Category Archives: Constitution

The Theocracy At The Center of Project 2025

A writer for The Guardian recently read the entire 900+/- pages of Project 2025, rather than relying on what she called “snippets.” What she found was even more appalling than the various excerpts most of us have seen.

Basically, the Project lays out a road to theocracy.

The document repeatedly characterizes America as a country poisoned by “wokeness.” And it proposes, as an antidote to “wokeness,” remaking the government in accord with a fundamentalist version of Christianity.

Across multiple agencies, it would make access to abortion infinitely more difficult. It would change the name of the federal health and human services department to the “Department of Life”. It would criminalize pornography. There would be mass deportations and curtailments of legal immigration programs, including Daca. It would dismantle the Department of Education.

Throughout the manifesto, authors also recommend ways to increase funding for religious organizations by giving them more access to government programs – largely through increased use of school vouchers that could go to religious schools or by modifying programs like Small Business Administration loans to make religious groups eligible for funding.

In some parts, the project takes a more explicit Christian worldview. In the chapter about the Department of Labor, the manifesto suggests a communal day of rest for society because “God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest”. One way to enforce this idea would be for Congress to require paid time-and-a-half for anyone who works on Sundays, which the project calls the default day of Sabbath “except for employers with a sincere religious observance of a Sabbath at a different time”.

In nearly all chapters, there is a mention of driving out any forces that seek to increase diversity in the federal government. And whenever LGBTQ+ rights are mentioned, it is to say there should be fewer of them.

Heritage might just as well have named Project 2025 “Project Christian Nationalism.” The document doesn’t stop with the enumeration of goals, either–it outlines the practical steps that would enable a Trump Administration to reach those goals.

Achieving the goal of “Christianizing” America would be the task of loyalists who would replace civil servants–as has been reported, Project 2025 advocates reclassifying thousands of federal jobs as “political” rather than non-partisan, in order to replace the civil servants who are currently doing those jobs with Trump loyalists.

The effort would also require taking control of the census.

The census helps decide how federal resources should be allocated to communities, but, for our purposes here, it’s most relevant that census data is used to decide how to divvy up seats in the US House and make electoral maps during decennial redistricting done by states. The census can alter the balance of power in statehouses and in Congress.

Given its influence, the project suggests an incoming conservative president needs to install more political appointees to the census bureau and ensure ideologically aligned career employees are “immediately put in place to execute a conservative agenda”. The next census isn’t until 2030, but plans for it are already under way.

That conservative agenda includes adding a citizenship question, something Trump tried to do for the 2020 census but was blocked by the US supreme court. The project says “any successful conservative Administration must include a citizenship question in the census.”

The project also suggests reviewing and possibly curtailing plans to broaden the race and ethnicity categories because “there are concerns among conservatives that the data under Biden Administration proposals could be skewed to bolster progressive political agendas.”

There is much more, of course, but the quoted material is enough to raise the hair on the back of my neck, and probably the necks of most rational Americans.

Those of us tempted to dismiss Project 2025 as a theocratic fever dream unlikely to be realized even in a Trump administration need to understand that the people committed to imposing their beliefs on the rest of us are nothing if not patient. They worked for fifty years to overturn Roe v. Wade. If Trump wins, their wait will be shorter–as the article notes, to the (very limited) extent that Trump has enumerated any policies (or would recognize one if he encountered it), they’ve aligned with those in Project 2025. Even if he loses narrowly, they will be encouraged to dig in.

Even a massive loss–a Blue Wave–will only slow them down. They will bide their time and continue trying to “return” the country to a place that existed only in their twisted imaginations. Americans who want to protect our constitutional system will need to stay perpetually alert.

As the saying goes, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Comments

The Depressing Truth

Yesterday, I wrote about my swings between optimism and pessimism as we approach November. I’ve now read a depressing article suggesting that even a “best-case” election result will not erase America’s Trumpist plague.

An article from The Bulwark began with the following quote from Philip Bump:

The Trump era is about Trump in the way that the War of 1812 was about 1812: a critically important component and a useful touchstone but not all-encompassing. Turning the page on the era requires more than Trump failing to get an electoral vote majority.

Perhaps a more accurate time span to consider is something like 15 years. The election of Barack Obama as president in 2008 was hailed as a signal moment in the evolution of American politics and demography, but it also triggered a remarkable backlash. Ostensibly rooted in concerns about government spending, it was largely centered on the disruption of the economic crisis (which triggered an increase in spending) and that overlapping awareness of how America was changing.

