Project 2025

[Gori the Grey]

It's published by a whole bunch of think-tanks, and every chapter has a different author or set of authors whose area of focus is that particular thing. So it represents the collective wisdom of the conservative movement, which includes even boring considerations like the ones in this chapter. I don't think they were trying to hide the really repulsive bits among the boring bits. I just think that collectively they have lots of ideas on lots of dimensions of our government and they decided to compile them all in one document. It is a very coordinated effort, though, and as I said in some of my early posts, a big thing they have in mind is quickly getting personnel in place that will be supportive of "the next conservative president." They know who they want those personnel to be, and (my hunch is) they know Trump is so lazy and uninterested in such matters that he'll just rubberstamp their candidates. And then they'll have really wide control throughout government.

I can dig you out the one quote in this chapter that runs to that effect.

Under the early PPO, the Trump Administration appointed fewer political
appointees in its first few months in o!ce than had been appointed in any recent
presidency, partly because of historically high partisan congressional obstructions
but also because several o!cials announced that they preferred fewer political
appointees in the agencies as a way to cut federal spending. Whatever the reasoning,
this had the e"ect of permanently hampering the rollout of the new President’s
agenda. Thus, in those critical early years, much of the government relied on senior
careerists and holdover Obama appointees to carry out the sensitive responsibilities
that would otherwise belong to the new President’s appointees.

So let's not make that same mistake again this time, in other words. Remember, Trump had never served in government. He had no connections to draw on to put in the positions that a new president does appoint. He had a few cronies, like Peter Navarro, that he wanted to put in particular positions, but nowhere near as many people he could draw on as someone who had come up through serving as a representative, senator, etc.

 

[GenMarshall]

I suspect this may be a megathread for this and I've noticed that @Gori the Grey have posted summaries of each chapter. If I may recommend, on the OP, links to the posts of each chapter summary :0.

I've only gotten two videos in my playlist from David Pakman on Project 2025 that I have yet to play.

I've retracted my opinion that it's a fearmongering piece. Though I've not made a positional stance, both out of lack of knowledge of what Project 2025 contains (aside from what I've been told in the presidential thread) and my own concerns of falling down another rabbit hole that I will regret later on.

 

[amadeus]

It's published by a whole bunch of think-tanks, and every chapter has a different author or set of authors whose area of focus is that particular thing.

I knew about the different authors having looked at the file once, but I thought it was all from one organization. I was looking at it more like a Sears Wishbook catalog of conservatism rather than Hans von Seeckt planning out the next war.

 

[EnglishEdward]

It's published by a whole bunch of think-tanks, and every chapter has a different author or set of authors whose area of focus is that particular thing. So it represents the collective wisdom of the conservative movement, which includes even boring considerations like the ones in this chapter. I don't think they were trying to hide the really repulsive bits among the boring bits. I just think that collectively they have lots of ideas on lots of dimensions of our government and they decided to compile them all in one document. It is a very coordinated effort, though, and as I said in some of my early posts, a big thing they have in mind is quickly getting personnel in place that will be supportive of "the next conservative president." They know who they want those personnel to be, and (my hunch is) they know Trump is so lazy and uninterested in such matters that he'll just rubberstamp their candidates. And then they'll have really wide control throughout government.

So let us get this right:

(a) far from being a unique disruptive destructor Donald Trump tried to work with the existing civil service

and

(b) project 2025 is little more than a mass job application by disgruntled disappointed righties

 

[Gorbles]

Really is amusing the extent conservatives / right-wingers will go to downplay Project 2025. If there was a comparable leftist manifesto / set of think tanks, we'd never hear the end of it

 

[Gori the Grey]

Really is amusing the extent conservatives / right-wingers will go to downplay Project 2025. If there was a comparable leftist manifesto / set of think tanks, we'd never hear the end of it

I've started to imagine what such a thing would look like. I want it to be titled "The Tome of Woke."

For what it's worth, I think left-leaning think-tanks should be working out a manifesto as detailed and granular as this. (But if they were to, they should not title it "The Tome of Woke"; that was just my joke title).

(a) far from being a unique disruptive destructor Donald Trump tried to work with the existing civil service

On that point, you should read this one chapter, EE (17 pgs). It includes a history of the civil service and various attempts to reform it through the twentieth century. And in that history, even Democratic presidents like Carter and Clinton saw and wanted to address some of the problems that the P25 people want to address.

