In what can only be described as a whirlwind of conservative thought, The Heritage Foundation’s mammoth piece of work, the 900-page ‘Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise’, is sparking debate across the political spectrum. The lengthy publication forms the keystone of the Foundation’s Project 2025, stirring up much analysis and conjecture among journalists, scholars, and political aficionados alike.
However, the document is not the ominous prescriptive blueprint for President Trump’s administration, as some left-leaning commentators would have readers believe. Instead, it presents a collage of contradictory proposals, each reflecting various shades of conservative ideology.
Take, for instance, the chapter on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), authored by Ken Cuccinelli, a former Trump DHS official and pro-MAGA advocate. In this section, Cuccinelli’s budgetary recommendation to defund humanitarian functions at the border blatantly contradicts another budget proposal. A seasoned disaster management expert even described his reorganization recommendations as “100% insane.”
This trend of inconsistent analysis continues throughout the text. Multiple authors debating fundamental public issues appear to be the norm, as seen in the chapters dealing with the Export-Import Bank and the cases for free and fair trade, respectively.
In an equally baffling move, the author of the Federal Reserve chapter provides a sweeping review of every theory on monetary policy before concluding with an uncertain shrug. The inability of a future conservative administration to agree on a desirable reform strategy seems an almost foregone conclusion given the lack of consensus.
A chapter on Russia in foreign-policy reveals a stark divide among conservatives. While one faction argues for the presence of US and NATO troops in Ukraine, another challenges the wisdom of supporting Ukraine, questioning its relevance to America’s national security.
However, the inconsistency seen in Project 2025 isn’t indicative of a well-engineered plan to alter the framework of the USA’s administration. Instead, it reveals significant rifts within the conservative coalition, manifesting as a series of blinking red signals at their most fragile joints. These dichotomies could provide an opportunity for opponents to employ the classic strategy of divide and rule.
That said, Project 2025 is not without its share of radical proposals. However, its complexity requires more careful analysis than panic-driven social media shares. Given the right strategy, it could potentially provide liberals and other opponents of conservatism to exploit its weaknesses and mute its radicalism.
Historically, conservatives have consistently made numerous attempts at radically deconstructing the administrative state, with Nixon’s administration being a prime example. However, each time history has intervened, preventing the undertaking from fully materializing. Today, Project 2025 presents us with another attempt at a conservative reset, making it imperative that we understand its precedents and approach it with a studious mind, instead of fear.
In conclusion, Project 2025 is not a singular, novel event, but another attempt in a series of conservative pushes to reshape the administrative state to their vision. As opponents, the key is to dissect the document, understand its underpinnings, and devise strategies to counteract any potentially harmful changes. Only then can we say we’ve truly read and understood the ‘book’.
