Project 2025

[Abigail Genevieve]

Here is space for discussion on this, since the topic is large and could derail another thread SOMEBODY started.

 

Could some dear, sweet, kind Moderator pull everything related to this from the Voting for Trump thread and put it here?  I don't know if you can do that; I am the new girl on the block after all (blinks sweetly).

[Carolyn Marie]

Abigail, I think we will just leave the other posts where they are, and the discussion can start anew here.  It is possible to do what you ask, but would disrupt the flow of the discussion in the other thread, and would require more work than it's worth.

 

Carolyn Marie

[Abigail Genevieve]

17 minutes ago, Carolyn Marie said:

Abigail, I think we will just leave the other posts where they are, and the discussion can start anew here.  It is possible to do what you ask, but would disrupt the flow of the discussion in the other thread, and would require more work than it's worth.

 

Carolyn Marie

No problem!

[Abigail Genevieve]

I am reading the Project 2025 document https://www.project2025.org/policy/

 

This will take some time.  I read the forward and I want to read it again later.   I read some criticism of it outside here and I will be looking for it in the light of what has been posted here and there.  Some of the criticism is bosh.

 

@MaeBe have you read the actual document?

[Abigail Genevieve]

@Ivy have you read the actual document?

 

Has anyone else out there read it?

[MaeBe]

I have read some of it, mostly in areas specifically targeted at the LGBTQ+ peoples.

 

You also have to take into account what and who is behind the words, not just the words themselves. Together that creates context, right? Let's take some examples, under the Department of Health & Human Services section:

 

"Radical actors inside and outside government are promoting harmful identity
politics that replaces biological sex with subjective notions of “gender identity” and
bases a person’s worth on his or her race, sex, or other identities. This destructive
dogma, under the guise of “equity,” threatens American’s fundamental liberties as
well as the health and well-being of children and adults alike."

 

or

 

"Families comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of
a well-ordered nation and healthy society. Unfortunately, family policies and
programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing
on “LGBTQ+ equity,” subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and
penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies
that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families."

 

From a wording perspective, who doesn't want to protect the health and well-being of Americans or think that families aren't good for America? But let's take a look at the author, Roger Severino. He's well-quoted to be against LGBTQ+ anything, has standard christian nationalist views, supports conversion therapy, etc.

 

So when he uses words like "threatens the health and well-being of children and adults alike" it's not about actual health, it's about enforcing cis-gendered ideology because he (and the rest of the Heritage Foundation) believe LGBTQ+ people and communities are harmful. Or when he invokes the family through the lens of, let's just say dog whistles including the "penalization of marriage" (how and where?!), he idealizes families involving marriage of a "biological male to a biological female" and associates LGBTQ+ family equity as something unhealthy.

 

Who are the radical actors? Who is telling people to be trans, gay, or queer in general? No one. The idea that there can be any sort of equity between LGBTQ+ people and "normal" cis people is abhorrent to the author, so the loaded language of radical/destructive/guise/threaten are used. Families that he believes are "good" are stable/well-ordered/healthy, specifically married/nuclear ones.

 

Start looking into intersectionality of oppression of non-privileged groups and how that affects the concept of the family and you will understand that these platitudes are thinly veiled wrappers for christian nationalist ideology.

 

What's wrong with equity for queer families, to allow them full rights as parents, who are bringing up smart and able children? Or single mothers who are working three jobs to get food on plates?

[Mirrabooka]

Well said. 

 

Although this so-called Project 2025 will not affect me directly in an immediate sense, it sends a signal to equivalent minded people and political parties around the world that it is okay to exclude minorities and indeed, to persecute them.

 

In my humble opinion, the far-right politicians know damn well that there is a very large cohort of less-than-intelligent people out there who are not capable of critical thinking and believe every skerrick of dog-whistling, fearmongering, "they're-out-there-to-get-you" rhetoric. Pander to their rural and village attitudes and you're on a winner! 

 

Correcting them with logic and science won't work; they just double down and get louder with their petulance on full display.

