Topic: The Left
“Left to our own devices, the American people rejected European monarchy and colonialism just as we rejected slavery, second-class citizenship for women, mercantilism, socialism, Wilsonian globalism, Fascism, Communism, and (today) wokeism. To the Left, these assertions of patriotic self-assurance are just so many signs of our moral depravity and intellectual inferiority—proof that, in fact, we need a ruling elite making decisions for us.”
He seems to be saying that the Left supports women being second-class citizens. Which is ironic, given that the Right’s policies on women more or less afford them the same rights over their own bodies as livestock (and less bodily autonomy than we actually afford corpses in this country.)
Full contextual analysis of the foreword here.
“(Whether it be) mask and vaccine mandates, school and business closures, efforts to keep Americans from driving gas cars or using gas stoves, or efforts to defund the police, indoctrinate schoolchildren, alter beloved books, abridge free speech, undermine the colorblind ideal, or deny the biological reality that there are only two sexes, the Left’s steady stream of insanity appears to be never-ending.”
That’s a lot to unpack.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1: Taking the Reins of Government here.
“…incoming policy councils will need to move rapidly to lead policy processes around cross-cutting agency topics, including countering China, enforcing immigration laws, reversing regulatory policies in order to promote energy production, combating the Left’s aggressive attacks on life and religious liberty, and confronting “wokeism” throughout the federal government.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.1: White House Office here.
“…the Department of Defense is a deeply troubled institution. It has emphasized leftist politics over military readiness, recruiting was the worst in 2022 that it has been in two generations, and the Biden Administration’s profoundly unserious equity agenda and vaccine mandates have taken a serious toll.”
According to the Army recruitment website, it’s not “leftist policies” that are the problem. “71% of youth do not qualify for military service because of obesity, drugs, physical and mental health problems, misconduct, and aptitude.” [Source]
Fact check: “While Republicans have pointed to the vaccine mandate creating a retention issue, the Defense Department says all of the military services had surpassed their retention goals for the first 10 months of the 2023 fiscal year, which began on October 1, 2022. The services have exceeded retention goals even as the military has faced challenges in recruiting new service members. [Source].
Full contextual analysis of Section 2: The Common Defense here. [Source].
“Unfortunately for our nation, the federal government’s newest department became like every other federal agency: bloated, bureaucratic, and expensive. It also lost sight of its mission priorities. DHS has also suffered from the Left’s wokeness and weaponization against Americans whom the Left perceives as its political opponents.”
I wish I could tell you what the author means by this. He’s saying the the Department of Homeland Security is weaponized against anyone who isn’t “woke” (apparently), but he doesn’t actually cite any examples of this, nor explain in any way. This must be the periodic mention of the “woke” boogeyman at work here.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security here.
“The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is a DHS component that the Left has weaponized to censor speech and affect elections at the expense of securing the cyber domain and critical infrastructure, which are threatened daily. A conservative Administration should return CISA to its statutory and important but narrow mission.”
There’s the woke boogeyman again! Cuccinelli doesn’t cite any specific examples of CISA being weaponized either. He’s suggesting that CISA has been involved in activities that go beyond its intended role, such as monitoring or influencing only speech, possibly through partnerships with social media companies or other platforms to address misinformation or disinformation. It’s telling that he thinks that combating disinformation harms the Right – it indicates that they’re reliant on lies to keep their messaging intact. Again, I’m taking a stab at what Cuccinelli is talking about here – he doesn’t specify how CISA is being “weaponized” against the “non-woke.”
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.2: Department of Homeland Security here.
“Corporate America, technology companies, research institutions, and academia must be willing, educated partners in this generational fight to protect our national security interests, economic interests, national sovereignty, and intellectual property as well as the broader rules-based order—all while avoiding the tendency to cave to the left-wing activists and investors who ignore the China threat and increasingly dominate the corporate world.”
He’s suggesting here that industries involved in areas like cutting-edge technology and intellectual property are susceptible to foreign influence and theft, especially from China, so they must be mindful of that possibility (true). The mention of investors implies concern that financial motivations in China or from Chinese partnerships might outweigh considerations of national security or ethical concerns in corporate decision-making. It does seem disingenuous for Carmack to point fingers at the Left for making ethically dubious business decisions involving with China when Ivanka Trump received 41 fast-tracked trademarks from China after her father was elected President.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.4: Intelligence Community here.
“Not only is the federal government trillions of dollars in debt and unable to afford the more than half a billion dollars squandered on leftist opinion each year, but the government should not be compelling the conservative half of the country to pay for the suppression of its own views.”
Wow. You don’t get much clearer in your intentions than that statement. Defuding public broadcasting would result in a number of consequences including educational, cultural and local programming being reduced or canceled; small or rural stations being forced to close, leading to a loss of access to reliable information in underserved areas; public broadcasters might have to turn to commercialized funding to stay afloat, potentially leading to biased and commercial programming that appeals to advertisers rather than the public interest, huge impact on free access to information, and more.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.5: Media Agencies: U.S. Agency for Global Media & Corporation for Public Broadcasting here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“PBS and NPR do not even bother to run programming that would attract conservatives.”
That’s…an interesting admission. I guess no conservative child has ever benefited from Sesame Street or Mister Rogers. No conservative has ever enjoyed NOVA, Antiques Roadshow, or Austin City Limits. No conservatives like Downton Abbey or Poldark, or the Great British Baking Show. No conservative could possibly learn anything from NPR’s many news, financial, or cultural programs. Their disdain for science, art, humanity, culture, and education is on full display here.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.5: Media Agencies: U.S. Agency for Global Media & Corporation for Public Broadcasting here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“It [the Biden administration] has dispensed with decades of bipartisan consensus on foreign aid and pursued policies that contravene basic American values and have antagonized our partners in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It has decoupled U.S. assistance from free-market reforms that are the keystone of economic and political stability and has teamed with global institutions to impose central planning diktats on an unprecedented scale. Wasteful budget increases requested by the Administration and appropriated by Congress have outstripped USAID’s capacity to spend funds responsibly, and U.S. foreign aid has been transformed into a massive and open-ended global entitlement program captured by—and enriching—the progressive Left.”
This is more highly partisan/exaggerated framing. The Biden Administration has shifted foreign aid priorities, but whether it has “dispensed with bipartisan consensus” is debatable. U.S. foreign aid has traditionally focused on issues like democracy promotion, economic development, and humanitarian assistance. While the Biden Administration has emphasized climate change, gender equality, and racial justice more than previous administrations, these are not entirely new focuses. Critics argue that these shifts break from bipartisan norms, but much of the core of U.S. aid policy – such as disaster relief and development – remains consistent.
The phrase “basic American values” is vague and subjective. Supporters of Biden’s policies might argue that promoting climate action, gender equality, and inclusivity align perfectly with modern American values, particularly in addressing global challenges. Conservative critics may see these priorities as diverging from traditional foreign aid goals like economic development or anti-communism.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.