Because I’ve been on the road, heading for a much-needed vacation (and hopefully, a brief hiatus from my daily contemplation of the various–and frankly terrifying– threats to my country and its Constitution), I’m taking the lazy way out this morning, and posting an eye-opening compendium of the contributors to Project 2025. These are the “think tanks” (note quotation marks) and other far-Right organizations that worked with Heritage to produce that document.
Some of these names will be chillingly familiar. I found others to be a mystery. Those I recognized, and a few unknown ones I was able to trace, are all members of a category we might dub “scary.” Or unAmerican–at least if one defines unAmerican as rejection of the underlying philosophy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (especially but certainly not exclusively the First and Fourteenth Amendments.)
Click through, take a look at the list, and–as the anti-science folks like to say–do your own research.
I’ll be back to my usual hectoring and too-wordy routine tomorrow.
Consider this a follow-up to yesterday’s “Extra” post.
I have written before about Indiana Democrats’ self-defeating attitudes and behaviors. A recent conversation with two very savvy political observers reminded me–again!– how incredibly unhelpful those negative attitudes are.
It’s a conversation I’ve had repeatedly. Acquaintances who are committed Democrats refrain from donating to Hoosier Democratic candidates because “they can’t win in Indiana.” Rather obviously, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy–if these candidates lack sufficient resources to compete, they will lose. (During that recent conversation, when I reminded my friends that Obama had won Indiana, one responded “Yes, but he put significant resources here.” Yes–with sufficient resources, Democrats can win Indiana. Duh.)
This year, as I have documented, the Indiana Democratic Party has nominated a statewide (non-gerrymander-able) slate of truly excellent candidates. They are capable, moderate, and–unlike their GOP opponents–sane. Meanwhile, the Republicans are running a ticket of out-and-out White Supremecist theocrats, men who are personally repugnant supporters of an exceptionally far-Right agenda: anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-public education, anti-environment…candidates who enthusiastically support positions that survey research confirms are at odds with the positions of most Hoosiers, Republican and Democrat alike.
So why, you might ask (I’ve certainly been asking) do people who clearly recognize both the merits of the Democratic candidates and the threats posed by the Republican ones still insist that Indiana voters will opt for the Republican ones?
During that last discussion, I finally came to understand the roots of that belief. (I’m slow.)
These same people–people who care about their neighbors, who understand and worry about the current assaults on the Constitution and civil liberties, who recognize the nuanced nature of policy disputes–apparently believe that a significant majority of Hoosier voters are ignorant and hateful.
Too many of my Democratic friends view all Hoosier Republicans–especially but not exclusively rural Republicans– as uneducated and politically unsophisticated, resentful of social change and suspicious of anyone who isn’t a White Christian. They see all Republicans as MAGA bigots, mired in a Fox “News” universe, dismissive of information inconsistent with their prejudices, and they conclude that efforts to inform or persuade them are useless. (This belief actually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the Democratic candidates lack resources to communicate their positions, many Hoosier voters will lack accurate information.)
I’m willing to concede that this picture of a committed racist rube accurately describes the base of today’s GOP–the MAGA folks who form the core of what has become Trump’s political party. But I refuse to believe that all Hoosier Republicans are cut from that same MAGA cloth. There are people who are relatively uninformed, but not hateful–many people who would reject the premises and promises of Project 2025 if they knew what those premises and promises really were.
The Democrats who are writing off Hoosier voters rather clearly believe that providing sufficient resources to disseminate accurate information widely around the state is a fool’s errand. They believe that the super-majority in our deplorable state legislature is an accurate representation of unenlightened, racist and misogynistic Hoosier sentiment–after all, those voters elected that super-majority. (They forget the substantial effects of gerrymandering and vote suppression.)
The only thing that would change the minds of these dismissive observers of Indiana politics is an election that upends their smug conclusions–but their unwillingness to fund their preferred candidates adequately makes such an election result infinitely more difficult.
I’ve been working with both the McCormick and McCray campaigns, and I can report that both are well-organized, strategically sound, and–most important–right on all the issues that matter. I am absolutely convinced that–with adequate funding–they can inform voters statewide of the enormous differences between them and the GOP’s Christian Nationalist ticket, and that adequate dissemination of that information would lead to victory.
I guess it’s up to those of us in Indiana who are politically “unsophisticated” to step into the breach. Those of us who care deeply about women’s access to abortion, civil rights for our gay friends and neighbors, support for public education, and the other immensely important rights threatened by today’s far far Right GOP candidates need to contribute as much as we can so that the good guys have enough to communicate their message.
They don’t need as much as their opponents; they just need enough.
Unless, of course, my “sophisticated” friends are right, and a majority of my fellow Hoosiers are contemptible.
Sometimes, what’s intended as dark humor isn’t very funny.
During a discussion with a cousin who shares most of my political views, I admitted that the possibility of a Trump victory–especially now that the Supreme Court has eviscerated the rule of law–keeps me up at night. He counseled me to dial it back, to live with what comes. “And besides, we won’t have to worry for long, because they’ll line the Jews up and shoot us.”