 

 

[Abigail Genevieve]

I find my lack of time to read the thing frustrating, and I will not really comment until I have read it.  This is a wholly inadequate response.

 

1.  I think there are some legitimate concern.

 

2. Thoroughly discussing this will consume many threads.

 

3. I disagree partially with @MaeBe but there is partial agreement.

 

4. The context includes what is happening in society that the authors are observing.  It is not an isolated document.

 

5. Trump, if elected, is as likely to spend his energies going after political opponents as he is to implementing something like this. 

 

6. I reject critical theory, which is based on Marxism.  Marxism has never worked and never will.  Critical theory has problems which would need time to go into, which I do not have.

 

7. There are groups who have declared war on the nuclear family as problematically patriarchal, and a lot of other terms. They are easy to find on the internet.  This document is reacting to that (see #4 above).

 

8.  Much of this would have to be legislated, and this is a policy documented.  Implementation would  be most likely different, but that does not mean criticism is unwarranted. 

[Abigail Genevieve]

3 hours ago, Mirrabooka said:

Well said. 

 

Although this so-called Project 2025 will not affect me directly in an immediate sense, it sends a signal to equivalent minded people and political parties around the world that it is okay to exclude minorities and indeed, to persecute them.

 

In my humble opinion, the far-right politicians know damn well that there is a very large cohort of less-than-intelligent people out there who are not capable of critical thinking and believe every skerrick of dog-whistling, fearmongering, "they're-out-there-to-get-you" rhetoric. Pander to their rural and village attitudes and you're on a winner! 

 

Correcting them with logic and science won't work; they just double down and get louder with their petulance on full display.

 

 

Then you are in despair.

[Abigail Genevieve]

Oh, another comment.

 

I am a conservative evangelical with strong Republican leanings. So is my wife, my friends, my family. I disagree with a good amount of what the Republicans are doing, but there it is.  I understand the mindset, I think, a lot better than those who are outside it do.

 

When you insult Republicans you insult me, my friends, my family.

 

People like me can struggle with trans issues.

 

Please consider that in posting.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

1 hour ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

Oh, another comment.

 

I am a conservative evangelical with strong Republican leanings. So is my wife, my friends, my family. I disagree with a good amount of what the Republicans are doing, but there it is.  I understand the mindset, I think, a lot better than those who are outside it do.

 

When you insult Republicans you insult me, my friends, my family.

 

People like me can struggle with trans issues.

 

Please consider that in posting.

 

Indeed.  While it seems like the majority of LGBTQ+ folks vote for Democrat candidates, not everybody drinks the Kool-Aid.  I'm a registered Independent, since I vote for individuals rather than party.  One of my trans friends is very pro-Trump - wears her MAGA hat and everything.  I find it interesting to see the reactions she gets... folks aren't always as tolerant as they claim to be.  Even on this forum, you get some real flak from Democrat voters....many will insist that the California way is the only way. 

 

In my opinion, "Project 2025" isn't the real problem.  Check out UN "Agenda 2030."   

[MaeBe]

1.  I think there are some legitimate concern.

 

2. Thoroughly discussing this will consume many threads.

 

3. I disagree partially with @MaeBe but there is partial agreement.

 

4. The context includes what is happening in society that the authors are observing.  It is not an isolated document.

 

The observation is through a certain lens, because people do things differently doesn't mean they're doing it wrong. Honestly, a lot of the conservative rhetoric is morphing desires of people to be treated with respect and social equity to be tantamount to the absolution of the family, heterosexuality, etc. Also, being quiet and trying to blend in doesn't change anything. Show me a social change that benefits a minority or marginalized group that didn't need to be loud.

 

5. Trump, if elected, is as likely to spend his energies going after political opponents as he is to implementing something like this.

