Some quotes:
“The Mandate for Leadership” is a 920-page document that details how the next Republican administration will implement radical and sweeping changes to the entirety of government. This blueprint assumes that the next president will be able to rule by fiat under the unitary executive theory (which posits that the president has the power to control the entire federal executive branch). It is also based on the premise that the next president will implement Schedule F, which allows the president to fire any federal employee who has policy-making authority, and replace them with a presidential appointee who is not voted on in the Senate.
So they're gonna take over the executive branch.
And businesses will support and fund this effort because:
The business wish list calls for eliminating federal agencies, stripping those that remain of regulatory power, and deregulating industries. The president would directly manage and influence Department of Justice and FBI cases, which would allow him to pursue criminal cases against political enemies. Environmental law would be gutted, and states would be prevented from enforcing their own environmental laws.
And what about the social wish list?
The social conservative wish list calls for ending abortion, diversity and inclusion efforts, protections for LGBTQ people, and most importantly, banning any and all LGBTQ content. In fact, “The Mandate for Leadership” makes eradicating LGBTQ people from public life its top priority. Its No. 1 promise is to “restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.” They are explicit in how they plan to do so, as you’ll see in the paragraph below. They plan to proceed by declaring any and all LGBTQ content to be pornographic in nature.
“Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”
When they talk about pornography, this includes any content discussing or portraying LGBTQ figures from the children’s books I Am Jazz and And Tango Makes Three to the Trevor Project’s suicide hotline. We know this by looking at how “don’t say gay” laws have been implemented in Florida: This is literally their model. It’s been tried in Virginia. It’s also arguable that LGBTQ parents would be subject to arrest, imprisonment, and being put on sex-offender registries for “exposing children to pornography” simply by being LGBTQ and having children.
It would also likely criminalize any therapist, doctor, or counselor who provided affirming therapy to trans youth. Indeed, the document makes it explicitly clear they want nationwide bans on abortion and access to affirming care for trans youth, while calling for conversion therapies to be the only available treatments. It could be argued as well that people who are visibly trans in public are pornographic or obscene, because they might be seen by a minor. This understanding of intent is in line with the call to “eradicate transgenderism from public life.”
There’s also the matter of the internet: Any Internet Service Provider (ISP) that transmits or receives data about transgender people could potentially be liable if conservatives have their way. When you read the final sentence of the excerpted paragraph, the clear intent is that the same would apply to any social media company that allows any (positive) discussion or depiction of transgender individuals, as it would be considered pornographic and contributing to harming a minor.
And how will they do this shit?
The organizations that drafted “The Mandate for Leadership” understand that blue states, which have sanctuary laws for transgender people, are unlikely to comply. It’s difficult to imagine California arresting and prosecuting teachers, librarians, doctors, therapists, bookstores (virtual or physical), LGBTQ parents, and especially LGBTQ people merely for existing in public. This is why they included the following paragraph:
“Where warranted and proper under federal law, initiate legal action against local officials—including District Attorneys—who deny American citizens the “equal protection of the laws” by refusing to prosecute criminal offenses in their jurisdictions. This holds true particularly for jurisdictions that refuse to enforce the law against criminals based on the Left’s favored defining characteristics of the would-be offender (race, so-called gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) or other political considerations (e.g., immigration status).”
This is calling for the executive branch to use the Department of Justice to threaten prosecution of any local or state officials if they do not charge LGBTQ people and their allies with crimes under the pretense that they are breaking federal and state laws against exposing minors to pornography. If people at the Department of Justice refuse to go along with this, then they can simply be replaced under Schedule F. While the excerpted paragraph above includes references to immigration, the fact that it explicitly includes gender identity, and fits in with the previous calls to designate anything trans-related as pornographic, clearly telegraphs their intent.
The result of these actions will be perhaps the biggest power play against states rights in American history, and the threat is clear. If blue states refuse to turn on their own transgender citizens, then the federal government will do everything in its power to decapitate the leadership of those states using the Department of Justice. Conservatives are making the bet that individual district attorneys will not risk prosecution, and prison, on behalf of a tiny, despised minority. They’re betting that state governors will not be willing to risk both prosecution and a constitutional crisis over transgender people.
Well, fuck!
In addition to voting, what should we do about this?
The only way I would even be remotely worried about this is if Trump wins the election, gains control of both houses of Congress with at least 60 senators, and retains a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court (Thomas and Alito could easily die of old age or poor health in the next 18 months). And if we're at that point, Project 2025 will be the least of our concerns.
This entire spiel assumes that Congress is just going to by and do nothing. It assumes that there wouldn't be thousands of legal filings across the country tying this shit up in courts for years filed before the ink on the EO is even dry. It assumes that at least some in the MAGA crowd won't realize that the leopard will eventually look at them as a meal instead of an ally. Yes, our country is in rough shape right now, but not that rough. There really does come a point where the saying of "you've made your decision, now let's see you enforce it" comes into play, and as traditionally conservative as the military is, I can't see them being in favor of that.
Project 2025 is a right-wing fever dream and nothing more. It's scary to think if it were actually put in place, but the entire manifesto assumes that opposition is going to just roll over and die en masse at every step of the way, when recent history has shown that even some of the Trump devotees have a line in the sand that is too far even for them, and this would go way beyond that.
you're "not even remotely worried" about the fact that one of the two parties that rules the country just wrote a 920-page plan to "eradicate LGBTQ people from public life"? Whether or not they manage to actually do it — and I don't find it as far-fetched as you do — they want to do it. They wrote a serious plan to do it. Maybe it won't be you getting criminalized, but it will be someone. Florida already passed a bill allowed the state to seize trans children from their parents. You're not even remotely worried?
The fact that this is even being contemplated is insane. And let's be clear, it's not a far leap from "eradicate LGBTQ people from public life" to "eradicate LGBTQ people from life." God knows that a lot of those chuds will not see the difference between these statements and start vigilante killings for "being obscene" in public. Truly the stuff of nightmares.
Like @Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world mentioned, it will probably get held up in implementation, but that's my only solace in this because that could cause a whole host of other problems.
the "first 180 days of the presidency" part of the plan might get held up, but the general thrust of the project is going to trickle down like water through a sieve. It might not hit the country in one fell swoop but it'll hit, some places more than others. I see it the same way I see the lead-up to the holocaust: an effort to scapegoat a minority group and divert the outrage of a downwardly mobile middle class away from wealthy capitalists. They're determined, they have a motive, and they have financial backing.
Absolutely! What I find most terrifying is how anyone with a functioning brain can see the progress already made in this goal. Then that coupled with this plan is just the stuff of nightmares.
I thin you're right that it will trickle down and be worse in some areas (re: red states) than others. I can only hope my blue state remains strong.
Never forget that the president of the United States was pitting red states against blue states and withholding life saving PPE during A PANDEMIC.
Yeah. I really need some historians and experts on fascism/authoritarianism to chime in, because this right here is a compelling analysis.
You appear to be underestimating Democratic politicians' willingness to roll ovei and play dead. The last 40 years or so of their past performance don't make this a very promising argument for not worrying.