Ha ha.
The folks that the late Molly Ivins dubbed the “chattering classes” are mostly focused on the very real threat of autocracy, of dictatorship should Trump prevail. Fair enough: the MAGA base doesn’t really have a coherent philosophy other than their firm belief that White Christian men should run the country and all we “Others” should go back to subordinate status (or–in the case of gay folks– the closet). Less attention has been paid to the theocrats in the movement–those who do have a specific and frighteningly clear agenda that revolves around using government to impose their fundamentalist religious beliefs on everyone else.
That First Amendment is so last century….
Here in Indiana, the Republican statewide ticket is uniformly theocratic; Micah Beckwith, candidate for Lieutenant Governor and Jim Banks, candidate for U.S. Senate, are “true believers.” Mike Braun, the gubernatorial candidate, hasn’t demonstrated any core beliefs other than his obviously firm conviction that he’s entitled to be important–apparently, he’ll happily echo whatever policy positions are most likely to win him public office, much like our embarrassing Attorney General, Todd Rokita, who is running for a second term. Rokita has made pandering to the MAGA base into an art form. In Indiana, since pandering requires obeisance to the MAGA theocrats, the entire ticket can legitimately be labeled theocratic.
I caution against treating political figures as scary. There’s enough to worry about in life without catastrophizing politicians.
That said, the media, myself included, have correctly framed Beckwith as an extreme figure on the right. He is an avowed Christian nationalist who believes in harnessing political and governmental power to enact an agenda in line with his rigid interpretation of Christianity. He’s also uniquely effective at pursuing that agenda, in large part because he has charisma and communication skills honed by his work as a pastor.
Briggs argued that, in the event the GOP wins Indiana in November, what Hoosiers have to worry about, “in order of greatest to least probability,” are
State government will get worse.
Beckwith will embarrass Indiana.
Laws could get more extreme.
Beckwith could become governor.
It’s hard to believe our legislature could get worse….
As Briggs notes, elective office means a wider audience. “When Beckwith says crazy things going forward — like that God sent the Jan. 6 rioters — people across the U.S. will hear about it and assume Indiana is just a bunch of Beckwiths. That’s embarrassing.”
Yes, Beckwith is a true believer and a loose cannon, but Jim Banks isn’t far behind.
Known as Focus on the Family’s man in Washington, when he isn’t using loose fundraising rules to amass personal wealth, Banks uses his position as a Congressman to pursue decidedly theocratic goals. He wants a “godly country” where federal law bans all abortions, with none of those wimpy exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother, and other laws reflect his vicious ongoing vendetta against LGBTQ+ people and especially trans children.
Well, at least Beckwith and Banks are sincere fundamentalist theocrats.
I have repeatedly posted about Todd Rokita, Indiana’s despicable Attorney-General. In his case, devotion to MAGA theocracy is transparently based upon political utility–my guess is that if he were to be politically active in a Blue state, his positions would align with those of Bernie Sanders. Of course, he isn’t in a Blue state, so he has consistently demonstrated his fidelity to the Beckwith/Taliban portion of the Republican party, hounding the doctor who performed an abortion on a ten-year-old rape victim, making an effort to obtain women’s private medical records, and endorsing a variety of far-Right, theocratic positions.
Indiana is often characterized as a state where voters will vote for a rutabaga if it has an R next to its name. In November, we’ll see whether that flippant description holds, or whether the extremely autocratic and theocratic positions of the GOP candidates causes Hoosier voters to turn to the competent, middle-of-the-road candidates nominated by Indiana’s Democrats.
I’ll post evidence of their bona fides after the Democratic state convention.
Can we Americans talk to each other? Unfortunately, the answer seems to be no, and the intentional misuse of language is one reason we can’t.
I think it was GOP strategist Frank Luntz who first advised his party to obscure its goals by using phrases that softened/concealed meaning; he even wrote a book back in 2007 titled “Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear.” As Deborah Tannen pointed out in 2003 (link unavailable),
Take the repeal of the estate tax. An “estate” sounds like a large amount of money. Indeed, before President Bush persuaded Congress to legislate a phase out of the estate tax, only the largest 2 percent of estates were subject to this tax. But change the name to “death tax” and many more Americans become sympathetic to repeal. After all, everyone dies. Death is bad enough without being taxed.
How many would get all worked up about an exceedingly rare abortion procedure (that the Alan Guttmacher Institute estimated represents less than one-fifth of 1 percent of all abortions performed in the United States in 2000)? But attach the name “partial-birth abortion” and a second-trimester fetus becomes a half-born baby.
Who among us wants to call ourselves anti-life? Win the name game and you’re more than halfway toward winning the battle. Win enough naming battles and you’re on your way to winning the war.
Since the demise of Roe v. Wade, we’ve all become familiar with arguments about what it means to be “pro life.” Nice human beings all want to be supportive of life, but Red state legislators are rather clearly unconcerned with the lives of rape victims or women with dangerous pregnancies; they are also unconcerned with the health and wellbeing of those babies they’ve “saved” once they’re born. (And how “pro life” is the GOP’s all-in support for gun “rights”? Is defense of permitless carry really consistent with calling oneself “pro life”?)