Trump worked with the existing civil service, but that's in part because it's 2 million people (and they at one point say 10x as many contractors!). Trump doesn't have 2 million sycophants that he could slot into the government bureaucracy (unless he just starts assigning people at his rallies randomly to various posts). The concern here is not Trump himself. In this dimension of P25 (and I think many others), he would just be a "useful tool." There are people in his circle (Bannon especially) who have targeted "the administrative state" for "deconstruction."* This is the roadmap for that deconstruction. The authors of this manual are way more savvy than Trump; way more passionate, disciplined and industrious; and think in much longer timeframes. (They worked over a fifty-year period to put the pieces in place to get Roe overturned).

(b) project 2025 is little more than a mass job application by disgruntled disappointed righties

Go to the site and the other thing one can do there is register oneself as a potential minion in the cause. They are looking for "aligned" individuals.

*misuse of the term, this humanist pedantically notes.

 

[Farm Boy]

Stuff White People Like was already written before its time.

Good starting spot.

They worked over a fifty year period to get Roe overturned

Roe was a judicial definition of what humans warrant the protection of the state vs homicide and all tied up with duty of communal care for infants. That will always chafe, but not even bothering to legislate it is going to chafe more.

 

[Samson]

Kevin Roberts, architect of Project 2025, has close ties to radical Catholic group Opus Dei

Kevin Roberts, the Heritage Foundation president and the architect of Project 2025, the conservative thinktank’s road map for a second Trump presidency, has close ties and receives regular spiritual guidance from an Opus Dei-led center in Washington DC, a hub of activity for the radical and secretive Catholic group.

Roberts acknowledged in a speech last September that – for years – he has visited the Catholic Information Center, a K Street institution headed by an Opus Dei priest and incorporated by the archdiocese of Washington, on a weekly basis for mass and “formation”, or religious guidance. Opus Dei also organizes monthly retreats at the CIC.

In the speech – which he delivered at the CIC and was recorded and is available online – Roberts spoke candidly about his strategy for achieving extreme policy goals that he supports but are out of step with the views of a majority of Americans.

Roberts’ personal ties to Opus Dei and the significance of his affiliation, has received far less attention.

Gareth Gore, the author of a forthcoming book on Opus Dei, called the Catholic organization “a political project shrouded in a veil of spirituality”. The group’s founder, Saint Josemaría Escrivá, saw his followers as part of a “rising militia”, Gore said, who were seeking to “enter battle against the enemies of Christ”.

“Like Project 2025, Opus Dei at its core is a reactionary stand against the progressive drift of society,” Gore said. “For decades now, the organization has thrown its resources at penetrating Washington’s political and legal elite – and finally seems to have succeeded through its close association with men like Kevin Roberts and Leonard Leo.”

Opus Dei does not disclose the names of its members. The group’s roots date back to a century ago, when the group was established in Spain in response to a clash between conservative Catholics and anti-Catholic socialism and communism in Spain. Decades later, the group was granted special status by the conservative pope John Paul II, who supported Opus Dei and saw it as a response to the rise of liberation theology in Latin America, a progressive church movement.

Some of Opus Dei’s special rights were revoked in recent years by Pope Francis, who is seen as a more progressive pontiff.

One of the core tenets of Opus Dei is that it does not believe in the traditional separation of church and state. Instead, said Massimo Faggioli, a professor of theology and religious studies at Villanova University, it believes the two ought to have a symbiotic relationship.

Opus Dei is controversial not only in the US. Dozens of women from Argentina and Paraguay filed a complaint to the Vatican over labor exploitation and abuses of power they say they experienced after joining the group at sites in multiple countries. And reporting in Australia gave insight into schools run by Opus Dei, where former students allege their education left them with “psychological damage”.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Go to the site and the other thing one can do there is register oneself as a potential minion in the cause.

Thank you for your prompt reply, but I've no intention of raising my profile by registering.

They are looking for "aligned" individuals.

*misuse of the term, this humanist pedantically notes.

Er.. my alignment is more with King Charles III.

 

[Farm Boy]

To the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat!

Wait... wrong "III." Sorry, got excited about the "corrosive influence of papists."

