Some of those changes could be championed in some respects (by any party). I can certainly see an opposite argument that also makes sense on some specific issues.
i.e. The argument for dismantling some of the bureaucratic agencies could be made in a positive light. (by any side in power). If an executive cannot move through the policies they have been elected upon because of a bureaucracy then the bureaucracy is actually a problem. Elected UK politicians have bemoaned the same issue.
We already discussed this rather in depth when Trump was forming a cabinet, and had Elon Musk dismantling the bureaucracies, but I'll give you a flavor of my own positions. Sure, I agree that governmental agencies can do with some streamlining and paring, but judiciously, not the slash-and-burn approach that Musk was taking. He did it without any respect for the work that each agency does, nor care that there is value in career professionals running things. And, including with an eye to getting out women and men of color, which is just racist, in the name of "curing us" from the "wokeism" of DEI. They specifically sought to dismantle much of the Federal government. Because they basically have no understanding of nor respect for what it does.
This is a huge country. We need a certain amount of centralized government to keep it together in a coherent way.
Then we have a common issue that all elected parties try to fill bureaucracies with staff who are friendly to their agenda. This isn't new. There is a lengthy interview with one of Reagan's advisors about the Dept. Education being stuffed with anti-conservative staff decades ago and they felt it difficult to change.
Generally, the President picks people to head them who serve his agenda, but doesn't decimate the rank and file. Also, I'm sorry, but Trump chose a lot of rather unqualified people, and he had the Senate to confirm them. Some Republican senators have spoken of regrets, in hindsight. Certainly, past presidents have chosen like-minded people, but Trump chose yes-men and -women, with no regard to qualifications.
Actually, most so-called Conservatives complain of leftist agendas in Education. I guess Project 2025 are trying to redress the balance or tip the scales in the opposite direction. I understand why you wouldn't like it but it's not really novel. Conservatives typically don't like big bloated Government and disdain the "Hello, I'm from the Government, I'm here to help" mantra.
If a President wants to have some say over the Education agenda, he's going to need a Federal Dept. of Education. The complaint has been mainly about higher education, which is not controlled by the Dept. of Ed. Neither, frankly is the K-12 curriculum, which is more by the states. But the Fed helps with fair access, and funding. Dismantling the DOE has nothing to do with controlling agenda.
I'd wait on the Health stuff for a while before making judgement. I'm sorry - a huge number of people are looking for alternatives to Big Pharma and so-called "Real Science" in the Health sector. Health in the west is pretty awful - and the system is inherently corrupt. Alternative networks are already springing up on the downlow.
I knew this could be a bone of contention between us, so let's save it for later, if you like. But RFK, Jr. is not qualified for the job, and is sowing some chaos. He's fired a lot of qualified people. He discourages vaccines, and measles cases are high in the US.
Why do you need DEI at all? Just hire the best people... and make sure you great opportunities for disadvantaged groups to excel. Not guarantee - Opportunity. Now if you are saying he is hiring bad people then that's a different discussion. You could dislike both DEI and the appointments.
I did say he's hiring bad people. Incompetent. Replacing very good people. Trump, and some like him, think that DEI means hiring less-competent people just because they are of color. The actual intent is to get people in the mix who have historically been passed over. A more diverse field offers better people. The policy need not last forever, but it does take some initiative to get people to step up in hiring with an open mind. The military is a good example. Run forever by men, their inclination was to believe that the best person for the job was a man. Yet, women have proven to make very good leaders, including in the higher ranks of the military. You say, "Just hire the best people." But that depends on who is doing the hiring, and what there preconceptions are, right? Some people need a little help with the opening of their minds.
I think we're on the same page about authoritarianism. Your constitution is in theory an excellent piece of work... but these executive orders should be used sparingly and in emergency - not become a default. (That was also happening before Trump, but has been amplified). Project 2025 actually promotes the checks and balances if you study the text.
I'm glad we're on the same page about authoritarianism. Trump has signed 225 executive orders in just over a year into this term. Compared to 220 in his first 4 years, and 162 in Biden's 4 years. It's too many. I honestly don't see where Project 2025 is in favor of anything other than an imperial presidency. I think it means to dismantle them. Or in any case Trump is. Frankly, the playbook doesn't matter anymore. Trump is doing what he wants. He has a compliant House and Senate, and while some lesser judges are trying to rein him in, the Supreme Court had already given him a lot of power before he even started. What checks and balances? He's trying to cancel the midterms, or control the outcome, which he expects will go against him. That Constitution and we, The People, better be made of some stern stuff.
That was good. I literally laughed out loud.