The author went on to agree. As he recounted, he’d originally viewed Trump as an aberration–after all, he’d gotten through the Republican primaries with pluralities, not majorities, of Republican votes, and he’d underperformed his poll numbers in virtually every primary. Large numbers of Republican voters hated him. He trailed Hillary Clinton in all of the polling. All of these data points led him to conclude that Trump would lose the 2016 general election, that in the wake of that loss the GOP establishment would take measures against those who’d supported him, and the Party would go back to being the Party  of Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and Marco Rubio.

As the author candidly admits, he was wrong on all counts.

My first mistake was not understanding that Trump had turned the mild tilt of the Electoral College into an enduring 3-point advantage.

By trading suburban, college-educated voters for rural, high-school educated voters, Trump maximized the GOP’s Electoral College efficiency. This trade turned the GOP into a permanent minority party, making it extraordinarily difficult for it to win a national popular majority. But it tilted the Electoral College system to Republicans by a minimum of 3 points in every election.

This was a true innovation. Prior to Trump, no one had viewed minority rule as a viable electoral strategy.

His second mistake was his belief that party elders would expel or neuter those who had supported Trump. As he now recognizes, that mistake wasn’t simply because Trump won. “It was wrong because the real war was not the general election, but a Republican civil war between traditional Republicans and those who wanted “grievance-based political violence.”

The grievance aspect was important because it meant that Trump could deliver to his voters even if he lost. Trump understood that Republican voters now existed in a post-policy space in which they viewed politics as a lifestyle brand. And this lifestyle brand did not require holding electoral office…

So no, there were never going to be recriminations against conservatives and Republicans who had collaborated with Trump. The recriminations would run in the opposite direction: The forces of Trumpism would continue to own the Republican party and anti-Trumpers would continue to be driven out. (Unless they chose to convert.)

That led to a third mistake: believing that the Republican Party would revert to its previous identity as a normal, center-Right political party. He now believes there is no going back.

If anything, the dynamics inside the party—the self-selection making the party whiter, more rural, and less-educated; the desire for minority rule; the eagerness for political violence; the disinterest in governing—seem likely to push the party further away from what it was.

We can’t control the future. And we can’t control the Republican party. All we can control is ourselves.

Which starts with being clear-eyed about reality and the work ahead.

The essay confirmed my reluctant realization that far more of the American electorate falls into that “grievance-based” category than I want to believe. Americans aren’t simply engaged in a Presidential campaign, but a much longer, more protracted struggle for the soul of the nation.

Even if Kamala Harris and Tim Walz win in November, those of us who define patriotism as allegiance to the philosophy of our founding principles will have to contend with the White “Christian” Nationalists who want to abandon those principles in favor of an autocratic, theocratic vision that accords them social and cultural dominance. (If you don’t believe me about that “vision,” take a look at Project 2025. Or–if you live in Indiana– read statements from Micah Beckwith or Jim Banks.)

November is just Round One. That said, winning it decisively is an absolutely essential first step.

Comments

Minding Our Own Business

The brilliance of Tim Walz’ response to the GOP’s culture war is that it put a foundational element of the Bill of Rights into everyday language.

“Mind your own damn business” is a more direct expression of that underlying philosophy than the one that I used in my classroom–“Live and let live.” As I have posted innumerable times on this blog, the Bill of Rights, taken as a whole, is based on the libertarian premise that individuals should be free to pursue their own ends–their own life goals–so long as they do not thereby harm the person or property of someone else, and so long as they are willing to accord an equal liberty to their fellow citizens.

Government’s role is to protect our individual liberties while keeping the strong from abusing the weak.

Adherence to that philosophy means that even if you strongly disagree with your neighbor’s choice of religion or life partner or reading material, you mind your own damn business. You don’t try to get the government involved in the absence of harm to nonconsenting others. You don’t try to use the power of the state to impose your own religious or lifestyle preferences on your neighbor–and he doesn’t get to impose his on you.

Live and let live.

The current iteration of the GOP has utterly abandoned fidelity to that limited government principal. The culture war being waged by the MAGA Christian Nationalists is all about punishing–or at least burdening–life choices with which they disagree. The latest–and yes, weirdest–example is JD Vance’s insistence that women who don’t produce biological children should be socially and legally disfavored. (Vance has even proposed that people with children be rewarded by giving them “extra” votes.)

These very unAmerican approaches to policy disputes also tend to be delivered in the nastiest possible way. As the Bulwark recently noted,

Consider the latest weird statement by JD Vance to emerge. Vance disagrees with the education policies pushed by the American Federation of Teachers and its president, Randi Weingarten. He doesn’t like Weingarten’s political activities either. Fine. That hardly makes him unique among Republicans.

