Project 2025

07/09/24 • 23 min

1 Listener

Let's Know Things

This week we talk about the Heritage Foundation, Agenda 47, and the Democrats in turmoil

We also discuss Christian Nationalism, France’s surprising election outcome, and authoritarianism.

Recommended Book: Filterworld by Kyle Chayka

Transcript

The world is awash with interesting elections this year—there are a record number of people participating in democratic activities, from Indonesia to the EU's 27 governments—and we've just seen the UK's citizenry topple their long-governing Conservative Party in favor their Labour Party, while in France, the far-right party, which was previously relegated to the outskirts, has taken a huge number of parliamentary seats—not dominating the government as some had anticipated, but grabbing a convincing third place, after the first place far-left party, and the current government's second-place, none of which has a majority, which will likely make it difficult for anyone to get anything done in the country until some of these groups figure out a way to work together with each other, which isn't something they've had to do in recent history.

The US election, which arrives later this year, in November, is being especially closely watched by pretty much everyone, even those in far-flung, barely connected to the US, in a practical sense, portions of the world, because the stakes are very high—the US remains the most powerful nation on the planet according to most metrics, and it sets the tone for a lot of geopolitical happenings, as a consequence. It's also being watched because the visions of the two leading contenders, and their respective parties, couldn't be more different.

We've also seen a recent wave of pushback against current President Biden, who's 81 years old, currently, and who has been showcasing some of the consequences of age in a very public manner in recent weeks: perhaps most notably during a debate with his opponent, former President Trump, in late June.

Biden seemed visibly not well during that debate, stumbled and mumbled and lost his train of thought near-constantly, and this brought to the forefront a till-then simmering discontent with his advanced years, and all the potential ramifications of those advanced years, when it comes to running a country like the US, from supporters within his own party.

At the moment, as of the day I'm recording this at least, Biden is saying he'll remain the Democratic candidate and that those murmurings will die down, because that was just a bad night, and he's committed to regaining everyone's confidence.

But there are folks within his loyalty base, including those on the editorial board of the New York Times, and some of his most prominent campaign funders, who have called for him to step aside to make way for someone younger who can continue to carry the torch for the things he's done while in office.

It's time to allow someone like his VP, Kamala Harris, or possibly someone else from within the party, though Harris seems like the obvious choice for many reasons right now, to step in while there's still time to shift the narrative and get people used to the idea of someone else leading the ticket—that's the dominant argument right now, at least.

It's anyone's guess as to whether that'll happen—some prediction markets indicate the odds are something like 33-50% that the Dems will oust Biden somehow, or that he'll step aside willingly, but that would be a significant and historical decision, and it's likely that if it happens, up until the very last moment he'll continue to say he's running, because there would be no upside to doing otherwise.

Interestingly, though, while Biden-related drama has dominated a lot of headlines and airwaves in recent weeks, Trump has had his own, currently smaller, but possibly growing drama to deal with, this one related to a manifesto of sorts written by a collection of some of his most powerful and influential backers.

And that's what I'd like to talk about today: the Project 2025 plan, what's in it, and why Trump has been going out of his way to distance himself from it.

—

Donald Trump's official proposal package—the jumble of policy ideas most campaigns put together and publish as a sort of "here's what we believe and what we'd like to do" document that they can point while running for office—is called Agenda 47, and as tends to be the case with these sorts of documents it contains all sorts of ideas about all sorts of things, including but not limited to implementing universal tariffs on all imported foreign products while lowering taxes on all American people and businesses, cutting federal funding for any school or educational program that teaches Critical Race Theory, increasing the President's ability to fire whomever they want, and negotiating an end to Russia's invasion of ...

This week we talk about the Heritage Foundation, Agenda 47, and the Democrats in turmoil

We also discuss Christian Nationalism, France’s surprising election outcome, and authoritarianism.

Recommended Book: Filterworld by Kyle Chayka

Transcript

And that's what I'd like to talk about today: the Project 2025 plan, what's in it, and why Trump has been going out of his way to distance himself from it.

—

Previous Episode

Chevron Deference

This week we talk about the APA, the Supreme Court, and Marbury v. Madison.

We also discuss the Chevron Doctrine, government agencies, and the administrative state.

Recommended Book: A City on Mars by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith

Transcript

The Supreme Court's 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision was pivotal to US legal theory and practice because it established the concept of judicial review, which essentially said that US courts could assess laws passed through the typical legislative system, through Congress, and, if they determined those laws were unconstitutional, strike them down.

This was a huge rewiring of the US government, as it gave a substantial amount of new power to the court system, and it provided a new check on the legislative system that recentered the Constitution as the source of all law; if the judges decided new laws didn't line up with that original Constitutional intent, according to their interpretation of said intent, the new laws would be a no-go.

This is true of statutes that declare policy, as well, which are generally part of the law-making process, and also help shape regulations, guidelines, and other things of that nature—the fuzzier stuff that goes on to effect things, even when some of those fuzzy statements and implications aren't formalized in law, yet.

So any and all of this stuff that Congress decides on could, at some point, be looked into by the US court system, and that system can say, nope, that doesn't line up with what's in the Constitution—it's not Constitutional—and that means the Constitution, following Marbury v. Madison, became a lot more of a legal reality in the country, rather than just a collection of principles and ideals, which is how some legislators and legal scholars thought of it before this ruling.

Within this same entwined governmental/legal system, Congress sometimes delegates policy decision-making powers to US agencies, allowing them to make legal decisions in cases where Congress passes a law that it is some way ambiguous—saying that there need to be emissions standards on cars, for instance, but leaving the task of coming up with those standards to the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA.

