Mandate for (conservative) Leadership by the 2025 Project

[temporal1]

Maybe some of those hopeful conservatives with a positive world view could infiltrate the Heritage Foundation.

i don’t know anything about it, nor am i attracted to it, based only on the OP.
i’m not interested in organizing for political purposes.

[Ken]

The Heritage Foundation has a released a nearly 1,000-page action plan for an effective conservative executive branch of the US federal government as soon as the next conservative president is elected (or, the next president who is on board with the neoconservative agenda laid forth in the document).

Most of it seems to be a plan to train people who are loyal to the conservative agenda on the workings of the executive office, so that they can be prepared to immediately be assigned to office by the next loyal president. This book is the "first pillar" of a 4-pillar process.

So basically they are trying to become the Federalist Society but for the executive branch.

I suspect not much will come of it no matter who wins. I seriously doubt that any Republican president is ever going to pick his cabinet from a pre-selected group of Heritage Foundation trainees. Trump most certainly wouldn't and I doubt any other would either. In real life it doesn't work like that.

Political appointees are chosen for all sorts of political reasons, one of the most important being loyalty to the president not the Heritage Foundation. And lower-level political appointees are vetted and chosen by the president's transition team, again for the same reasons. The Heritage Foundation clearly wants a prime seat at that table. I kind of doubt many Republican presidents are going to cede that power to them any more than a Democratic president would cede that power to some liberal think tank.

This strikes me as an attempt by the "old guard" of the traditional old GOP of Reagan and Bush to seize back control of the party after seeing it spiral out of their control during the Trump years. And I suspect there is a lot of "old guard" money behind it so they had better produce something pretty like a 1,000 page document and action plan to please their donors.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

This strikes me as an attempt by the "old guard" of the traditional old GOP of Reagan and Bush to seize back control of the party after seeing it spiral out of their control during the Trump years. And I suspect there is a lot of "old guard" money behind it so they had better produce something pretty like a 1,000 page document and action plan to please their donors.

Huh. To me, reading some of the rhetoric (at least in the foreward) this sounds very much like the MAGA new guard, insistent that the nation will crumble unless THEY take a firmer grip on the reins of power in the government.

It's basically a bunch of conservatives saying "Okay, there are a lot of checks and balances in our nation's power structure, which makes any attempt at real authoritarian leadership in the right direction ultimately fruitless. So let's learn how these checks and balances work, plan how we can mitigate them, and train up hundreds of loyalists to step into these various positions so that the levers of power start moving in one direction (our direction) instead of being pulled fruitlessly in too many directions at once."
In other words, it's not a plan to rehabilitate the GOP. It's a plan to be effective in taking the reins of power, effective against the limiting power of bureaucracy and checks and balances, effective to enact real change in America. They obviously feel very strongly that if they don't take more power than the presidency alone can offer, then some sort of doomsday will happen.

[Josh]

This strikes me as an attempt by the "old guard" of the traditional old GOP of Reagan and Bush to seize back control of the party after seeing it spiral out of their control during the Trump years. And I suspect there is a lot of "old guard" money behind it so they had better produce something pretty like a 1,000 page document and action plan to please their donors.

Huh. To me, reading some of the rhetoric (at least in the foreward) this sounds very much like the MAGA new guard, insistent that the nation will crumble unless THEY take a firmer grip on the reins of power in the government.

You do realise the left and Democrats say the same thing, right?

It's basically a bunch of conservatives saying "Okay, there are a lot of checks and balances in our nation's power structure, which makes any attempt at real authoritarian leadership in the right direction ultimately fruitless. So let's learn how these checks and balances work, plan how we can mitigate them, and train up hundreds of loyalists to step into these various positions so that the levers of power start moving in one direction (our direction) instead of being pulled fruitlessly in too many directions at once."
In other words, it's not a plan to rehabilitate the GOP. It's a plan to be effective in taking the reins of power, effective against the limiting power of bureaucracy and checks and balances, effective to enact real change in America. They obviously feel very strongly that if they don't take more power than the presidency alone can offer, then some sort of doomsday will happen.

I read it differently: authoritarian gatekeeping already exists and they want a counterbalance to it so that conservative minded people have some chance of actually governing.

[HondurasKeiser]

This strikes me as an attempt by the "old guard" of the traditional old GOP of Reagan and Bush to seize back control of the party after seeing it spiral out of their control during the Trump years. And I suspect there is a lot of "old guard" money behind it so they had better produce something pretty like a 1,000 page document and action plan to please their donors.

Huh. To me, reading some of the rhetoric (at least in the foreward) this sounds very much like the MAGA new guard, insistent that the nation will crumble unless THEY take a firmer grip on the reins of power in the government.

