Project 2025 is neither a Trumpist document — it contains arguments against as well as for some of his positions and a good deal of advice that I do not expect him to take — nor a sinister plan to destroy democracy. It is a battle plan for conservatives, for, as it repeatedly says, a conservative president. It contains a good many things I agree with, a good many I do not. If fully implemented the result would be far from my ideal but perhaps a little closer than we are likely to get from either a Trump or a Biden administration. At least it would be a change.
I skimmed the whole agenda. My overwhelming reaction was that it was way too long! Short on principles and long on detail. Too much what the government should do and too little what the government should not do. The most straightforward wish is the abolition of the Department of Education. Could have had more such suggestions, well I could have.
Part of what made it so long was the roadmap function. If you are a conservative appointed to a position in division X you only need to read one chapter, and probably not all of that. The introduction is the part that is aimed at everyone.
Another Friedman, Milton, wrote that “Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government – in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the costs come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.”
Energy is the economy; it sounds as if the program at least recognizes that fact (“Target energy policy at providing energy, not preventing climate change.”) The current administration’s energy policies have lit the inflation fuse, and have fueled the growing polarization and lack of trust in institutions.
Of those 900 pages, is there any mention of addressing border security (other than the irresponsible rant in the preface)? How about drugs, or crimes, or security? Is there a commitment to repair and upgrade America’s crumbling infrastructure? Is there a commitment to provide safe drinking water and adequate sanitation facilities to ALL Americans (two million people in the US lack access to safe drinking water). Is there a commitment to restore trust in America’s regulatory agencies that have been weaponized by agendas and ideology?
It sounds as if there is a fair amount of moralizing in this document. Why do people think it is so important to regulate the bedroom? Abortion should not be a national issue, under any circumstances. The recent Dobbs Decision fixed that misunderstanding. The obsession with LBGTQ+ can (should?) be ameliorated with the simple recognition that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment applies to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color or sexual orientation.
To say that the “Constitution grants each of us the liberty to do not what we want, but what we ought” is blatant moralizing. That’s the kind of crap that loses voters. It is my sincere wish that Mr. Trump distances himself from this stuff, and sticks to the business of governing, not ruling.
> Is there a commitment to restore trust in America’s regulatory agencies that have been weaponized by agendas and ideology?
Um, that's what the who removing the DEI agenda from agencies thing is all about.
> To say that the “Constitution grants each of us the liberty to do not what we want, but what we ought” is blatant moralizing. That’s the kind of crap that loses voters.
Nonsense. The overwhelming majority of voters are not libertarians.
When I said that "agencies have been weaponized" I was referring to regulators who enforce policy, rather than the law. If an action does not meet the administrations agenda, it is rejected, regardless of any other determining factor. I have seen this on several occasions (in Utah, Colorado twice, and in Nebraska, twice), and it resulted in my complete loss of trust for the process. Two of those projects ended only when SCOTUS denied certiorari.
When agencies set extreme regulatory limits that are unrealistic or unmeasurable, you have created a no-win situation for industry, thus discouraging both investment and innovation. When agencies state, in public, that no matter how many jobs or lives or damages are saved, they will oppose the project because it benefits coal, or gas, or because our leader said you can't do this, you are faced with a formidable weapon.
I am not a libertarian, nor am I a republican or a democrat. I am a member of the Disgusted Party, and have been for years (since Nixon). As such, I believe the Constitution protects my rights as a citizen, except the right to act irresponsibly resulting in loss of life or damages. I do not interpret the Constitution as a document telling me what I can or should do. Semantics, perhaps, and perhaps we are in fact in violent agreement on this.
One thing I would give Trump credit for is getting rid of the State And Local Tax exemption. That was good statesmanship. I live in eastern PA and don't necessarily love the influx of New Yorkers and New Jersians, especially as they move in rural areas and complain about e.g. road apples, that mass migration really emphasizes just what bad policy it was to say "hey, if your state or city has crazy high taxes, don't worry, we won't make you pay more. Go ahead and freeload at the federal level."
I agree that that was a desirable change. It that makes me, living in high tax California, worse off, at least in the short run, but it also makes high state and local taxes less likely.
One point I have not seen anyone make is that that particular change, like the limit on deduction of mortgage interest, hurt rich people, the opposite of the charge usually made against Trump's tax changes.
Indeed. I wonder if some of that lack of pointing out the harm to the rich predominantly is that most of the commentariat living in expensive states/cities do not see themselves as rich despite being very high income compared to most of the country. I imagine it is mostly that they can't bring themselves to say anything positive about Trump, but maybe it is just everyone seeing themselves as middle class.
Trump has shown good sense by distancing himself from Heritage and its neocon prescriptions. If all he does is repeat the policies of his first term, he will be comparatively a very good president. If he can also bring himself to cut the bureaucracy wholesale, he will be a great one, despite his lamentable support for tariffs.
I spent years working in the policy think tank world and have come to view all of these types of documents primarily as fundraising tools. I haven’t followed Heritage for years (and have generally viewed them with disdain) but I suspect this over the top introduction and it’s culture war obsession is a ploy to raise money, layered on top of an otherwise banal collection of essays, with the usual right-wing-think-tank blend of sane and ludicrous policy proposals. I am highly skeptical that this document will have any effect on actual policy outcomes.
Upon reading this essay I reflexively whispered "Thank you David." under my breath. It's how I feel after reading all of your work so I'll say it here again. Thank you. Your work changes this world for the better.
It's overly long, and I think perhaps a difficult read for many of those I feel it was aimed at. It did have lots of things I wouldn't or won't want, and some that I do.
All-in-all it a bulky sales tool. I suppose we'll have to wait until and if Trump is elected to see who really bought.