This delegation ability was reinforced by a 1984 Supreme Court decision, Chevron v. The Natural Resources Defense Council, today usually referred to as "Chevron" or the "Chevron decision," the justices unanimously deciding against the DC judicial circuit's ability to set government policy, reminding those justices that judges are unelected officials and thus shouldn't be making law, and that when Congress isn't specific enough in their lawmaking, this can represent an implicit desire for the agencies in charge of implementing the relevant laws in the real world to figure out the specifics for themselves; after all, they would probably know better how to do so than a bunch of lawmakers who are not experts on the subject matter in question.

That case also limited the US court system's ability to review an agency's interpretation of the law, which in that specific case meant that judges shouldn't have the right to look into how US agencies decide to do things, willy-nilly, just because they don't like the outcome.

Instead, they have to adhere to what has become known as the Chevron Doctrine or Chevron Deference, which says, first, the judges have to decide if Congress was clear on the matter—and if so, they go with what Congress said, no questions asked. If Congress was unclear on something, though, then they have to decide if the agency in charge of executing Congress' decision has made reasonable and permissible decisions on that implementation; and if the answer is yes in both cases, the court must accept the agency's decision on the matter.

If not, though, then the court can step in and make some kind of judgement; but it's a fairly ponderous process to get to that point, because of this doctrine, and they will almost always defer to the decision made by the relevant agency, because of that 1980s-era court case.

The Chevron decision is generally considered to be one of the most formative in modern case-law because it empowered US agencies with all sorts of responsibilities and rights they wouldn't have otherwise enjoyed.

The Chevron case, itself, was predicated on a disagreement about the 1963 Clean Air Act, which failed to specifically define what "source" meant, in terms of emitted pollutants; Congress didn't specify. And this ambiguity led to a clarification in 1981, by then-President Reagan's EPA, that allowed companies to bypass the Act's procedures by building-out new, highly polluting components to their plants and factories, as long as they also modified other aspects of those plants and factories in such a way that emissions were reduced.

An ...

Next Episode

The Great Green Wall

This week we talk about protectionist policy, solar panels, and rare earths.

We also discuss Chinese business investment, EVs, and extreme weather events.

Recommended Book: Meet Me By the Fountain by Alexandra Lange

Transcript

The Great Green Wall—the one in China, not the one meant to span the Sahel region, straddling the upper portion of Africa—is officially called the Three-North Shelter Forest Program, and was initially implemented by the Chinese government in 1978.

This program is scheduled to be completed sometime mid-century, around 2050, and its purpose is to keep the Gobi Desert, which spans the lower portion of Mongolia and part of China's northern border, from expanding, which is something large deserts otherwise tend to do through a collection of natural, but often human-amplified processes called aeolian desertification.

The Gobi currently gobbles up about 1,400 square miles, which is around 3,600 square km, of Chinese grassland every year, as dust storms that roll through the area blow away topsoil that allows grasses and other plants to survive. And those storms become more powerful as the climate shifts, and as more grassland is turned to desert, giving the winds more leeway, fewer things keeping them from blowing hard and scooping up more soil, and as the roots of the plants on the fringes of the desert dry up, which usually keep the soil in place, become newly exposed to these influences, withering, their roots holding things together less tight than before, the process continuing to move ever outward.

Around a quarter of China's total landmass is already desert, and while there are a number of other causes of the country's desertification, including coastal erosion and the incursion of salty water into otherwise freshwater areas, this type, aeolian desertification, is one that they can tackle somewhat directly, if still at great expense and with muddled levels of success.

So the Great Green Wall of China is meant to stop that desertification, it is a potential means of tackling this issue, and it does this by keeping those winds from blowing away the topsoil, and over time is meant to help reclaim areas that have been turned into desert by this collection of processes.

And those in charge of this program do this by basically planting a huge number of trees, creating sturdier root systems to keep soil from blowing away, blocking the winds, and over time, the trees are meant to help new ecosystems grow in areas that have been previously diminished; holding everything together, soil-wise, but also adding nutrients to the ground as their leaves fall; those natural processes slowly reestablishing new layers of productive soil.

The area they're attempting to swathe with newly planted trees is huge, and by that 2050 end date, it's anticipated that they'll need to plant something like 88 million acres of forests across a belt of land that's about 3,000 miles wide and nearly 900 miles deep in some areas.

Local governments that have been largely tasked with making all this happen in their jurisdictions have claimed some successes in this ambition over the years, though one of the biggest criticisms leveled against those same governments is that they often spend a lot of time and money planting large swathes of trees, stabilizing some areas for a time, but then they fail to maintain those forests, so they more or less disappear within just a few years.

This can actually leave some of the afflicted areas worse off than they would have otherwise been, as some of these trees are essentially invasive species, not optimized for the local conditions, and they consume more water than is available, gobbling up resources other plants need to spring up around them, and they thus blight the areas they're meant to enrich, killing off the smaller plantlife, not supporting and expanding it, and then they die because they're undernourished, themselves.

While China plants more trees than the rest of the world, combined, due to this and similar projects, then, the system underpinning all of this planting isn't typically optimized for long-term success, and it often succumbs to the needs of local politicians, not the desired outcomes of the program, overall.

Also, in the cases where the forests are sustained longer-term, they often to create monocultures that are more akin to plantations than forests, which makes them more susceptible to disease—like the one that killed more than a billion poplar trees that were planted in Northwestern China in 2000, leading to a 20-year-or-so setback in the program—and that also makes them faster-growing, but less effective as carbon sinks than slower-growth versions of the same; they get big faster, but they don't...