 

[Lexicus]

Kevin Roberts, architect of Project 2025, has close ties to radical Catholic group Opus Dei

Kevin Roberts, the Heritage Foundation president and the architect of Project 2025, the conservative thinktank’s road map for a second Trump presidency, has close ties and receives regular spiritual guidance from an Opus Dei-led center in Washington DC, a hub of activity for the radical and secretive Catholic group.

Roberts acknowledged in a speech last September that – for years – he has visited the Catholic Information Center, a K Street institution headed by an Opus Dei priest and incorporated by the archdiocese of Washington, on a weekly basis for mass and “formation”, or religious guidance. Opus Dei also organizes monthly retreats at the CIC.

In the speech – which he delivered at the CIC and was recorded and is available online – Roberts spoke candidly about his strategy for achieving extreme policy goals that he supports but are out of step with the views of a majority of Americans.

Roberts’ personal ties to Opus Dei and the significance of his affiliation, has received far less attention.

Gareth Gore, the author of a forthcoming book on Opus Dei, called the Catholic organization “a political project shrouded in a veil of spirituality”. The group’s founder, Saint Josemaría Escrivá, saw his followers as part of a “rising militia”, Gore said, who were seeking to “enter battle against the enemies of Christ”.

“Like Project 2025, Opus Dei at its core is a reactionary stand against the progressive drift of society,” Gore said. “For decades now, the organization has thrown its resources at penetrating Washington’s political and legal elite – and finally seems to have succeeded through its close association with men like Kevin Roberts and Leonard Leo.”

Opus Dei does not disclose the names of its members. The group’s roots date back to a century ago, when the group was established in Spain in response to a clash between conservative Catholics and anti-Catholic socialism and communism in Spain. Decades later, the group was granted special status by the conservative pope John Paul II, who supported Opus Dei and saw it as a response to the rise of liberation theology in Latin America, a progressive church movement.

Some of Opus Dei’s special rights were revoked in recent years by Pope Francis, who is seen as a more progressive pontiff.

One of the core tenets of Opus Dei is that it does not believe in the traditional separation of church and state. Instead, said Massimo Faggioli, a professor of theology and religious studies at Villanova University, it believes the two ought to have a symbiotic relationship.

Opus Dei is controversial not only in the US. Dozens of women from Argentina and Paraguay filed a complaint to the Vatican over labor exploitation and abuses of power they say they experienced after joining the group at sites in multiple countries. And reporting in Australia gave insight into schools run by Opus Dei, where former students allege their education left them with “psychological damage”.

I thought for a second this was talking about John Roberts

 

[Cutlass]

It's published by a whole bunch of think-tanks, and every chapter has a different author or set of authors whose area of focus is that particular thing. So it represents the collective wisdom of the conservative movement, which includes even boring considerations like the ones in this chapter. I don't think they were trying to hide the really repulsive bits among the boring bits. I just think that collectively they have lots of ideas on lots of dimensions of our government and they decided to compile them all in one document. It is a very coordinated effort, though, and as I said in some of my early posts, a big thing they have in mind is quickly getting personnel in place that will be supportive of "the next conservative president." They know who they want those personnel to be, and (my hunch is) they know Trump is so lazy and uninterested in such matters that he'll just rubberstamp their candidates. And then they'll have really wide control throughout government.

I can dig you out the one quote in this chapter that runs to that effect.


So let's not make that same mistake again this time, in other words. Remember, Trump had never served in government. He had no connections to draw on to put in the positions that a new president does appoint. He had a few cronies, like Peter Navarro, that he wanted to put in particular positions, but nowhere near as many people he could draw on as someone who had come up through serving as a representative, senator, etc.

Project 2025 is a Frankenstein's Monster. Like with the TeaHadists before it, it's a bunch of disparate things grafted together as AstroTurf. And, like with the TeaHadists, it's escaped the control of the mad scientists who created it.

So don't expect all that much internal consistency.

 

[Cutlass]

Stuff White People Like was already written before its time.

Good starting spot.


Roe was a judicial definition of what humans warrant the protection of the state vs homicide and all tied up with duty of communal care for infants. That will always chafe, but not even bothering to legislate it is going to chafe more.

There was nothing which could have been put into legislation which would, or could, have mattered. SQOTUS had already decided the outcome of the case. The only question of how was in the details. Even a constitutional amendment would not have prevented Roe from being overturned.

 

[Farm Boy]

Nah.

 

[Cutlass]

Nah.

That's totally convincing.