Skip to main content

The Plan to Finish Off Democracy is Already Written

A shadow government is being recruited, right now, by right-wing radicals with ugly ideas. If they manage to take back the White House — Trump or no Trump — their action items are already drawn up and ready to be implemented on the day they take power.

We know where this is going. There’s enough precedent — both historical and current — to show how dangerous this moment is, and what lies on the other side of the tipping point. It would be checkmate for democracy, perhaps permanently.

I don't think this will happen, at least not this time around. But the blueprint for seizing the reins of power has been in plain sight for some time. Then last week, an article in the Associated Press (AP) put it on the front burner.

It’s called Project 2025. It’s bought and paid for by the Heritage Foundation, which is itself bought and paid for by very rich nutjobs who put huge sums of money into political subterfuge.

I’ve written before about Heritage, the so-called think tank of conservatism. At the time, I called it “the engine room of right-wing propaganda,” which is still apt. To quote myself:

The Heritage Foundation set out, long ago, to create a national electorate that’s intellectually lazy, civically ignorant, politically ambivalent, and easily manipulated. And they’ve largely succeeded.

Heritage’s intentions couldn’t be clearer. It’s all right there on their website, where you can go down any rabbit hole you care to. Every page will take you to a world you don’t recognize, where reality is inverted and grievance is an art form.

The scholarly pretension of the articles is breathtaking. The writers — many of whom are identified as ‘fellows’ — aspire to erudition, even as they twirl their mustaches. They line up on the wrong side of everything you might consider normal, things you wouldn’t have even called issues, had they not been pushed by people following an inside-out logic system only they understand.

The articles run to many thousands of words each. The writers seem to place a premium on the sheer quantity of their arguments, since the quality is so noticeably absent. They muster every bogus point they can think up, compulsively applying layers and layers of lipstick to whatever pig they’re promoting that day.

And that’s before you even get to Project 2025, which has its own mini-site and its own special brand of batshit. Its manifesto — un-ironically called “Mandate For Leadership: The Conservative Promise” — is a sort of modern-day Mein Kampf, not just in the substance of its arguments, but in the resentful tone of its writing. We should be grateful that AP read the whole thing, so we don’t have to.

But you needn’t read much of it to get the idea. The second sentence of the project’s “Policy Agenda” gets right to the point:

Our goal is to assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State.

In other words, they want to create a sort of half-assed government-in-waiting, a confederacy of dunces ready to remove and replace what they continue to call the “deep state.” The plan is to bring the entire apparatus of the federal government under the direct control of the president, presumably Trump.

They would start by firing some 50,000 federal workers immediately, starting at the top and working down. The management levels of each department would be filled with MAGA loyalists.

The manifesto targets every department — every agency, every commission, every bureau — and they’ve laid out detailed to-do lists for when they take over. In the case of things like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the first item on that list is to abolish it altogether.

The project presumes that it’s no big deal to terminate without cause so many civil service employees, people who have built their lives around the acceptance of low pay in return for job security. Setting aside the cruelty of ending that system, the project seems to assume these people are cogs that can easily be swapped out for other, more politically pliable, cogs.

Which is, of course, nonsense. Most of those who’d be fired are experienced technocrats, people who play vital roles in our health and well-being. These are the people who do stuff, who know stuff, who run stuff. Their dedication — even after decades of budget cuts, government shutdowns, and right-wing slander — is as indispensable as it is underappreciated. Without them we’d be screwed.

We know how this ends. We can see it right now in Russia, China, Turkey, Hungary, and other places where democracy was once thought to have a chance. Wherever political reliability takes priority over law, science, and simple competence, the quality of normal life inevitably deteriorates.

To the Heritage Foundation this is a feature, not a bug. The people behind Project 2025 are not tattooed MAGA loons from some stoned-out Michigan militia. They’re educated, well-read, and smart. They’ve done their homework. They’ve studied Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Putin, and other atrocious despots all the way back to Caligula, and they’ve basically said "Yup, that's for me! Sign me up!"

So with Project 2025, they’re following an old blueprint that has served such monsters since the beginning of time. They know exactly what they want to do, and to whom they want to do it.

The good news is that the whole plan presupposes the election of Donald Trump — or someone similarly inclined to overt fascism — and I don’t think either will happen. I’m not at all sure that Trump is a serious candidate — whatever the press may tell you — and I’m sensing that the Republican party itself is in more trouble than we think.

But even in a worst-case scenario, where Trump actually retakes the presidency, it’s not automatic that Project 2025 succeeds. There will still be institutions in place that will surely put up a fight.

Not that we can take anything for granted. The people behind Heritage are investing vast sums of money in the methodical dismantling of institutions, norms, and basic values that have been with us since the Enlightenment. They have an action plan to do it, and they’re known to be patient.

I don’t think they’ll take power in 2025, though we certainly can’t rule it out. But it would be foolish to think that means they’ll just go away.

Comments

  1. It's not just if Trump wins... they'll institute this mess if any Republican wins. They're all coming out of the same bucket.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Decents, Deplorables, and the Conditional Mood

  F or my next trick, I’d like to indulge in a linguistic conceit of sorts. I’d like to use the current political nightmare to speculate about a matter of grammar, of all things, that has long intrigued me: Namely, why do so many languages codify the conditional mood — also known as the conditional tense — in their grammar? Why do we use ‘should,’ ‘could,’ and especially ‘would,’ in so much of our speech? Why do we hedge our conversations this way? Why is it more acceptable to say “I would like a cup of coffee” than “Give me a cup of coffee.” Why is one deferential and the other pushy? Why has history passed down this polite form to multiple language groups, in such a similar way? Why is it bad form to use “I want” in a non-confrontational situation? And why does the MAGA crowd insist on such bad form? I have a speculative answer to these questions, but first let me cavalierly divide the world into two groups of people: Decents and Deplorables . Goods ...

Can the Abortion Issue Slip Any Further Under the Radar?

  One of the many chilling ironies of the war on abortion is that the states most insistent on women having babies, no matter what, are also the ones with the least to offer those babies once they’ve had the bad luck to be born there. And it’s important to understand that these states are getting increasingly insistent on women having babies, no matter what. Goaded and guided by abortion abolitionists in legislatures, law firms, and courtrooms, Republican governments are, one way or another, actively blocking off any avenue that doesn’t lead to a woman of any age getting pregnant, giving birth, then getting pregnant again. Rinse and repeat. If the woman dies in the process, she’s easily replaced. The idea seems to be that women are a sort of production line, whose purpose is to generate usable babies. The way they get pregnant is irrelevant to the discussion. If they were impregnated by, say, an uncle, or a rapist, or a clergyman, the laws of these states ca...

Anybody See Any Bright Sides?

  I feel a little silly using italics to introduce italics, but I need to repeat myself this week, so I had to find a piece that seemed worthy of a retrospective look. I found this one, from five days after the election, and while I wrote it quite recently, it feels like several years ago. I am most struck by how angry I sound, which is the part I like best. If you’d rather not relive that time, I can hardly blame you — I went there only reluctantly myself. Nonetheless I do feel it’s worth another read, even if just for the opening quote from a really good writer — a Canadian journalist who was going through the same holy-shit moment we all were. Nothing mattered, in the end. Not the probable dementia, the unfathomable ignorance, the emotional incontinence; not, certainly, the shambling, hate-filled campaign, or the ludicrously unworkable anti-policies. The candidate out on bail in four jurisdictions, the convicted fraud artist, the adjudicated rapist and seri...