It's basically a bunch of conservatives saying "Okay, there are a lot of checks and balances in our nation's power structure, which makes any attempt at real authoritarian leadership in the right direction ultimately fruitless. So let's learn how these checks and balances work, plan how we can mitigate them, and train up hundreds of loyalists to step into these various positions so that the levers of power start moving in one direction (our direction) instead of being pulled fruitlessly in too many directions at once."
In other words, it's not a plan to rehabilitate the GOP. It's a plan to be effective in taking the reins of power, effective against the limiting power of bureaucracy and checks and balances, effective to enact real change in America. They obviously feel very strongly that if they don't take more power than the presidency alone can offer, then some sort of doomsday will happen.

I agree with much of this analysis and agree with Ken that nearly zero of this will be implemented in any meaningful way. I disagree though that the desire is to overcome checks and balances inasmuch as the bureaucracy is not a constitutional check on one of the 3 actual branches of government. Rather it appears the Heritage folks are looking for a way to take meaningful control of the bureaucracy; that mystical 4th branch of government that is:
1. Unelected and very difficult to hold accountable
2. The "thing" we most come into contact with when we have to deal with "government"
3. The entity that truly runs the show in the executive branch via regulation, fiat, investigations and enforcement of their own rules.
4. Staffed with people concerned about self-perpetuation and generally inimical to local control, heterogeneity and independent institutions.

I think a reigning in of the bureaucracy is a good thing though I hold a dim view of Heritage and their designs here.

[Ken]

This strikes me as an attempt by the "old guard" of the traditional old GOP of Reagan and Bush to seize back control of the party after seeing it spiral out of their control during the Trump years. And I suspect there is a lot of "old guard" money behind it so they had better produce something pretty like a 1,000 page document and action plan to please their donors.

Huh. To me, reading some of the rhetoric (at least in the foreward) this sounds very much like the MAGA new guard, insistent that the nation will crumble unless THEY take a firmer grip on the reins of power in the government.

It's basically a bunch of conservatives saying "Okay, there are a lot of checks and balances in our nation's power structure, which makes any attempt at real authoritarian leadership in the right direction ultimately fruitless. So let's learn how these checks and balances work, plan how we can mitigate them, and train up hundreds of loyalists to step into these various positions so that the levers of power start moving in one direction (our direction) instead of being pulled fruitlessly in too many directions at once."
In other words, it's not a plan to rehabilitate the GOP. It's a plan to be effective in taking the reins of power, effective against the limiting power of bureaucracy and checks and balances, effective to enact real change in America. They obviously feel very strongly that if they don't take more power than the presidency alone can offer, then some sort of doomsday will happen.

I disagree. Other than judges, Trump didn't really govern as a traditional conservative. For example, he ballooned the deficit with enormous pandemic relief spending and made sure that his name was front and center on all those relief checks.

And a lot of his executive branch actions were ineffectual because he insisted on sliding in Trump (MAGA) loyalists as "acting" directors of various agencies rather than going through the normal confirmation process. Because that meant it was easier for him to control them.

I was actually working in the Federal government during the Bush years and he was frankly more effective than Trump because he appointed solid qualified conservatives to most positions rather than unqualified "acting" personal loyalists like Trump did. In fact, that was Trump's personal trademark. For example: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/12/trump-a ... roles.html

Following Alex Acosta’s resignation as secretary of Labor, President Donald Trump has over a dozen high-level acting officials leading agencies in his administration.

All of these positions require Senate confirmation, except for White House chief of staff. Acting officials can serve for no more than 210 days under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998.

Trump has expressed a preference for acting officials.

“It’s easier to make moves when they’re acting,” Trump said on CBS’ Face The Nation in February. ” I like ‘acting’ because I can move so quickly. It gives me more flexibility.”

Within Trump’s cabinet, the Pentagon’s Mark Esper, Homeland Security’s Kevin McAleenan, and now, Labor’s Patrick Pizzella serve in an acting capacity. So do Trump’s U.N. Ambassador, and Small Business administrator.

That is the exact opposite of what the Heritage Foundation is talking about. And the very thing they want to change in the next Republican administration. They don't want a bunch of MAGA folks in government loyal only to Trump and his whims. They want movement conservatives loyal to older GOP conservative ideals.

[Ken]

1. Unelected and very difficult to hold accountable
2. The "thing" we most come into contact with when we have to deal with "government"
3. The entity that truly runs the show in the executive branch via regulation, fiat, investigations and enforcement of their own rules.
4. Staffed with people concerned about self-perpetuation and generally inimical to local control, heterogeneity and independent institutions.

I think a reigning in of the bureaucracy is a good thing though I hold a dim view of Heritage and their designs here.

I would tend to disagree with this analysis.

The administrative state is really the creation of Congress which makes the laws that it implements and funds the agencies that compose it. Yes, the executive (president) has direct authority over the administrative state through the various chains of command from the cabinet secretaries on down. But the administrative state is actually answerable to the laws and directions passed by Congress not the whims of the president. And they take an oath to the Constitution not to the president.