But apparently he can’t just say that. He has to attack her personally. Weingarten, it seems, doesn’t have children. And Vance has a view on that. What’s more, he has a view on the character and effectiveness of teachers who have kids and those who don’t, and has decided he’s “disturbed” by those who don’t.

One could ask, are the private lives of millions of teachers any of JD Vance’s damn business?

As the article proceeded to note, Vance obviously thinks so. But it isn’t just Vance–it’s a core belief of MAGA world that everything is their business.

For MAGA—as for other authoritarian movements of the left and right—the personal is the political. MAGA is about judging and disparaging other people, whole classes of people, whole groups of our fellow Americans…The routine slander of individuals and groups is part of the essence of the movement.

It is true that political disputes often get nasty. History is replete with examples of unfair accusations and various slanders leveled by candidates for office and their supporters. What the Bulwark reports in this particular case, however, gets to the essence of what is wrong with today’s GOP, and its devolution into White Christian Nationalism. There are a number of reasons to label that movement unAmerican, of course–any fair reading of the First Amendment and the Founders’ insistence on Separation of Church and State will provide the most obvious one. What is less obvious, but equally shocking, is the MAGA movement’s manifest belief that government should be able to dictate the personal behaviors of individuals even when those behaviors do not affect others.

So MAGA says government can force women to give birth. That government can prevent medical personnel from helping trans children. That government can remove library books that offend MAGA sensibilities, even though many other citizens want access to those books and no one is forcing the censors or their children to read them.

MAGA Republicans want government as busybody, despite the fact that such a role is entirely contrary to the foundational philosophy of this nation.

If, as I believe, real patriotism requires fidelity to our foundational philosophy– if it requires citizens to mind our own damn business in the absence of harm to unconsenting others– then MAGA culture warriors must be ranked as the most unpatriotic of all Americans.

We all need to listen to Tim Walz.

Comments

No More Sun In The Sunshine State

When I taught the First Amendment, I sometimes shared what I called my “refrigerator theory” of free speech. I analogized bad ideas to those leftovers that migrate to the back of the fridge and begin to smell, and noted that–if those same leftovers had been placed in strong sunlight– they would be bleached of their ability to smell up the place.

The “marketplace of ideas” envisioned by the Founders was intended to ensure that ideas would be subjected to the strong sunlight of public debate, where they believed that bad ideas would lose their negative odors.

I thought about that (admittedly silly) analogy when I read that–ironically–the “Sunshine state” was trying to turn off the sunlight.

Hundreds of New College of Florida library books, including many on LGBTQ+ topics and religious studies, are headed to a landfill.

A dumpster in the parking lot of Jane Bancroft Cook Library on the campus of New College overflowed with books and collections from the now-defunct Gender and Diversity Center on Tuesday afternoon. Video captured in the afternoon showed a vehicle driving away with the books before students were notified. In the past, students were given an opportunity to purchase books that were leaving the college’s library collection.

This purging of disfavored ideas was part of Ron DeSantis’ continued assault on New College and its “liberal” ideas–an assault that has prompted the departure of over a quarter of its students and large numbers of its most respected faculty.

As usual, Heather Cox Richardson provided an excellent commentary on the situation.

The New College of Florida is in the news today for illustrating the logical progression of the idea that Republicans must protect the nation from those who would destroy it. The New College of Florida was at the center of Republican governor Ron DeSantis’s program to get rid of traditional academic freedom. He stripped the New College of its independence and replaced officials with Christian loyalists who tried to build a school modeled after those that Viktor Orbán’s loyalists took over in Hungary. New College officials painted over student murals celebrating diversity, suppressed student support for civil rights, and voted to eliminate the diversity, equity, and inclusion office and the gender studies program. Faculty fled the New College, and more than a quarter of the students dropped out. To keep its numbers up, the school dropped its admission standards. 

Yesterday, Steven Walker of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported that the school cleared out the Gender and Diversity Center, throwing the books it had accumulated into a dumpster. Officials said the books are no longer serving the needs of the college: “gender studies has been discontinued as an area of concentration at New College and the books are not part of any official college collection or inventory.” 

Republicans predictably sneer at those who increasingly compare such efforts of MAGA officials to events in Germany in the years leading up to the Nazi takeover, but the parallels are striking. The Holocaust Encyclopedia, among other histories, has reported on these purges of “unacceptable” ideas.

Beginning on May 10, 1933, Nazi-dominated student groups carried out public burnings of books they claimed were “un-German.” The book burnings took place in 34 university towns and cities. Works of prominent Jewish, liberal, and leftist writers ended up in the bonfires. The book burnings stood as a powerful symbol of Nazi intolerance and censorship.