 

Trump will appoint people to do this, like Roger Severino (who was appointed before, who has a record of anti-LGBTQ+ actions), he need not do anything beyond this. His people are ready to push this agenda forward. While the conservative right rails about bureaucracy, they intend to weaponize it. There is no question. They don't want to simplify government, they simply want to fire everyone and bring in conservative "warriors" (their rhetoric). Does America survive 4 year cycles of purge/cronyism?

 

6. I reject critical theory, which is based on Marxism.  Marxism has never worked and never will.  Critical theory has problems which would need time to go into, which I do not have.

 

OK, but this seems like every other time CRT comes up with conservatives...completely out of the blue. I think it's reference is mostly just to spark outrage from the base. Definitely food thought for a different thread, though.

 

7. There are groups who have declared war on the nuclear family as problematically patriarchal, and a lot of other terms. They are easy to find on the internet.  This document is reacting to that (see #4 above).

 

What is the war on the nuclear family? I searched online and couldn't find much other than reasons why people aren't getting married as much or having kids (that wasn't a propaganda from Heritage or opinions pieces from the right that paint with really broad strokes). Easy things to see: the upward mobility and agency of women, the massive cost of rearing children, general negative attitudes about the future, male insecurity, etc. None of this equates to a war on the nuclear family, but I guess if you look at it as "men should be breadwinners and women must get married for financial support and extend the male family line (and to promote "National Greatness") I could see the decline of marriage as a sign of the collapse of a titled system and, if I was a beneficiary of that system or believe that to NOT be tilted, be aggrieved.

 

8.  Much of this would have to be legislated, and this is a policy documented.  Implementation would  be most likely different, but that does not mean criticism is unwarranted.

 

"It might be different if you just give it a chance", unlike all the other legislation that's out there targeting LGBTQ+ from the right, these are going to be different? First it will be trans rights, then it will be gay marriage, and then what? Women's suffrage?

 

I get it, we may have different compasses, but it's not hard to see that there's no place for queer people in the conservative worldview. There seems to be a consistent insistence that "America was and is no longer Great", as if the 1950s were the pinnacle of society, completely ignoring how great America still is and can continue to be--without having to regress society to the low standards of its patriarchal yesteryears.

 

 

[Abigail Genevieve]

36 minutes ago, MaeBe said:

 

 

7. There are groups who have declared war on the nuclear family as problematically patriarchal, and a lot of other terms. They are easy to find on the internet.  This document is reacting to that (see #4 above).

 

What is the war on the nuclear family? I searched online and couldn't find much other than reasons why people aren't getting married as much or having kids (that wasn't a propaganda from Heritage or opinions pieces from the right that paint with really broad strokes). Easy things to see: the upward mobility and agency of women, the massive cost of rearing children, general negative attitudes about the future, male insecurity, etc. None of this equates to a war on the nuclear family, but I guess if you look at it as "men should be breadwinners and women must get married for financial support and extend the male family line (and to promote "National Greatness") I could see the decline of marriage as a sign of the collapse of a titled system and, if I was a beneficiary of that system or believe that to NOT be tilted, be aggrieved.

I was thinking in particular of BLM, who years ago had a 'What We Believe' section that sounded like they were at war with the nuclear family.   I tried to find it. Nope.  Of interest https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/28/ask-politifact-does-black-lives-matter-aim-destroy/

 

My time is limited and I will try to answer as I can.

[Ivy]

On 4/25/2024 at 1:01 PM, Abigail Genevieve said:

@Ivy have you read the actual document?

Just some exerts regarding subjects of interest to me.

[Ivy]

4 hours ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

5. Trump, if elected, is as likely to spend his energies going after political opponents as he is to implementing something like this. 

Like @MaeBe pointed out, Trump won't do these things personally.  I doubt that he actually gives a rat's a$$ himself.  But he is the foot in the door for the others.

 

4 hours ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

7. There are groups who have declared war on the nuclear family as problematically patriarchal, and a lot of other terms. They are easy to find on the internet.  This document is reacting to that (see #4 above).

I don't really see this.  Personally, I am all in favor of "traditional" families.  I raised my own kids this way and it can work fine.  But I think we need to allow for other variations as well.  

