Project 2025 -- a RW blueprint for Autocracy

Politics & Elections
61

Not gonna watch a vid.

Do they take a favorable or unfavorable position on this obvious development?

Somebody(ies) competent are doing the hard work to deliver EOs, etc. for trump to sign, talking ponts to say, etc. While also feeding him praise for his ad lib wackiness that keeps the spotlight on the wacky, not the sinister.

62

They refer to Project 2025 as a “radical conservative blueprint that Trump repeatedly distanced himself from.” They then go on to comment about some of his hires straight from the Project 2025 employee directory, and highlight the parallels in:

  • The ‘administrative state:’ It’s being torn down, but that’s been Republican dogma for decades. More than 1/4 of the (n=90) early EO’s hit this priority;
  • Immigration: The implication is that Trump is outpacing Project 2025 on immigration, though the broad outlines are concordant. 8/90 of the early EO’s are wrt immigration, but this is a big enough issue for Trump that he hasn’t needed to refer back to the Project 2025 playbook for details;
  • DEI initiatives: Trump and Project 2025 are basically in lock-step here (about 10% of early EO’s - most basically identical to Project 2025 verbiage). The Journal also implies a partisan, strategic reason beyond the ‘culture wars:’ eliminating DEI and DEI hires helps to purge ‘undesirables’ from civil service who might otherwise be opposed to Trump’s agenda.

He’s coming up short of the playbook on abortion, though.

The Trump administration and the Heritage Foundation are denying any connection, saying this is All Trump’s Initiatives.

The former Project 2025 Director, Paul Dans – who left after having criticized Trump’s 2024 campaign – said that Trump’s execution of the Project 2025 playbook has been “beyond his wildest dreams.”

It’s hard to say the Journal is cheering Trump on here. They’re just being subtle with their judgments. Looking forward, and essentially pointing out the effectiveness of the “flooding the zone with shit” strategy, the Journal sees nothing “too controversial or too conservative” for Trump to steer away from

Does the Journal see this as a good thing? Idunno. But I sure as hell don’t.

63

Thank you. Agree w your conclusion.

Project 2025, implemented faithfully or badly, is really Project 1525 and will destroy any semblance of a recognizable United States of America. Replacing it with a feudal reactionary racist theocratic autocracy. With, given trump’s underlying personality, kleptocratic characteristics.

No Thanks; I gave all I’m gonna give back at the office.