"A Mandate for Leadership": Institutionalizing Trumpism

"The revolt was near. Not everyone could see it—and not all those who did took it seriously. Trump saw it. He took it seriously. And he became its voice, as the unlikeliest of insurgents, the commercial tycoon who cheated the little guy, who employed illegal workers, who made his products overseas, and who enhanced his inherited fortune through scams and fixers and lawsuits, railing against a shredded social contract from the gilded penthouse of his Manhattan skyscraper. What Trump does not understand is that his populist, inward-facing “Make America Great Again” mantra is less a revelation than a resurrection."
Tim Alberta, American Carnage: On the Frontlines of the Republican Civil War and the Rise of President Trump.

"This is the final battle. With you at my side, we will demolish the deep state. We will expel the warmongers from our government, we will drive out the globalists, we will cast out the communists, we will throw off the sick political class that hates us, we will rout the fake news media and we will liberate America from these villains once and for all."
Donald Trump

As Tim Alberta points out, Donald Trump was the unlikeliest of personalities to articulate and amplify the deep ressentiment of mostly less educated white American males who felt they were being left behind, and that finally erupted in the Presidential elections of 2016. The populist movement that bears his name though, Trumpism, had many antecedents. Economic hardships faced by those that were in one fashion or another, victims of roaring globalization, the growing estrangement between the working  classes and cosmopolitan liberal elites that translated into a furious kulturkampf already prepared the ground for a shake-up in American politics. Moreover, there has always been in the American body politic a consistent illiberal/antiliberal vein that was only defeated by the end of the Second World War when the insulated country rose up to international hegemony. Even then, in the "liberal" era of the Cold War, American conservatism was alive and well, but under attack and certainly not ascendant.

A deep revulsion against liberal morality and sanctimoniousness the severe dislocations of unimpeded market economics that led to the unraveling of communities and exacerbated economic inequalities, as well as the fear of losing "white privilege" combined with an anti-New Deal zealotry that often articulated itself in evangelical language, all propelled Donald Trump to the apex of power in the USA. What is rapidly turning into a Christian Nationalist movement that "combines militant cultural reaction, unilateralism on the world stage, and populist economics" for which Trump has become the icon, does not inspire majority support in the broader American electorate, certainly not in metropolitan centers of even the "red" states.

Yet, the peculiarities of that country’s electoral system, along with the dramatic shift in conservative states toward a harsh version of conservative or reactionary Republicanism; the total surrender of the Republican Party to Trump’s will; the packing of the Supreme Court and many positions in the federal judiciary by judges who hold conservative/reactionary views enable the "illiberal/antiliberal tradition" to politically affect, if not to prevail, in the Federal system as well. It helps of course that many corporate donors and billionaires, starting with Elon Musk, who shunned Trump in 2015-2016, are now squarely behind him, having gone through total amnesia or swallowed the denigrating remarks they made about him after the coup attempt of January 6, 2021.However, it should be noted that -starting with his opportunistic vice-Presidential candidate, J. D. Vance - some of the proponents of the Trumpist agenda favor better wages and pro-worker populist economic policies to secure both reindustrialization and the sanctity of the family, whose erosion is in no small part due to economic hardships. A clash between billionaires and the economically "left-wing" populists within the movement is therefore in the offing, with the former having the upper hand.

This resurgence of the "illiberal/antiliberal tradition" in American politics has the ambition to claim the future of the country and transform it in its own image. One of the most important institutions to theorize and to implement that ambition is the Washington based Heritage Foundation. Long an influential think-tank, Heritage’s claim to fame came from the Ronald Reagan mandate. When he became President in 1981, his administration implemented 60 percent of the recommendations of a report that the organization had published the year before called Mandate for Leadership.

Heritage has now prepared a voluminous report called Project 2025 on how they wish to transform American politics, its administrative structure and its foreign policy. In addition to the report, they prepared lists of potential appointees that they vetted to serve in a second Trump administration. In an interview he gave to the New York Times the President of the Heritage Foundation Kevin Roberts said that his organization’s task was "institutionalizing Trumpism".

Be that as it may, Project 2025 is as close to a blueprint for a possible second Trump term as can be determined. As a result, unlike the first Presidential term, Trump who now also has a well-educated, sharp, ideological and young running mate in J. D. Vance, would not have to rely on the condescendingly termed "adults in the room" and would be able to work with kindred spirits who would bow to his whims and will. That way the long-awaited dream of "movement conservatism" to fully dominate American politics with the power of the Executive at a time of American hegemonic decline and internal cultural polarization could finally materialize. The irony here, of course, is the fact that socially and culturally the country as a whole does not share the views or beliefs of these conservatives, or their zealous religious bent, now that even church attendance in this most devout of all developed countries has gone below 50%.

The document’s recommendations cannot all be implemented and indeed in such a voluminous volume there are articles written by different authors that are not compatible with one another. Still, there is no doubt both based on Trump’s own inclinations, pronouncements and the trajectory of the illiberal right’s conceptual development that the project’s general perspective and approach do reflect the philosophy and broad aims of a potential second Trump administration. That philosophy is squarely in favor of the doctrine of "unitary executive" which does not particularly care for the separation of powers, over-empowers the executive and makes the President unaccountable. It also proposes to deeply politicize the bureaucratic personnel who run the American administration. In sum, in the eyes of many, the Project’s biases, philosophy, political preferences and approach to social realities embody the formula for authoritarian rule in the USA.

The report rests upon four fundamental pillars and in excruciating detail delineates how the goals set according to these will be implemented. The pillars are the following:

1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.
2. Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people.
3. Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats.
4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely-what our Constitution calls "the Blessings of Liberty."

