregnant is just the natural way of things…

I’d like to see their definition of “conservative” to see how it lines up with what I’ve always understood it to mean and how it lines up compared to “American Talibani Christianity.”

I mean, from the questions listed I can safely guess, I just want to hear it out of the liars’ organizers’ mouths.

2 Likes

I’m sitting with my wife in an ER for the second night in a row…so this looks like a good way to kill time.

The U.N. should have authority over the citizens or public policies of sovereign nations

Not in it’s current form, no. If it had a clear constitution describing the limits of its authority, and if people, rather than national governments, had a say in selecting the folks who run it…
maybe. But I don’t see that happening.

The U.S. has the right to select immigrants based on country of origin.

Yes, but we’ve been too heavy-handed in doing so. My inner libertarian has an issue with immigration restrictions. As a practical matter…I like the points-based system Canada uses for one of its immigration paths, which is blind to nationality (but not to language proficiency).

The education industry should be opened to increased competition through vouchers or tax credits for private schools.

Ignoring my inner libertarian… I like the idea in theory, but the practical concerns (potential for religious education, curricula based on “alternative facts”, etc.) bother me. I’m also concerned about the potential of additional money being directed to private schools starting a cycle of increased private school tuition.

Life has a right to legal protection from conception to natural death.

Any legal protection between conception and birth must be secondary to the rights of the mother. Government has minimal business being involved in individual health decisions.

Similarly, any legal protections should not constrain reasonable end-of-life decision-making.

Finally, the death penalty has issues given the imperfection of our justice system.

The permanent institutions of family and religion are foundational to American freedom and the common good.

The freedom to follow a religion (or no religion) according to one’s conscience, and to form or unform families in individuals’ pursuit of well-being is fundamental. The government must be respectful of and neutral towards diversity of paths in this regard.

Government should subsidize the use or production of energy, particularly for new and innovative energy technologies.

Generally no, but there is room for jump-starting technologies when the market is too myopic for such development to happen naturally.

Union membership should be at the option of the employee, not a requirement for employment.

I have mixed thoughts. I am generally biased against blanket mandates, both “to work here you must join a union” and “companies can never agree to be union shops”.

The federal government should guarantee a universal basic income.

No. But if I stifle my inner libertarian, I am open to a more robust social safety net and mechanisms to better connect potential labor to jobs.

The U.S. needs nationalized health care.

The economics of the US healthcare system needs to be nuked from orbit and rebuilt from the ashes. Government-run healthcare seems like the most probable outcome of such nuking, but I have concerns about unintended consequences. The party that pays the bills gets a say in what is bought, and when the government is the bill payer…I don’t like the idea of the government being involved in such decisions.

The U.S. should increase legal immigration.

The federal government needs to be less obstructive in regards to immigration. That doesn’t mean “throw open the borders”, but there is currently utter failure when it comes to balancing the supply of immigrants and the demand for labor.

As long as it seems like our economy has jobs and opportunity for immigrants, they will come. We need to handle that in an efficient manner.

To the extent there may be “too many” immigrants, action may be required to improve opportunities for potential immigrants elsewhere.

The police in America are systemically racist.

Not universally, but equity issues are too common throughout the entire criminal justice system.

We should be proud of our American heritage and history, even as we acknowledge our flaws.

Yes, but not to the extent that nationalism becomes an inflexible state religion.

“Acknowledge our flaws” should not be a simple mention that those flaws exist. Awareness of those flaws and how effects of those flaws might persist is key to avoiding or mitigating those flaws in the future.

The gender wage gap is the result of prejudice and discrimination.

Bias plays a role in explaining part of the gender wage gap. That bias can arise from discrimination, or it can arise from things like the correlation between gender and aggressiveness in salary discussions.

The correlation between gender and “caregiver role at home” also plays a role.

The U.S. should scale back its strong military presence overseas.

While I can see some justification for maintaining a strong international military presence, I do question whether the benefits of maintaining such justify the expense, and I am leery of large government expenses in the face of insufficient revenue to cover them.

In combatting censorship by Big Tech, we must look to more than just the free market.

As long as it is possible and realistic for competitors to enter the market, the free market is sufficient.

When the market is not free, it is appropriate to take action to address that lack of free-ness.

It is not impossible that there are scenarios where government action is appropriate…but that should generally be the last resort.

The President should be able to advance his/her agenda through the bureaucracy without hinderance from unelected federal officials.

Federal officials enforcing constraints as required by regulation and legislation are a key element of the implementation of legislative checks on executive authority.

However, legislative checks on executive authority should not be so excessive as to prevent executive authority from being wielded efficiently and effectively.

The federal government should recognize only two unchanging sexes, male and female, as a matter of policy.

The federal government shouldn’t be an idiot when it comes to reality.

The U.S. should impose tariffs with the goal of bringing back manufacturing jobs, even if these tariffs result in higher consumer prices.

Generally, government should stay out of the way of permitting the free market to operate.

However, when trading with countries that interfere with the free market, or in situations where the conditions necessary to establish free market operation do not exist, the government is justified in taking some action to address imbalances that might arise.

If a foreign country restricts the ability for Americans to invest in or provide services to their manufacturers, a tariff may be one possible tool to address that imbalance.

2 Likes

Good answers. Too bad it’s a multiple-choice survey, with most questions lacking a selection that accurately reflects your views.

2 Likes

True, but the source questionnaire isn’t really a discussion item.

Part of the Project 2025 initiative is to have a clear, detailed agenda for a GOP administration to act upon, and a large cadre of people ready to fill administration jobs to implement them.

They aren’t looking for discussion. They’re just pre-screening potential minions to filter out those who may object to their marching orders.

2 Likes

The entire list is a perfect example of how the Trump-led GOP has figured out how to frame messaging in an “obviously, you’d agree” kind of way that induces people to support its fascist-leaning viewpoints.

It’s a dangerous turn, one that Democrats need to be counter-programming ASAP.

5 Likes

The meat of this project goes back way before Trump. Trump co-opted the message because Trump sees himself as an emperor god which nicely shoehorns into the authoritarian structure that is at the root of the Heritage Foundations effort.

This is the flaw of authoritarianism. It assumes a good leader. It assumes rightness with no self-reflection.

American conservatism is built on an authoritarian model. Centralize absolute power to the smallest group possible. Let private organizations wield power as freely as we can, determine the moral authority of the nation and use government to enforce it.

They never ask the questions, what if our leader/leadership is wrong? What if our moral determination is misguided? Checks and balances are for the weak. Thus, when reality illustrates where they are wrong, they choose to ignore reality.

1 Like

This could also be an argument for a smaller, less powerful government.

Which is why I distanced myself from the Republican Party. Over the last 40 years they have demonstrated the only thing they want to make smaller and less powerful is oversight and checks on their power.

1 Like

“Smaller government for me, not for thee!”

1 Like