The Great Divide
As promised, this week I’ll take a closer look at Project 2025. You may be wondering why it is important to focus on this document in such detail. In the conclusion to Project 2025, the former President of the Heritage Foundation states the first Mandate for Leadership was created in 1981 and a new version has been created every four years. (Dans & Groves, 2023, p. 884) In 1981 President Reagan recruited many of the authors of the transition plan to join his administration which executed close to fifty percent of the suggestions during the first year of his term. (p. 884) During his first term, the current President enacted 64 percent of the proposals from the 2016 transition plan by the end of his first year in office. (p. 885) If this information is accurate, it would stand to reason that the current President will again use this transition plan as a guide for policy decisions.
As I mentioned last week, it is important for readers to think critically about what they read, check facts, and analyze language for clarity, accuracy, and congruity. I think this is a good starting point for our examination of Project 2025. The first thing I wanted to know was some background information about the authors. Of the 34 chapter authors and two editors: 28 are men and eight are women; 32 are white, two are black, and two are other; 17 are attorneys, one is a physician, and of the remaining 18, fourteen of them have graduate degrees including either a master’s degree, doctoral degree, or both. Twenty of them served in some capacity with the current President’s first term in office and at least half a dozen are serving with him in the current administration. Why is this important? It provides context for the educational, political, and socioeconomic lens through which the writing of this document was filtered. It is important to note that despite the information provided in the previous two paragraphs, the current President denounced Project 2025 during his campaign. (C-Span, 2024) Denouncement of Project 2025
Sound and effective professional writing is concise, free from slang and buzz words, clear, accurate, and provides credible resources and reference materials to support claims. As a recommended transition plan for the President of the United States, I would consider Project 2025 to be a professional document and expect it to meet these standards.
Several buzz words jumped out at me because they appeared multiple times in the document. The word weaponization occurs approximately nine times (I say approximately because it is a very long document and I may have missed a few). This word as defined in Webster’s dictionary means “to adapt for use as a weapon of war”. (Merriam-Webster, n.d.) As a buzz word, it takes on a negative, deceptive, and accusatory tone in describing the actions of a person or agency. An example from Project 2025 reads “The federal government is a behemoth, weaponized against American citizens and conservative values, with freedom and liberty under siege as never before.” (Dans & Groves, 2023, p. xiv)
What does this sentence actually communicate? The author seems to have strong feelings of dislike and distrust for the current government. Since this was written during the Biden administration and since the author accuses the government of being at war with conservative values, we can assume the author identifies as a conservative. The structure of the sentence also links conservative values with American citizens suggesting the author believes most or all American citizens identify as conservative which would be inaccurate. This statement does not identify specific issues the author has with the government nor does it list particular conservative values that are being targeted. It also does not provide any information that would help the President of the United States make changes in policy to address the unidentified issues with the government or support the unnamed conservative values. There is no additional clarifying information in the paragraph that includes this sentence thus it appears to be a stand-alone condemnation of the federal government. Why then would the author use this type of language if it does not provide factual information or recommendations for change? Since I am not acquainted with the author I cannot speak to their reasoning behind this particular statement. However, authors often use buzz words and inflammatory language to evoke strong feelings in their audience and increase unity for various causes. This is one of the situations I mentioned last week when language can be deceptive. On the surface this sentence makes a very emphatic statement about the destructive force of the government but once you scratch the surface and dig a little deeper it lacks substance. This is why it is imperative for readers to think critically about the content they consume rather than succumb to the power of linguistic gloss and glitter.
The word woke appears in some form approximately 28 times in Project 2025. Twelve of these occurrences are in the foreword section. (Dans & Groves, 2023, pp. 1-17) I will admit, I am not the world’s most grammatically gifted writer so I tend to allow others a lot of leeway and give them the benefit of the doubt, but using this word 12 times in 17 pages does not seem like a lack of understanding of grammatical rules. It is also worth noting that the author of the foreword is a former college history professor and college president so I would be more inclined to believe the repeated use of the word is intentional. (Wyoming Catholic College, n.d.)