In foreign and security policy the document is decidedly hawkish, and all its policy recommendations are built to maintain American primacy in the global system while downplaying as much as possible multilateralism and multilateral institutions. The goal is not to have any constraints on an administration’s choices in foreign policy. Therefore, the foreign policy outlook is decidedly unilateralist and desirous of shedding America’s responsibilities and commitments in the so-called "rules-based order". It is not strictly isolationist but opts for restraint and favors more concentration on Asia. Although Trump’s whims make a predictive assessment of how exactly his foreign policy choices will shape and where his belligerent rhetoric might carry the day, his record so far suggests that he prefers to avoid wars.

China is seen as the single most important rival/challenger to American power with Russia, North Korea, Iran and Venezuela, cited as minor but still important problematic countries. On China the Project is explicit about its stance: "This tyrannical country with a population of more than 1 billion people has the vision, resources, and patience to achieve its objectives. Protecting the United States from the PRC’s designs requires an unambiguous offensive-defensive mix, including protecting American citizens and their interests, as well as U.S. allies, from PRC attacks and abuse that undermine U.S. competitiveness, security, and prosperity." Trump himself may be harsher on the economic confrontation and more accommodating on the strategic one and may seek to prove how great a dealmaker he is.

Accordingly Trump declared on numerous occasions that he will seek a swift end to the war in Ukraine and will arguably push Ukraine under the bus or let the Europeans assume the responsibility to support it. His allies argue that since Ukraine is losing the war, pushing for a settlement is morally right and this is what should be expected from his administration as soon as he is sworn in. Along these lines they maintain that President Biden would have talked to President Putin to mitigate the situation as was the practice during the Cold War. It is now known that Trump continued to speak with Putin after he left the Presidency. Recent revelations that Elon Musk, who is now Trump’s champion in the tech world, also spoke to Putin several times suggest that the attitude towards Putin’s Russia will be radically different than that of the Biden administration. The Trump team also takes their distance from Ukrainian membership in NATO, certainly in the near future.

In domestic politics the long running goal of conservatives was to dismantle the "administrative state". When it comes to the distribution of power among the branches of government, the project explicitly sides with the theory that the conservatives promoted for a long time: "unitary executive theory". According to this theory, the President has supreme authority over the executive branch and should not tolerate the presence of agencies that operate somewhat independently such as the Department of Justice. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the immunity of the Presidents that cleared almost all potential threats of criminal prosecution against former President Trump, or any President after they leave office, is related to this theory.

Should he be elected, Trump is known to be determined to terminate the independence of the Department of Justice and use its personnel and capacities to persecute his opponents, or anyone deemed a "threat". What may happen to the DOJ is also an implementation of the second pillar cited above, that is, the dismantling of the so-called administrative state. There is no doubt that the US Civil Service is in dire need of comprehensive reform. It no longer attracts the best brains in the country. Yet the Project’s proposed goals go far beyond a reform of the Civil service and come close to dismantling its autonomy by making dismissal easy and demanding political and ideological conformity and loyalty from a vast segment of the top bureaucracy.

The suggested restoration of Schedule F which makes it possible to dismiss civil servants based on a loyalty test is the main tool to refashion the federal government and the way it functions. This will broaden the ranks of political appointees in the federal government to thoroughly politicize the bureaucracy. Traditionally, a new President appoints about 3000 political allies to top positions in the bureaucracy. Reinstating and implementing Schedule F, which Trump instituted with an executive order during his first term and which Biden rescinded, would mean that tens of thousands of appointments in the bureaucracy will be made based on political and ideological conformity. The prevailing principle would be that those bureaucrats work for the President who appointed them and not for upholding the constitution or the existing legal codes of the land.

As would be expected, many of the articles in Project 2025 are anti-globalization, anti-immigrant, anti-environmentalist, anti-engagement with China and, to the extent that they engage with China, they are anti-big Tech. International organizations as a restraining force on American actions or any infringement on sovereignty are anathema. Finally, just like the Biden administration, Project 2025 favors the restoration of manufacturing and industrial base, hence, despite all the free-market rhetoric, it is fundamentally protectionist.

It is true that the kulturkampf in the US revolves primarily around these two concepts and a fair argument can be made that what passes as the left in America has alienated itself from the general public by its authoritarian and dismissive attitude towards those on the other side of the cultural divide on these issues. In a way, a recurring theme of American political and social history, the antagonism between "rednecks" and "pale faces" is playing again. Most polls indicate that the main dividing line for political preferences in the age of Trump is the level of education.

Yet, as the big struggle over abortion rights that may well turn out to be the decisive issue in the very tight Presidential race demonstrates, the conservative imagination can only proceed with its project by controlling women’s bodies which is the firing shot for reversing many gains made by women. In short, religiously inspired conservatism which underpins Project 2025 denies women, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, their upward mobility in all aspects of life as equal individuals and citizens.

If Donald Trump gets a second term to serve as President and implements 60% of this Heritage report like Ronald Reagan a regressive, authoritarian leaning political atmosphere will fall upon the dysfunctional, hyperpolarized and institutionally weakened American democracy. It is not yet clear how much of the Project 2025’s recommendations Trump would be willing to implement. But just to remain true to its spirit would suggest that the social, cultural and political preferences of a demographic group in decline, and the economic interests of tech and other billionaires and corporations would define the course of American politics for some time to come, notwithstanding the inroads Trump has made in black and Latino communities for a variety of reasons.

Given the central role the US plays in world politics, not just by its foreign policy, but by the example of its domestic order, such an eventuality should concern and worry all democrats across the world.

Copyright image: Andrew Harnik / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / Getty Images via AFP
The Heritage Foundation flag flies over the building on July 30, 2024 in Washington, DC.