Project 2025 Is Not Your Father’s Chamber Of Commerce Agenda
Critics Are Downplaying The History And The Implications For Fascist Consolidation
Project 2025 Is A Radical Break With The Traditional Corporate Agenda
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. ~~~ FDR Message to Congress (1938)
[Update below]
I’ve long been calling for writers, government officials, and political activists to engage and educate the public about Project 2025, see:
So I am extremely pleased by the dramatic increase in criticism and media coverage.
But I am frustrated that the critics are overplaying the culture war and identity issues and downplaying the ideological significance and policy implications, particularly given the current cultural, political and legal context.
The primary criticism basically argues the Project 2025 is a rehash of the longstanding Chamber of Commerce Neoliberal pro-business and anti-regulatory agenda, coupled with a misogynistic attack on women. I note but do not discuss today the Christian Nationalist influences.
But while there are policy overlaps with that traditional Chamber of Commerce program, critics are missing the ideological roots of the foundational fascist history and are ignoring the radical nature of Project 2025, particularly in light of the US Supreme Court’s efforts to “dismantle the administrative state”.
The roots of Project 2025 are in an ideological and fascist attack on FDR and the New Deal by a corporate group called The American Liberty League. This group was not only fascist, but plotted a coup on FDR, see:
Ignoring or downplaying this history, ideology, and fascist politics generates a “politic as usual” cynical stance that risks consolidation of fascism in a Trump second term.
The most recent criticism of Project 2025 I read along these lines is this otherwise superb piece at CounterPunch:
Here is my note to the author that tries to express my concerns:
Thanks for writing that – a couple of thoughts for what I hope is a followup piece:
1) the Trump loyalty test is not limited to defense and intel – but across federal government (Schedule F). That means scientists too. Estimates are over 100,000. Total destruction of the civil service and with it any notion of the public interest, science, and public policy.
2) You missed the Department of Interior recommendations, which are a s bad or worse than the EPA stuff. Please do a followup on Dept. Of Interior – Americans love federal lands!
3) You missed the climate and energy recommendations, which are simply suicidal.
4) You missed the “Unitary Executive”, which, in context of the Supreme Court decision on immunity, and Trump and his base’s fascist and cultural tendencies, must be exposed.
5) I terms of history, I think you downplayed the significance, both of the current and historical context. This is not the same old Chamber of Commerce anti-regulatory agenda. And historically, the roots are best traced to the Liberty League (1934), who supported Nazi’s and plotted a coup of FDR. There is also deep ideological attacks on the New Deal that can be understood as the current reaction against the Green New Deal.
6) Finally, beyond the scope of your piece but intimately related to Project 2025, is the ideological attack by the Supreme Court seeking to “dismantle the administrative state” via invocation of the 19th Century non-delegation doctrine and a new “major questions” doctrine to emasculate government agencies by requiring Congressional delegation of explicit authority.
[Update: this website is unable to accept reader comments – as a result of prior bot attacks – but I thought I’d post this good question I just got on my Substack page and my reply:
Q: what is the traditional corporate agenda? how come there’s a ‘radical break’ in the first sentence and ‘there are policy overlaps’ later on?
A: Good question. Let me try to explain and illustrate.
The traditional Chamber agenda called for “less government” and opposed “costly regulatory mandates” and “red tape”. These slogans were operationalized in specific policy recommendations for “reform”. An example would be for EPA to set more “flexible” standards, for example, by allowing corporations to average emissions over time (this would allow for a violation of the standard for some period of time) or to monitor on a monthly basis, instead of daily. Or corporations would demand that EPA “streamline” regulatory reviews and provide “certainty”. EPA would then find various ways to do this within existing laws.
These are all basically “reform” initiatives. They accept the legitimacy of government intervention and support the role of science and professionalism and “balance”.
In contrast, the Project 2025 agenda is not reform. It is radical.
It does not accept government intervention as legitimate (i.e. “dismantle the administrative state”). It does not accept government employees and the civil service as legitimate (e.g. they are “deep state actors” with a “Leftist agenda” that need to be replaced by Schedule F Trump loyalists and cronies). It does not accept the role of science or believe in objectivity – they are merely cover for the economic self interests of the bureaucrats (Google “public choice theory” to understand this concept). Project 2025 views protective regulations and taking private property (e.g. agricultural nutrient control programs are really ways to confiscate farmland. Climate just ways to ban cows and eating meat or taking your pickup truck). Project 2025 seeks to replace civil service with Trump loyalists. It seeks to eliminate science and replace them with political and industry advisers. It seeks to privatize and make voluntary the current regulatory apparatus. It does not accept regulation as legitimate and legally authorized by Congress (Google the “major questions” doctrine). It views the President as a dictator of all executive branch policy, e.g. Trump could call the EPA administrator and tell him what to do, regardless of science and fact. This is no exaggeration: remember when trump drew a line on a hurricane weather map? Google the “unitary executive” and read Chapter 1. Trump says climate emergency is a hoax and Project 2025 calls for the elimination of most all climate programs.
The traditional Chamber of Commerce didn’t go anywhere near any of this.
I could provide many more examples. ~~~ end update