The use of language to mask what’s really going on is hardly limited to the abortion debate. Take the indiscriminate use of the word choice. Choice is a great term; it can be positive–as in citizens’ ability to choose a religion, a marriage partner, or whether to procreate (choices the GOP’s Christian Nationalists oppose), or it can be a word that masks less positive “choices”–destroying the public school system via “school choice,” or “choosing” not to open your place of business to Blacks or gays.
That latter “choice” brings me to another highly contested term: religious liberty. Who isn’t for religious liberty–the right to believe or live as one’s conscience dictates?
What today’s MAGA GOP means by religious liberty, however, is their right to remake the law of land in order to privilege fundamentalist Christianity–to return women, gays, non-Whites and non-Christians to the subordinate status in American society that their religion dictates. Requiring obedience to civil rights laws violates that dominance. (Serving that slice of pizza to a gay person clearly imposes upon their religious liberty…)
The publication of Project 2025 provides evidence that intentional misuse of language continues to shape far-Right discourse; for example, the effort to destroy the civil service is presented as a path toward “efficiency.” (In this case, that may even be a proper use of language–dictatorships are usually more efficient than messy democracies.)
There are other words that obscure rather than illuminate. A recent favorite is “weaponization”–an accusation hurled at government officials applying existing laws to Republicans. Another is actually a new word: “woke.” Woke-ism is basically a commitment to fundamental fairness for all American citizens, which raises the question why it produces so hysterical a negative response.
These newer terms join old favorites like “socialism”–the Rightwing’s preferred label for any social program. Social Security and Medicare were originally opposed (and still are) as “socialist.” (Again, as with “efficiency” the label isn’t incorrect–just pejorative. The U.S., like all modern societies, has a mixed economy, with a robust private sector protected by socialized efforts like police, fire protection, garbage collection and other collective services.)
I’m sure readers can come up with other examples. Disinformation would be impossible without the ability to disguise truth by misusing and distorting language. I believe it was French diplomat Charles Maurice De Talleyrand who famously said that “God gave humans language so they could conceal their thoughts from one another.”
No wonder Americans are having difficulty communicating….
When I was a member of a very different Republican Party, it was easy to laugh at the way Democrats tended to self-destruct. Now, with American democracy and the rule of law teetering on the brink, it’s far less amusing.
It is hard for me to believe number of people who should know better who are undermining the party’s chances of winning in November by clutching their pearls and indulging in pious, handwringing pleas for Joe Biden to withdraw. Talk about “virtue signaling” while giving talking points to the Trumpers.
It’s one thing for people like those who comment here–most of whom are unfamiliar with political calendars and the arcane legal constraints on campaigns. It’s another to see presumably knowledgable pundits display their total ignorance of what is even possible.
Permit me to take you on a visit the real world: any effort to “swap out” candidates would have to take place at the upcoming Democratic convention on August 19th. While all states don’t have early voting, many do–in Indiana, early voting starts October 8th.
Even if the delegates could quickly agree on a replacement candidate–highly unlikely–there would be no time for that candidate to mount anything approaching a campaign, which requires money and messaging and field offices staffed with workers devoted to and knowledgable about the candidate. But of course, there is no single alternative acceptable to the entire party. The obvious choice would be Kamala, as Vice-President, but thanks to racism and misogyny–not to mention Republican and intra-party efforts to paint her as a floundering “diversity choice”–she couldn’t win either the delegates or the election. Of course, passing over a Black Vice-President would immediately jeopardize the essential Black vote (not to mention a significant part of the female vote.)
A two-month campaign with a divisive candidate is only part of it. The substantial funds Biden has raised couldn’t easily or rapidly be transferred to the new candidate (if at all). And much as I believe polling is badly broken, most polls do show that the only person who can defeat Donald Trump–and yes, save democracy–is Joe Biden.
Biden has been an excellent, even transformational, President. His cabinet is composed of talented, knowledgable, traditional public servants, and his Vice President is far more accomplished and adept than the nay-sayers paint her. If Biden had the oratorical skills of an Obama, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, but as a FaceBook friend noted–under a photo of Hitler addressing a rapt crowd–deciding who to support on the basis of oratory isn’t necessarily a great idea.
But even if Biden were as senile as his detractors claim, he would be monumentally preferable to the alternative.
The job of patriotic Americans in the four months between this post and the election is to defeat Donald Trump and the MAGA fascist movement. Nothing else matters. A Biden victory will allow us to deal with a corrupt Supreme Court and protect reproductive choice; a defeat–made more likely by the know-nothing naysayers–will facilitate remaking the nation in the form the authors of Project 2025 have mapped out.
There is no choice. This is our civil war, and we have to win it.
If Biden is truly impaired, he can step down after the election. Yes, that would give us a Black female President, and that would once again motivate the haters who crawled out from under their rocks after Obama was elected.
Right now, our marching orders are simple: defeat MAGA up and down the ballot, or lose America.
