The intentions, choices, and actions discussed in Project2025 reflect a fear-based, factually unfounded views about people and people actively supporting a community. That they are also completely at odds with our Constitution's root views of human capacity is clear. If used to reshape American gover…
The intentions, choices, and actions discussed in Project2025 reflect a fear-based, factually unfounded views about people and people actively supporting a community. That they are also completely at odds with our Constitution's root views of human capacity is clear. If used to reshape American governance institutions and public thinking, they undermine the norms and relationships of democratic society that the Constitution was chosen to support.
So why are so many many Americans either flocking to it and its promoters or are aware of but not troubled by it? There does not seem to be one answer to this or even a bunch of useful answers to this.
Those who support or are mostly unconcerned about Project2025 may see in it solutions. Solutions to what?
In her recent observations in her Civil Discourse substack article, "The Most Important Things About Project 2025", Joyce Vance, Jul 11 2024, Joyce Vance relates a conversation which involved a bit of clear thinking about two provisions, one being 'border security and immigration enforcement' and the other 'end FDA approval for mifepristone and place greater restrictions on its use while it remains available'.
For Ms Vance and the person with whom she was having the conversation, these provisions do not constitute solutions. Ms Vance presents a clear and brief set of viewpoints here, and this is important in both personal and public conversations generally and for this specific Project.
The assessment here presented in 'Project 2025 Attacks...' involves social norms (diversity, equity, inclusiveness).
Not yet having said much that's new or helpful yet, I'll offer that the view of Mr Wilhoit that you quote is helpful, "I’m reminded of Frank Wilhoit’s wisdom that, 'Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.' ” If we think in terms of 'exclusion-ism' in place of 'conservatism', then perhaps we are thinking a bit more near to the source of the interpretation of solution through exclusion.
The forms of social or political exclusionism that, historically, have been experienced have been cruel and destructive to real people and people's capacity to avoid violent conflict with each other. This could be enough evidence to give most people enough reason to work against Project 2025.
What we hear from people who support or who choose to not actively oppose the Project is that they don't feel it excludes or affects them or the people they care about. Doesn't that seem callous, hateful, irresponsible, and irrational?
To me, Project 2025 is callous, hateful, irresponsible and irrational, is anti-societal, is a warning, very sharp and clear, about the extent to which many Americans form personal norms for relationship on fears instead of on active, experience-based trusted relationships and relationship outcomes. Does Project 2025 correctly, humanly, and effectively have this problem in mind? It does not.
Can we have conversations often enough and with effect enough between now and Nov to, as Ms Vance did through mutual honest and respectful conversation, make this danger clear? Can we afford not to?
Thank you, Qasim, for this assessment.
The intentions, choices, and actions discussed in Project2025 reflect a fear-based, factually unfounded views about people and people actively supporting a community. That they are also completely at odds with our Constitution's root views of human capacity is clear. If used to reshape American governance institutions and public thinking, they undermine the norms and relationships of democratic society that the Constitution was chosen to support.
So why are so many many Americans either flocking to it and its promoters or are aware of but not troubled by it? There does not seem to be one answer to this or even a bunch of useful answers to this.
Those who support or are mostly unconcerned about Project2025 may see in it solutions. Solutions to what?
In her recent observations in her Civil Discourse substack article, "The Most Important Things About Project 2025", Joyce Vance, Jul 11 2024, Joyce Vance relates a conversation which involved a bit of clear thinking about two provisions, one being 'border security and immigration enforcement' and the other 'end FDA approval for mifepristone and place greater restrictions on its use while it remains available'.
For Ms Vance and the person with whom she was having the conversation, these provisions do not constitute solutions. Ms Vance presents a clear and brief set of viewpoints here, and this is important in both personal and public conversations generally and for this specific Project.
The assessment here presented in 'Project 2025 Attacks...' involves social norms (diversity, equity, inclusiveness).
Not yet having said much that's new or helpful yet, I'll offer that the view of Mr Wilhoit that you quote is helpful, "I’m reminded of Frank Wilhoit’s wisdom that, 'Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.' ” If we think in terms of 'exclusion-ism' in place of 'conservatism', then perhaps we are thinking a bit more near to the source of the interpretation of solution through exclusion.
The forms of social or political exclusionism that, historically, have been experienced have been cruel and destructive to real people and people's capacity to avoid violent conflict with each other. This could be enough evidence to give most people enough reason to work against Project 2025.
What we hear from people who support or who choose to not actively oppose the Project is that they don't feel it excludes or affects them or the people they care about. Doesn't that seem callous, hateful, irresponsible, and irrational?
To me, Project 2025 is callous, hateful, irresponsible and irrational, is anti-societal, is a warning, very sharp and clear, about the extent to which many Americans form personal norms for relationship on fears instead of on active, experience-based trusted relationships and relationship outcomes. Does Project 2025 correctly, humanly, and effectively have this problem in mind? It does not.
Can we have conversations often enough and with effect enough between now and Nov to, as Ms Vance did through mutual honest and respectful conversation, make this danger clear? Can we afford not to?