The word woke has a long history of expressing a call to action in the black community dating back to the 1920’s. (Robinson, 2022) It has more recently become culturally appropriated primarily by the white conservative community as derogatory slang indicating liberal views on issues of race and social justice in particular. Again, since I am not acquainted with the author, I am unable to determine their reasoning behind the use and overuse of this word which distracted me from content that may have been more informative and meaningful.
In addition to overuse of the word woke, the author of the foreword is quite fond of the word elite, which also occurs multiple times. Over the course of five paragraphs on the same page, the author of the foreword accuses elites of denying rights and being out of touch with the American people. At the expense of overusing direct quotes, I think it is important here in demonstrating the level of emotion and conviction of the author in these statements. Several examples include: “Progressive elites speak in lofty terms of openness, progress, expertise, cooperation, and globalization. But too often, these terms are just rhetorical Trojan horses concealing their true intention – stripping “we the people” of our constitutional authority over our country’s future.”; “Instead, they believe in a kind of 21st century Wilsonian order in which the “enlightened,” highly educated managerial elite runs things rather than the humble patriotic working families who make up the majority of what the elites contemptuously call “fly-over country.””; and “Intellectual sophistication, advanced degrees, financial success, and all other markers of elite status have no bearing on a person’s knowledge of the one thing most necessary for governance: what it means to live well.” (Dans & Groves, p. 10)
These sentences demonstrate the author’s opinion that progressives, who are well educated and wealthy, run the government and make decisions that are not representative of the average working-class family in America. What are the characteristics of the average working-class American? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the highest level of education reported by Americans in 2021 was roughly 10% with less than a high school diploma or GED, 28% with a high school diploma or GED, 15% with some college but no degree, 11% with an associate degree, 24% with a bachelor’s degree, and 14% with a master’s, professional, or doctoral degree. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022) A look at median yearly incomes for 2022 indicate earnings of approximately $36,000 for those without a high school diploma, $42,000 for those with a high school diploma, $50,000 for those with an associate’s degree, $67,000 for those with a bachelor’s degree, and $80,000 for those with a master’s degree or higher. (NCES, 2024)
The author of the foreword chose words that express his inclusion as an average working class American (stripping “we the people” of our constitutional authority over our country’s future). He is the current President of The Heritage Foundation and as mentioned earlier he has been a college professor and college president. He earned a bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and a Doctor of Philosophy in history. (Wyoming Catholic College, n.d.) While his net worth is not publicly available his income from The Heritage Foundation was $926,195 in 2023. (ProPublica, n.d.) Since his education and income would put him in the company of elites based on his own definition, his identification with and presumption to speak for the average working-class American are in conflict with his actual status. He is not the only author in Project 2025 to write from this vantage point. Throughout this document there are numerous references to the political elite making decisions that deny rights and harm working-class Americans but nowhere in this document could I find representation from this group. If the goal of this transition plan is to make recommendations to the President of the United States that will benefit the average working-class American it would strengthen this document if their voices were included. It is simple to accomplish by identifying the population using factors such as income and education, interviewing a representative sample about what would improve their quality of life, and including these responses in the appropriate chapters of Project 2025 based on topic. The Heritage Foundation clearly has the resources available for this work. The lack of these voices in Project 2025 raises the question of how representative the recommendations for change are for working-class America and why the President is relying on it as a guide for policy change.