In addition, virtually every bit of slow bureaucratic process inside the administrative state is the direct result of laws and funding decisions made by Congress. Not foot-dragging by "unelected bureaucrats"

Congress also has an important oversight role over the executive branch. Which they often waste by spending endless time chasing after endless political rabbit holes things like Hunter Biden's laptop or Benghazi rather than say the operations of the EPA or Department of Transportation. But that is neither here nor there I guess. But they certainly could be doing more effective oversight if they wanted.

Personally I would prefer an administrative state that is constrained by the rule of law and budgets as passed by Congress rather than one that swings back and forth in an extreme partisan fashion based on whoever is in the White House at the moment. And it goes both ways. Do conservatives really want Biden loyalists to be completely unleashed to wield the administrative state as they see fit? Or loyalists of some future Kamala Harris administration? I suspect not.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I agree with much of this analysis and agree with Ken that nearly zero of this will be implemented in any meaningful way. I disagree though that the desire is to overcome checks and balances inasmuch as the bureaucracy is not a constitutional check on one of the 3 actual branches of government. Rather it appears the Heritage folks are looking for a way to take meaningful control of the bureaucracy; that mystical 4th branch of government that is:
1. Unelected and very difficult to hold accountable
2. The "thing" we most come into contact with when we have to deal with "government"
3. The entity that truly runs the show in the executive branch via regulation, fiat, investigations and enforcement of their own rules.
4. Staffed with people concerned about self-perpetuation and generally inimical to local control, heterogeneity and independent institutions.

I think a reigning in of the bureaucracy is a good thing though I hold a dim view of Heritage and their designs here.

You're right. It's the beauracracy they are trying to wrangle, not official checks and balances. And these are good observations of that beauracracy. I wonder if their idea of "small government" includes massively shrinking that beauracracy at all.

[Josh]

Conservatives who have tried to shrink the bureaucracy have generally ran into a brick wall (particularly when trying to shrink the military-industrial complex).

Eventually, there will be someone on the "conservative" or right-wing side who realises the bureaucracy actually represents the seat of power, and the contest for that seat of power will be engaged with the progressive left, who has pretty much captured the bureaucracy.

"Principled conservatism" means yielding power to the bureaucracy which always grows and ever infringes on the freedom of normal people in order to continue expanding itself. For this reason, "principled conservatism" will continue to lose and continue to shrink.

It is telling that many on the left now complain that conservatives are not being "principled". Perhaps the left could lead by example by following some of their own principles, such as not amassing and wielding power for power's sake.

[Ken]

Conservatives who have tried to shrink the bureaucracy have generally ran into a brick wall (particularly when trying to shrink the military-industrial complex).

Eventually, there will be someone on the "conservative" or right-wing side who realises the bureaucracy actually represents the seat of power, and the contest for that seat of power will be engaged with the progressive left, who has pretty much captured the bureaucracy.

"Principled conservatism" means yielding power to the bureaucracy which always grows and ever infringes on the freedom of normal people in order to continue expanding itself. For this reason, "principled conservatism" will continue to lose and continue to shrink.

It is telling that many on the left now complain that conservatives are not being "principled". Perhaps the left could lead by example by following some of their own principles, such as not amassing and wielding power for power's sake.

Do you think that conservatives are really being principled when they say they want to shrink the government? Or do you think they are just being opportunistic panderers?

Here's one example. Ron DeSantis claims that he wants to eliminate four departments of government: Education, Commerce, Energy, and IRS. He announced this two months ago: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-202 ... 023-06-29/

Let's just examine one of those departments: Commerce.

The Commerce Department does the following things:

• Census Bureau (mandated by the Constitution...oops, can't eliminate that)
• Patent and Trademark Office (oops, also in the Constitution, can't eliminate that)
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (also mandated by the Constitution but now more involved in areas of cybersecurity than physical weights and measures).
• Bureau of Economic Analysis and Economic and Statistics Administration (collect much of the economic data used by the Treasury and Federal
• Reserve to manage the economy). Does DeSantis really want the people steering the American economy to be flying blind?
• Office of Export Enforcement (small office that prevents sensitive technologies from being exported to countries like China)
• National Marine Fisheries Service (manages all the commercial fisheries in the US EEZ) so no regulation of commercial fishing? Just turn our coasts into a wild west free for all for any country to come strip mine our oceans? I doubt Floridians would be happy with that prospect.
• National Ocean Service (does all the mapping of the sea floor in the US EEZ for science and navigation)
• National Weather Service (operates weather satellites and generates weather forecasts nationwide)
• National Hurricane Center (tracks hurricanes and other tropical storms). One thinks that a governor of Florida would want to keep this agency around.

So no, I don't actually think DeSantis is being principled when he says he wants to eliminate the Department of Commerce. I don't think he would even eliminate one single branch or sub-agency of the Department of Commerce. Not one. I think he is doing nothing more than performative pandering that actually makes him look very stupid and unqualified to lead the Federal government in the first place. And the people who listen to him get stupider as well if they think he is serious and if they believe his words that eliminating the Department of Commerce is a viable idea.