Project 2025

[Birdjaguar]

To be honest that sounds perfectly reasonable. People working as aids to someone who holds a position of power should seek to obey that person, carry out his will and generally do everything within their power to ensure it is done as long as it is within the bounds of the law. As opposed to being obstructionists that put blocks in front of their boss. I don't see anything controversial here. It's just basic staffing. It's how every sensible organization works.

I mean, imagine if I kept telling my boss "no, we are not doing this ticket".

The president and his staff all take an oath to support the constitution and not the president. Trump disregarded his oath regularly. Project 2025 is all about ignoring the oath of one's office at every level.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

The president and his staff all take an oath to support the constitution and not the president. Trump disregarded his oath regularly. Project 2025 is all about ignoring the oath of one's office at every level.

I am just looking at this from an organizational perspective. The guy on top has to work for the goals of who ever the employer is. In this case the people. But the guys under him, his advisors and middle management should work to do what he tells them to and not try and go over his head. That's what I am saying.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

I don't see a link. Is this some Republican party vision-for-the-future-or-whatever proposal?
I don't think anyone ever follows those, and if there was a US president who was ever punished for not sticking to some written party outline, well...I've never heard of it in US history...

 

[Birdjaguar]

I am just looking at this from an organizational perspective. The guy on top has to work for the goals of who ever the employer is. In this case the people. But the guys under him, his advisors and middle management should work to do what he tells them to and not try and go over his head. That's what I am saying.

In a corporation there is just a chain of command. In our federal government, jobs begin with an oath to serve the government and constitution, only then one has a chain of command. No one takes an oath to serve the president.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Jan 6 was a violation of that oath.

 

[Angst]

They use the term "ordered liberty" a number of times. It basically seems to mean "liberty to do what you want within the constraints we set" But it just struck me as an odd locution. I guess it's because they can't commit to . . . just . . . liberty.

hey look it's hungary

 

[Smellincoffee]

Yes.

Though one thing that surprised me is that they lumped corporate leaders in with the "elites."

Not really. The enemy is regarded as globalists, who encompass corporate leaders who do not care about their host nations, beyond what legal privileges they can wring out of the governments for increasing their own economic power, as well as well as certain intellectuals who regard nation-states and tradition as beneath contempt and want to usher all into a brave new world and are contemptuous of the masses. It's a hazy collection, as most are most 'thems', but it's important to realize that the progressive/left elements have equally hazy and sometimes outright ignorant views of the other side. Neo-cons are a completely different political viewpoint than paleocons, for instance. I have this downloaded but haven't read it yet: Trump has disavowed it, not that he's read it. There have always been some conservatives who viewed transnational corporations with suspicion, but the alliance of corporations with culture war stuff (since 2012 when the Occupy movement scared them) has made more casual conservatives more conscience of the way corporations can shape politics and culture.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

"Ordered liberty" - only the "liberties" that are allowed, within approved limits.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

In a corporation there is just a chain of command. In our federal government, jobs begin with an oath to serve the government and constitution, only then one has a chain of command. No one takes an oath to serve the president.

But that only leads to the organization internally fragmenting, people infighting and generally obstructing each other.

Than again I should not be that surprised since your government literally has a legal method for someone in parliament to declare obstructionism.

 

[Smellincoffee]

But that only leads to the organization internally fragmenting, people infighting and generally obstructing each other.

Than again I should not be that surprised since your government literally has a legal method for someone in parliament to declare obstructionism.

Infighting and obstruction is baked into the system. The president was supposed keep Congress in check, the two houses of Congress were supposed to counter each other, etc. Unfortunately, it's led to the president or other parts of the government simply taking extra-legal action to get what they want. The administrative state, for instance, was until a recent SCOTUS ruling its own judge, jury, and executioner. I suspect the original Republic would have lasted longer had industrialism not magnified state power so quickly after its creation, but c'est la vie.

 

[sophie]

But that only leads to the organization internally fragmenting, people infighting and generally obstructing each other.

Than again I should not be that surprised since your government literally has a legal method for someone in parliament to declare obstructionism.

Even in a private firm you are obliged to follow the law and are at liberty to disregard orders from above when complying with said orders would require you to violate the law.

 

[Birdjaguar]

But that only leads to the organization internally fragmenting, people infighting and generally obstructing each other

For the last ~250 years or so, it has worked well enough. The GOP plan is not a fix to anything; it is a plan to consolidate power in Trump's hands.

 

[Voidwalkin]

There have always been some conservatives who viewed transnational corporations with suspicion, but the alliance of corporations with culture war stuff (since 2012 when the Occupy movement scared them) has made more casual conservatives more conscience of the way corporations can shape politics and culture.

Yeah I think this is an accurate read. I think liberal morality makes enough business sense that the corporate adoption of it is here to stay.

The low tax horsehockey is gonna be there for the next few decades, because conservative leadership has long been captured by the rich, but the actual conservative base would be fine with crushing corporations that embrace liberal morality. Gleeful, really.

I really expect the trend to continue, too. It's the obvious evolution - the corporation has more power over norms than just about any other institution in American life. It's the muscle. It makes sense for it to become the focus of resentment.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I don't see a link.

