The US right’s underestimated brain

It is easy to dismiss the 45 per cent or more of America that would vote for Donald Trump as mad or bad. There are plenty of both, but Democrats are delusional if they think that saying so again and again is the way to get Joe Biden re-elected. I have written about the liberal world’s intellectual shortsightedness on this question on many occasions, most recently here. Any attempt to do so gets instantly discounted as special pleading or, worse — giving comfort and succour to the enemy. That is how a hermetically-sealed universe helps to perpetuate some of the resentments that fuel Trump. You cannot keep telling people that they are idiots or racists and expect that they will see the light and change their vote. Is the American left in the business of defeating Trump, or merely of feeling unsullied when he wins? I sometimes wonder.

At any rate, my point here is to draw Swampians’ attention to the serious thought that the new right has put into what Trump would do if he regained power. I am a little late to reading Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise which was published last April. The 920-page document is a serious blueprint for a Trump administration. It is based on the eponymous book that the Heritage Foundation published before Ronald Reagan took power in 1980. He implemented most of its policies. If you want a guide to what Trump would do, this is the best you can find. I suggest you read it. 

Whatever else you might think of this Heritage-led effort — and I disagree with each of its fundamental premises — it is far from moronic. The fact that Trump is, in the most fundamental ways, a deeply bad person should not blind us to the intelligence of the policy thinkers behind him. Reagan was a somnolent fellow who did not sacrifice a day of his life in contemplation of policy. His administration, however, was one of the most active and effective in modern US history. It is precisely Trump’s laziness and incompetence that makes such blueprints so indicative.

Plan beats no plan; this is as close to a Trumpian plan as you will get. Its four key tenets are to restore the family and protection of children — a war on the “Great Awokening”; dismantling the federal administrative state; protecting US borders and sovereignty against global threats, whether they be illegal immigrants or China; and restoring constitutional powers to the individual. Each theme based on misleading caricatures of what they are fighting against. But most people would find enough loose strands with which they agree to keep on reading. In my case it is Big Tech’s exploitation of the child, and some of its critiques of gender ideology and DEI initiatives (though I think these critiques are advanced in bad faith). Rana, I suspect you would agree with a lot of what they say about trade and China. 

The parts of this document that have garnered the most attention are the Schedule C plans to fire allegedly disloyal members of the federal civil service. Make no mistake, it would be a revolution in the way Washington works. I think the whole approach is intentionally dangerous to US democracy. But would enough of America? What most strikes me, however, is the level of planning and organisation Project 2025 exhibits. I can find nothing comparable on the left. Somewhat counter-intuitively, American conservatism has historically exhibited greater skill and determination than the US left in its plans for government. That has not changed.

Do not be fooled by Trump’s first-term Brownian motion. The conservative ecosystem has now caught up with him and has a plan for what to do if, God forbid, he gets a second bite at the apple. They have four pillars — this book of usable policies, a personnel database to staff the administration, a training academy for how to govern, and a detailed transition plan so that Trump could hit the ground running. There are 53 organisations involved in Project 2025. We should take it very seriously. Rana, I’d be very interested in your take on the executive summary. Forewarned is forearmed!

Recommended reading

• My column this week looks at “Biden’s invisible Palestinians”. “The longer Netanyahu clings to power, the worse it is for Biden,” I write. “Yet his actions seem designed to ensure just that.”

• Do read my colleague Stephen Bush’s characteristically smart and original take on why Britain’s political class needs to learn to love the economy it actually has. “Both parties seem to prefer imagining a UK of smoke stacks and heavy industry, a UK that has largely now long passed, rather than championing the things it does well in the present day,” he writes. Stephen’s main example is video games. But his point is broader and very relevant to America.

• Finally, and to return to the top of this note, Bret Stephens’ New York Times column “The Case for Trump . . . By Someone Who Wants Him to Lose”. I often disagree with Stephens, and I’ve no doubt he would sharply dispute my latest column on Biden and Palestinians. But he makes some very good points. I was dismayed to see the opprobrium it attracted on the site formerly known as Twitter.