A badly needed post. Educational.
I skimmed the whole agenda. My overwhelming reaction was that it was way too long! Short on principles and long on detail. Too much what the government should do and too little what the government should not do. The most straightforward wish is the abolition of the Department of Education. Could have had more such suggestions, well I could have.
Part of what made it so long was the roadmap function. If you are a conservative appointed to a position in division X you only need to read one chapter, and probably not all of that. The introduction is the part that is aimed at everyone.
Another Friedman, Milton, wrote that “Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government – in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the costs come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.”
Energy is the economy; it sounds as if the program at least recognizes that fact (“Target energy policy at providing energy, not preventing climate change.”) The current administration’s energy policies have lit the inflation fuse, and have fueled the growing polarization and lack of trust in institutions.
Of those 900 pages, is there any mention of addressing border security (other than the irresponsible rant in the preface)? How about drugs, or crimes, or security? Is there a commitment to repair and upgrade America’s crumbling infrastructure? Is there a commitment to provide safe drinking water and adequate sanitation facilities to ALL Americans (two million people in the US lack access to safe drinking water). Is there a commitment to restore trust in America’s regulatory agencies that have been weaponized by agendas and ideology?
It sounds as if there is a fair amount of moralizing in this document. Why do people think it is so important to regulate the bedroom? Abortion should not be a national issue, under any circumstances. The recent Dobbs Decision fixed that misunderstanding. The obsession with LBGTQ+ can (should?) be ameliorated with the simple recognition that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment applies to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color or sexual orientation.
To say that the “Constitution grants each of us the liberty to do not what we want, but what we ought” is blatant moralizing. That’s the kind of crap that loses voters. It is my sincere wish that Mr. Trump distances himself from this stuff, and sticks to the business of governing, not ruling.
> Is there a commitment to restore trust in America’s regulatory agencies that have been weaponized by agendas and ideology?
Um, that's what the who removing the DEI agenda from agencies thing is all about.
> To say that the “Constitution grants each of us the liberty to do not what we want, but what we ought” is blatant moralizing. That’s the kind of crap that loses voters.
Nonsense. The overwhelming majority of voters are not libertarians.
When I said that "agencies have been weaponized" I was referring to regulators who enforce policy, rather than the law. If an action does not meet the administrations agenda, it is rejected, regardless of any other determining factor. I have seen this on several occasions (in Utah, Colorado twice, and in Nebraska, twice), and it resulted in my complete loss of trust for the process. Two of those projects ended only when SCOTUS denied certiorari.
When agencies set extreme regulatory limits that are unrealistic or unmeasurable, you have created a no-win situation for industry, thus discouraging both investment and innovation. When agencies state, in public, that no matter how many jobs or lives or damages are saved, they will oppose the project because it benefits coal, or gas, or because our leader said you can't do this, you are faced with a formidable weapon.
I am not a libertarian, nor am I a republican or a democrat. I am a member of the Disgusted Party, and have been for years (since Nixon). As such, I believe the Constitution protects my rights as a citizen, except the right to act irresponsibly resulting in loss of life or damages. I do not interpret the Constitution as a document telling me what I can or should do. Semantics, perhaps, and perhaps we are in fact in violent agreement on this.
Regardless, I think it is moralizing.
One thing I would give Trump credit for is getting rid of the State And Local Tax exemption. That was good statesmanship. I live in eastern PA and don't necessarily love the influx of New Yorkers and New Jersians, especially as they move in rural areas and complain about e.g. road apples, that mass migration really emphasizes just what bad policy it was to say "hey, if your state or city has crazy high taxes, don't worry, we won't make you pay more. Go ahead and freeload at the federal level."
I agree that that was a desirable change. It that makes me, living in high tax California, worse off, at least in the short run, but it also makes high state and local taxes less likely.
One point I have not seen anyone make is that that particular change, like the limit on deduction of mortgage interest, hurt rich people, the opposite of the charge usually made against Trump's tax changes.
Indeed. I wonder if some of that lack of pointing out the harm to the rich predominantly is that most of the commentariat living in expensive states/cities do not see themselves as rich despite being very high income compared to most of the country. I imagine it is mostly that they can't bring themselves to say anything positive about Trump, but maybe it is just everyone seeing themselves as middle class.
Bob
Foreword...
Trump has shown good sense by distancing himself from Heritage and its neocon prescriptions. If all he does is repeat the policies of his first term, he will be comparatively a very good president. If he can also bring himself to cut the bureaucracy wholesale, he will be a great one, despite his lamentable support for tariffs.
I spent years working in the policy think tank world and have come to view all of these types of documents primarily as fundraising tools. I haven’t followed Heritage for years (and have generally viewed them with disdain) but I suspect this over the top introduction and it’s culture war obsession is a ploy to raise money, layered on top of an otherwise banal collection of essays, with the usual right-wing-think-tank blend of sane and ludicrous policy proposals. I am highly skeptical that this document will have any effect on actual policy outcomes.
Upon reading this essay I reflexively whispered "Thank you David." under my breath. It's how I feel after reading all of your work so I'll say it here again. Thank you. Your work changes this world for the better.
It's overly long, and I think perhaps a difficult read for many of those I feel it was aimed at. It did have lots of things I wouldn't or won't want, and some that I do.
All-in-all it a bulky sales tool. I suppose we'll have to wait until and if Trump is elected to see who really bought.
> It's overly long, and I think perhaps a difficult read for many of those I feel it was aimed at.
As David pointed out, it's aimed at the people who would actually be working in a Trump administration.
Veronique de Rugby’s
Spell checker sabotage?
Thanks. Fixed.