What an oversight! I'll go add it. It's very easy to find just by googling that phrase.

Is this some Republican party vision-for-the-future-or-whatever proposal?

Well, yes, mostly. The authors identify themselves as conservative rather than Republican.

And in addition to being a vision-for-the-future, it is also a vision-for-how-we-will-(mis)use-the-mechanisms-of-Presidential-power

the (mis) is my editorializing.

 

[Cutlass]

"Ordered liberty" - only the "liberties" that are allowed, within approved limits.

Which is a key point. "Liberty", so long as you stay entirely within narrowly defined bounds.

 

[Gori the Grey]

To be honest that sounds perfectly reasonable. People working as aids to someone who holds a position of power should seek to obey that person, carry out his will and generally do everything within their power to ensure it is done as long as it is within the bounds of the law. As opposed to being obstructionists that put blocks in front of their boss. I don't see anything controversial here. It's just basic staffing. It's how every sensible organization works.

Yes, they are counting on people to react just as you do: to think that this makes perfect sense. The White House Counsel is a little different from most other aides, though, in that the job does often involve putting the breaks on some Presidential initiative by informing him that something he intends to do is illegal.

Well, that was the case historically, anyway.

One thing that's kind of funny in reading the document is that it has become kind of dated. This group (multiple groups who combined efforts, actually) are trying to find all these little means of smoothing the way for Trump, while the SC just handed him blanket immunity to do whatever he wants. There's something a little quaint about the document, in that regard.

Not really. The enemy is regarded as globalists, who encompass corporate leaders who do not care about their host nations, beyond what legal privileges they can wring out of the governments for increasing their own economic power, as well as well as certain intellectuals who regard nation-states and tradition as beneath contempt and want to usher all into a brave new world and are contemptuous of the masses. It's a hazy collection, as most are most 'thems', but it's important to realize that the progressive/left elements have equally hazy and sometimes outright ignorant views of the other side. Neo-cons are a completely different political viewpoint than paleocons, for instance. I have this downloaded but haven't read it yet: Trump has disavowed it, not that he's read it. There have always been some conservatives who viewed transnational corporations with suspicion, but the alliance of corporations with culture war stuff (since 2012 when the Occupy movement scared them) has made more casual conservatives more conscience of the way corporations can shape politics and culture.

Yes, that comes through. The Forward speaks of "so-called American companies."

You're absolutely correct that Trump hasn't read the document. Imagine him reading a 900 page document! He knows more about it than he is letting on. Major people from his administration have been involved in drafting and promoting it--his former chief of staff Mark Meadows, e.g. He's heard about the abortion bit on the news, and that he wants to disavow, because he knows how poorly that will play with voters. He may not want much of it-- or any of it outside of the power they're scheming to give him, frankly--but he'll also be happy to let people run with it, because he doesn't care one way or another about policy. That's what they're counting on.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Trump cannot explain correctly what a tariff is, let alone any of the Project 2025 components.

 

[Crezth]

Which is funny, coming from the elites themselves.

But "elites" is the buzzword of the day. Because you can't let the sheeple know that a vote for the GQP is a vote for Wall St alone. Otherwise they might not vote for Wall St.

Well, exactly. They figured out all they have to do to gain control of the country is get people with grievance and greed to vote for the “fudge everything make money!” Party. In a very few places specifically, on top of the places that the ancestral lords have locked down completely without reservation in this here democracy.

 

[choxorn]

I don't think anyone ever follows those, and if there was a US president who was ever punished for not sticking to some written party outline, well...I've never heard of it in US history...

That Trump probably wouldn't do 100% of the things Project 2025 wants (whether because he tried and failed or because he didn't actually want what this document wanted) in no way means that the things in Project 2025 aren't fudging horrifying on every level.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Yes, they are counting on people to react just as you do: to think that this makes perfect sense. The White House Counsel is a little different from most other aides, though, in that the job does often involve putting the breaks on some Presidential initiative by informing him that something he intends to do is illegal.

Well, that was the case historically, anyway.

But did that statement not include wording to the effect that they should only obey within the limits of the law?

 

[Angst]

freedom within the limit of the law is indeed a tenet of democracy. but it's crucial to look at the dogwhistle it is and consider the actual limits they want to impose, which is discussed in the manifesto. the reason i did a "hey it's hungary" is because it's similar to hungary's concept of illiberal democracy.

for a shorthand of what it means, it's basically the russian model. in hungary & russia, the point is to technically have elections and a free market, but to completely cull education and press freedom in the interest of the preserverance of the central government, incidentally allowing elections and such without all that silly watchdog interference. the argument is that liberal values (including both cultural elements - the mere presence of minorities - and free speech - such as the press criticizing the core regime) have gone too far, leading to degeneracy. the solution is to embrace tradition, whatever that means for its land of origin.

it's really dangerous - literal fascism in another hat - and a big reason the eu parliament has so many issues with hungary atm, if you've noticed that.

for what it means for project 2025, i recognize basically all of the same structures, however naturally there's still gonna be elections and such. the workaround then is to over the same anxieties & ensuring the same policy.

like basically "you can do what you want within the given rules" is true for all governments. it's a self-given and circular, just here worded in a way so people won't be scared. so you have to look at what rules they want.