Rana Foroohar responds

Ed, I’m so glad you suggested this reading. So much to say; too much for a response, and so I’ll take up more thoughts in my own Note for Monday. But for now, let me say that I think conservatives are doing far better on understanding the economy than the culture. For example, I was struck by this sentence: “Look at America under the ruling and cultural elite today: inflation is ravaging family budgets, drug overdose deaths continue to escalate, and children suffer the toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries.” OK, let’s break that down. Inflation — yes, big issue. Drug overdose deaths? For sure — and the executive summary rightly touches on the way in which deaths of despair have been hastened by policymakers on both sides who prioritised global corporate interests above working people in the US. But drag queens invading schools? Hmmm . . . this is where the right starts to sound as hysterical as the left. I’m all for everyone — on BOTH sides of the aisle — taking a deep breath around identity politics and diversity, equity and inclusion. Can we not just take a live and let live approach, rather than trying to cram policy down everyone’s throat?

Indeed, the places where this executive summary goes off into la la land are mainly around hysteria over culture wars and nostalgia for 1950s American family structures. I strongly agree that fathers are important, and the fact that the fact that so many children are raised without one largely present in their lives is a big issue. But let’s not pretend that forcing people to get married and banning abortion is going to miraculously fix this problem. Indeed, there’s an interesting counterfactual in Europe, where marriage is less common but partnerships last longer and stronger social safety nets help parents better manage work and family. American conservatives need to talk to more women. One of the most striking things about this report is that it appears to have been done with input from just a handful of them, as opposed to dozens of men. Where are the smart conservative women and what do they think needs to change in this country? If they are reading, please email me. 

But to your question of what I’d agree with: I’m going to paint with broad brushstrokes here. I think conservatives (and the labour left) are quite right that coastal knowledge elites who make their money in high end, globalised service work (particularly finance and tech) have pushed economic policies that don’t necessarily benefit working people on the ground in developed nations. (And indeed, in many developing ones too, who have to deal with the real world fallout from low environmental and labour standards that are part of the neoliberal trade system). That’s a winning political argument because it’s just so true. I also agree that China is the biggest economic, political and security threat to the US.

I think Project 2025 makes a fair point that the left needs to stop trying to force its own social and cultural mores on to public and private institutions — let’s just make sure that the best and brightest have a legally even playing field and let the chips fall where they will. And at a really deep level, I think they are quite right that much of America’s ruling elite (those that shower before work, rather than after, as they put it so pithily) think they have the moral high-ground. I’ve worked and lived with both groups, and I can tell you, they don’t. And everyone really kind of knows that in their heart of hearts.

That’s a deeply American sentiment, and something that resonates on both sides of the aisle. 

Your feedback

And now a word from our Swampians . . .

In response to “Could the anti-Trump warnings backfire?”:
“Journalists and others are already yielding to TrumpIsInevitable Syndrome as we seek to rationalise his support rather than continue to point out that Trump would further undermine free elections in the US, end the independence of the courts and public service, weaken the economy, promote further inequality and abandon democracies to autocrats overseas.” — Ted Smyth

“In response to Alec Russell’s statement in today’s Swamp Notes:

But is there a possibility that he is presented in such apocalyptic terms — without any attempt to understand the source of his support — that his opponents and critics end up alienating middle-of-the-road voters?

I would suggest that the answer is an unequivocal YES. I say this because it seems that the media especially does not understand why people support Trump much better than they did in 2015 and 2016 . . . The first recent foundation for a Trump presidency was laid when Obama said to ‘Joe the Plumber’: ‘I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.’ The vast majority of people, especially in Generations X and older (and not living in New York, Los Angeles or Washington), have no use for this philosophical view. Add to this two comments made by Trump early on — ‘Make America Great Again’ and ‘There is too much political correctness’ — and you have a framework, albeit simplified, of what drives many Trump supporters. America is no longer what they fell in love . . . and the anger that this gives rise to is incalculable. While I am not a Trump supporter, I grew up in the Deep South and most definitely resonate with this view of American decline.” — Henry D Wolfe