One thing working against this now is how hard it is for a single breadwinner to support a family.  Many people (I know some) would prefer "traditional" if they could actually afford it.  Like I mentioned, we raised our family with this model, but we were always right at the poverty level.

 

4 hours ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

I am a conservative evangelical with strong Republican leanings. So is my wife, my friends, my family.…  I understand the mindset, I think, a lot better than those who are outside it do.

 

When you insult Republicans you insult me, my friends, my family.

I was a "conservative evangelical" for most of my life, actually.  So I do understand this.  Admittedly, I no longer consider myself one.

I have family members still in this camp.  Some tolerate me, one actually rejects me.  I assure you the rejection is on her side, not mine.  But, I understand she believes what she is doing is right - 'sa pity though.

I mean no insult toward anyone on this forum.  You're free to disagree with me.  Many people do.

 

4 hours ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

6. I reject critical theory, which is based on Marxism.  Marxism has never worked and never will.  Critical theory has problems which would need time to go into, which I do not have.

This is a pretty complex one.  Socialism takes many forms, many of which we accept without even realizing it.  "Classism" does exist, for what it's worth.  Always has, probably always will.  But I don't feel like that is a subject for this forum.

 

As for the election, it's shaping up to be another one of those "hold your nose" deals.

[Abigail Genevieve]

2 hours ago, Ivy said:

 

I was a "conservative evangelical" for most of my life, actually.  So I do understand this.  Admittedly, I no longer consider myself one.

I have family members still in this camp.  Some tolerate me, one actually rejects me.  I assure you the rejection is on her side, not mine.  But, I understand she believes what she is doing is right - 'sa pity though.

I mean no insult toward anyone on this forum.  You're free to disagree with me.  Many people do.

I have read numerous accounts of trans folk no longer being welcome among evangelicals.

 

I am here for help and fellowship not to rebuke anyone.  I can take a pretty high degree of insult, etc., and you haven't insulted me, to my recollection anyway :) and I usually let it go.  But I thought I would let it all out there.

 

I am sure I disagree with you on numerous issues.  I appreciate other people's viewpoints, including those who radically disagree with me.  Intellectual challenge is good. One thing I appreciate about @MaeBe.

[Abigail Genevieve]

8 hours ago, MaeBe said:

 

 

6. I reject critical theory, which is based on Marxism.  Marxism has never worked and never will.  Critical theory has problems which would need time to go into, which I do not have.

 

OK, but this seems like every other time CRT comes up with conservatives...completely out of the blue. I think it's reference is mostly just to spark outrage from the base. Definitely food thought for a different thread, though.

 

 

I am noting you use CRT terminology.  The comment is not out of the blue.  Some of your remarks on religion suggest atheism.  So it is believable that you are a Marxist, knowingly or not.  Are you?

[Carolyn Marie]

@Abigail Genevieve, that is not an appropriate question, IMO.  This isn't the Army/McCarthy hearings.

 

Carolyn Marie

[MaeBe]

10 hours ago, Abigail Genevieve said:

I am noting you use CRT terminology.  The comment is not out of the blue.  Some of your remarks on religion suggest atheism.  So it is believable that you are a Marxist, knowingly or not.  Are you?

 

Hah! Woke up the Red Scare!

 

I’ve never read Marx. I tend to believe in the inherent goodness in people. I let their words and deeds change that. Insisting people are immoral/less than/should not exist, stripping them (or keeping them from) human rights, is an a most basic example of true evil. What evils do LGBTQ+ people present simply existing? How does the Right justify their crusade against us? What justifies the manufactured fear and loathing they spout every day about us?

[Ivy]

20 hours ago, MaeBe said:

6. I reject critical theory, which is based on Marxism. 

Getting back to this…

I've seen objections to Critical Race Theory, but simply "critical theory" is a new one on me.  I think we need to be "critical" about a lot of things, or at least examine why we believe what we do about them.  If they stand up under scrutiny, great.  If not perhaps we need to look at something else.