The last word that caught my eye for overuse in Project 2025 is abortion and its iterations, which appear approximately 176 times. This is an average of about once every five pages. As a transition plan for the next conservative President, this document makes recommendations on foreign and domestic policy, government personnel, defense, general welfare, the economy, and independent regulatory agencies so why is the word abortion used so many times? The author of the foreword lists four broad goals the conservative movement has for America’s future, the first of which is restoring the family as the core of America and protecting our children. (Dans & Groves, p. 3). This goal is referenced throughout project 2025 and includes a heavy emphasis on a pro-life/anti-abortion platform. Many references to this position are presented in a polarized manner with no in-depth discussion of the complexities of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and to decide what happens in and to her body. Inflammatory language is used copiously, including substituting the term anti-life for pro-choice. (p. 585)
We have become a society of extremes. Conservative/liberal, capitalist/socialist, masculine/feminine, pro-life/pro-choice, with many people adopting a world view that if you are not with me then you are against me. Black and white thinking leads to polarization with no middle ground. Picture two groups of people with different beliefs standing on either edge of a canyon yelling at each other across the great divide, with air currents and weather often distorting the message. If each group holds their ground there is no hope of effective communication. When an individual identifies as a conservative, their view of liberals may be narrowly defined by a set of values that are opposite their own. They may have no interest in getting to know someone who identifies as a liberal believing they have nothing in common.
Photo by Jeff Barreca. Waimea Canyon, Kauai, Hawaii. August 2000.
When the world is viewed as separate groups of people based on shared beliefs and characteristics, we lose sight of individuality. While every person is unique, as a human being they share common life experiences. Every person has a family whether it is of biological or chosen origin or some combination of the two. Every person has activities they enjoy, goals they wish to accomplish, losses they are grieving, and beliefs about the world we live in. Every person has a story and listening to it is an opportunity to validate and respect their journey, acknowledge common ground, and thoughtfully consider new or different perspectives. This is the middle ground that pulls us in from the extremes. There may be risks involved in navigating the sides of the canyon on the way to the floor below but meeting in the center provides an opportunity to look someone in the eye and experience a deeper level of connection that is necessary for genuine communication.
Next week, a closer look at the Project 2025 anti-abortion agenda and its promotion of selective unalienable rights and constitutional protections. Until then sisters stay safe, be well, be kind to yourself, support each other, and spread the love.
Photo by Kathy Kroening. Seattle, WA. May 2025
References:
C-SPAN (2024, July 20). Donald Trump Disavows Project 2025. https://www.c-span.org/clip/campaign-2024/donald-trump-disavows-project-2025/5124900
Dans, P., & Groves, S. (Eds.). (2023). Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise/
Appearances of the word weaponization: pp. xiv, 43, 101,135 (2), 161,285, 557, 886.
Appearances of the word woke (and iterations): pp. 1, 8 (3), 9 (2), 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 (2), 19, 38, 43, 48, 60, 62 (2), 135, 156, 204, 284, 285, 320, 462, 606, 692.
Appearances of the word abortion (and iterations): pp. 5, 6, 8, 62, 90,187,191,192, 254, 259 (2), 260 (9), 261 (3), 263, 264, 265, 266, 284 (2), 285, 450, 455 (21), 456 (3), 457 (5), 458 (15), 459 (10), 460 (6), 461 (5), 471 (9), 472 (9), 473 (12), 474 (7), 478 (4), 485 (5), 486 (3), 491 (6), 492 (2), 492, 495, 496 (6), 497 (2), 546, 558 (2), 562 (2), 585 (6), 642, and 694.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved June 28, 2025, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weaponize.
Wyoming Catholic College (n.d.). Kevin D. Roberts, Ph.D. https://wyomingcatholic.edu/person/dr-kevin-roberts/
Robinson, I. (2022, August 26). How Woke Went from “Black” to “Bad”. Legal Defense Fund. https://www.naacpldf.org/woke-black-bad/
United States Census Bureau (2022, February 24). Census Bureau Releases New Educational Attainment Data. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/educational-attainment.html
National Center for Education Statistics (2024). Annual Earning by Educational Attainment. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/2024/cba_508c.pdf
ProPublica (n.d.). Nonprofit Explorer: The Heritage Foundation. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/237327730
Leave a Reply