“Intolerance and censorship” certainly characterize Ron DeSantis and his cohort–but I have to believe that contemporary efforts to suppress those who our neo-fascists disfavor will fail, and rather spectacularly. DeSantis may succeed in destroying a once-highly-regarded institution of higher education, but in a country with many other states and universities–not to mention the Internet– his destructive idiocy is simply unequal to the task.

To return to my analogy: when you leave leftovers in the back of your refrigerator too long, they smell up the whole place. Those who crafted the Free Speech clauses of the First Amendment understood that, when ideas are suppressed, they take on an odiferous life of their own. Deprived of the “sunlight” that is provided by robust public discussion and analysis, they fester below the surface, distorting and poisoning civil discourse. 

If the perspectives advanced in the books being discarded are harmful or incorrect or incompatible with America’s philosophy, DeSantis and his fellow censors should be able to make that argument in public. Clearly, they can’t.

Ultimately, censorship is an admission that those suppressing ideas are unable to counter them. They have no “sunlight” to offer.

Comments

The Court’s Selective Originalism

Our current Supreme Court is dominated by regressive Justices who insist–as did the late Antonin Scalia–that they reach their conclusions by being “originalists.” Their definition of originalism differs rather substantially from mine–I’m firmly of the conviction that an authentic originalism requires fidelity to the values embraced by the Founders, while they insist that an originalist is bound by the constitutional text as it was understood at the time.

Permit me an example of why this is horse-pucky.

I used to ask my students what James Madison thought about porn on the internet. Obviously, Madison could not have conceived of the Internet–but he had very explicit beliefs about the value of free speech and the need to prevent government censorship. The current majority’s crabbed and dishonest “originalism”–if consistently pursued– would reserve free expression to communication methods in place during Madison’s time. A workable originalism protects speech from government censorship irrespective of the method of its transmission.

Of course, the majority doesn’t apply its version consistently, because it would be unworkable. Instead–as legal scholars have pointed out–they are selective in their application. (At least so far, they haven’t allowed government to censor radio, television, movies, and the internet–none of which the Founders could have envisioned.)

I thought about that very telling selectivity when I read an essay by Thom Hartmann about theocracy and the Dark Ages. I encourage you to read it in its entirety, but the part that struck me–and reminded me of the selectivity of Justices like Scalia, Thomas and especially Alito– were the sections detailing the Founders’ approach to Separation of Church and State.

Hartmann began by quoting extensively from John Adams. Adams was a practicing Christian, but was wary–to say the least– of government efforts to compel religiosity. Among the Adams quotes shared by Hartman was the following:

“Since the promulgation of Christianity, the two greatest systems of tyranny that have sprung from this original, are the canon and the feudal law. The desire of dominion, that great principle by which we have attempted to account for so much good and so much evil, is, when properly restrained, a very useful and noble movement in the human mind.

“But when such restraints are taken off, it becomes an encroaching, grasping, restless, and ungovernable power. Numberless have been the systems of iniquity contrived by the great for the gratification of this passion in themselves; but in none of them were they ever more successful than in the invention and establishment of the canon and the feudal law.”

Hartmann also quoted Jefferson, who wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia:

“Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. … Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the æra of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away.”

And he shared an often-cited Jefferson line: 

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Adams and Jefferson weren’t the only Founders who believed in separating church from state. As Hartmann notes,

George Washington refused to declare himself a Christian; Thomas Paine wrote an entire book embracing atheism; Ben Franklin famously fled Massachusetts as a teenager to escape the censorship and threats of imprisonment by religious leaders.

The essay points out that today’s White Christian Nationalist movement is both ahistoric and anti-American–a conclusion with which credible scholars entirely agree.

So here’s my question, aimed especially at Justice Alito (Thomas is simply corrupt, but Alito seems to be a true theocrat.) If you are really an originalist, bound by that doctrine to decide constitutional debates as the Founders would have understood them, why are you ignoring both the Constitutional text and the substantial contemporaneous evidence of their belief in the importance of Separation of Church and State?  

Hartmann’s essay focused on the Dark Ages, a thousand-year period introduced and maintained by virtue of the close alliance of church and government. He ends with a question:

Will we go down a nationalist religious road similar to that now being followed by Modi in India and Netanyahu in Israel? Could we end up as bad as Iran, Afghanistan, or 17th century New England? Will Republicans trigger a new Dark Age?

Or will we re-embrace the Renaissance and Enlightenment values and ideals of the Founders of this nation and hold to a secular democratic republic?

If the pseudo-originalists on today’s Court prevail, we won’t like the answer to that question.

Comments