 

1 hour ago, MaeBe said:

Hah! Woke up the Red Scare!

Not all socialists are Soviet Russian Communists.

I have read very little Marx myself.  That kind of writing bores me quickly.  But I think there are legitimate concerns about unfettered capitalism.  There are countries that seem to do well on a mixture of capitalism and socialism.  But I am no Tankie.

 

The Red Scare kinda morphed into the Lavender Scare, and now we have this Transgender Scare.  

The thing is, most people are scared to get to know any of the people they are scared of.

I'm not scared of evangelical christians.  But I am a little scared of what they seem ready to do to me, because they are scared of me.

I am not a scary person - don't want to be.  I'm just an old trans woman trying to mind my own business, and get with what's left of my life.

And the 2025 project seems to be designed to make that difficult.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

While the Soviet Union did not end up being the source of all evil, I believe that history has shown that Joe McCarthy generally was right. There ARE all kinds of Marxists slithering around. And if that had been dealt with firmly 75 years ago (or more) the nation wouldn't be in the shape that it's in now. 

 

And while I generally oppose the idea of intervening in foreign affairs, the world probably would have been better off if we had taken care of issues in Russia and defeated the Bolshevik Menace back in 1919. God bless the memory of Admiral Kolchak.

 

Getting back to project 2025, my belief is that Republican efforts are inappropriately focused on trans folks. A minority of a minority does not wreck a nation. But it is easier to focus on trans folks because they can look like they're doing something. They don't have to address the real problems, and really they don't want to address them because they would have to address themselves.  They would also need to admit that the 50 State version of the USA cannot be saved.

[Ivy]

3 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

There ARE all kinds of Marxists slithering around. And if that had been dealt with firmly 75 years ago (or more) the nation wouldn't be in the shape that it's in now. 

Like I said, I'm no tankie, but I do see a world of difference between Joseph Stalin and Bernie Sanders.  

If the point is not wanting 'government control' the Right is pretty good at that themselves - as they've been demonstrating lately.

This stuff gets complicated.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

9 minutes ago, Ivy said:

If the point is not wanting 'government control' the Right is pretty good at that themselves - as they've been demonstrating lately.

This stuff gets complicated.

 

Quite true.  The amusing thing about opposites is how similar they can be.   My family left Greece because of the conflict between the communists and the militarists/fascists.  

[Abigail Genevieve]

I still have not read much of this.  Very little of this document pertains to trans folk.  Some of the statements are more than problematic concerning trans folk.   It certainly was not written just to get us.   " those with gender dysphoria should be expelled from military service."  and "Reverse policies that allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. Gender dysphoria is incompatible with the demands of military service,"  https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-04.pdf are two lines out of hundreds if not thousands regarding the Department of Defense, targeting trans folk in an almost off-hand manner. 

 

So if a fighter pilot, say, or a ship's captain, highly experienced and trained at enormous expense, is determined to be transgender (method unknown) the US loses someone badly needed due to the personnel shortage who is ready, willing and able to perform their duties.  Many trans folk have served well and transitioned later.  I don't think this point is well thought out. 

 

A number of policy recommendations I would disagree with.  I am not sure there is a method to discuss those with the authors; I am attempting to find out.  I have good conservative creds. 

 

They are fully intending to implement this, regardless of who the president is, as long as that president is conservative. It is not Trump centered.  I don't think he had anything to do with it. 

[Abigail Genevieve]

In the forward I learn that transgenderism is bad, and somewhere else that transgender ideology is bad.  I have not yet read a definition of either in the document.  I assume they are the same.  I know Focus on a Family has a definition of transgenderism on their website, or did, but I am not sure this is the same as that.  I might agree that transgenderism is bad if they use a definition I condemn (e.g. transgenderism means you always pour ketchup in your shoes before you put them on - I could not agree to that).  Is someone who believes in transgenderism, whatever it is, a transgenderist? I never see that term.  There may be other definitions out there, but I don't think there is an Official Definition that we all agree to.