The Department of Defen(ding our political perspective)

 In my last entry, I began looking at the section of the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” on the Department of Defense, by Christopher Miller.  There’s a lot about this chapter that is beyond my scope of knowledge, especially when it comes to the particulars of different types of tanks, nuclear arsenal, and so forth. So, I cannot and will not address any of those topics either positively or negatively. There are, however, some aspects of Miller’s essay worth noting.

First, it seems that all of the essays in P2025 are required to give lip service to dismissing critical race theory along with diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. I know military veterans who take a lot of pride in how the US Army was one of first institutions in America to defy color codes and treat people of different colors equally. Of course it was not a blemish-free process by any means, but the Army did pursue an intentional process of overcoming its own history of racism. I imagine back then they had folks arguing that such a focus was harming their mission also. Sigh.

Likewise, there seems to be a requirement for these essays to decry Marxist ideology and indoctrination everywhere. Miller follows suit. None of this ideology is spelled out, though, so one is left wondering if the kind of Marxism he has in mind would include the base housing and spousal support that he argues is necessary for enlisted personnel. Believe me, I am all for improving base housing and providing services that make it easier for families when someone is stationed to move or deployed and has to go away. I agree with Miller that government-provided childcare and employment assistance seems to be something we are obliged to offer when families make such sacrifices. I just want to point out that those are precisely the kinds of programs that fall under the criticism of being “socialist” when they are suggested for anyone else. So, perhaps some kinds of Marxist ideas or programs might be worth discussing, rather than simply employing the bugaboo term to suggest nefarious forces at work. 

And finally, Miller suggests reinstating service members to active duty who were discharged for not receiving the COVID vaccine. Those service members refused direct orders based on the kind of objective science that Miller argues elsewhere should be required of all military decisions. Medical science is not opinion or indoctrination, just because someone’s political loyalties require them to question it. 

Honest to goodness, I wish Miller had said to the P2025 folks, “I know we’re supposed to let your rank partisanship permeate every bit of this project, but some things are too important to be relegated to your political ends.”  That would have been an act of uncommon courage.

Mark of St. Mark

The Department of Defense

I continue to read through and blog through the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025.” You can find it here. Section Two of P2025 is entitled, “The Common Defense” and it begins with an introduction (by someone) that notes that neither of the long-time honored parts of the executive branch – the Department of Defense (formerly “War Department”) and State Department – are living up to their standards and need to be put aright by the next president. I don’t want to jump the gun (so to speak), but as it turns out, it’s the Democrats’ fault. 

The first part of this section, “The Department of Defense (DOD),” is written by Christopher Miller, who held several posts within the Trump administration and formerly an army Green Beret and Colonel. He begins by citing a litany of problems that are taking a serious toll on the DOD, among which are “a two-tiered culture of accountability that shields senior officers and officials while exposing junior officers and soldiers in the field, wasteful spending, wildly shifting security policies, exceedingly poor discipline in program execution, and (most recently) the Biden Administration’s profoundly unserious equity agenda and vaccine mandates …”

Just a quick note: The DOD is huge and, therefore, probably does have a boatload of issues to address, constantly and across many changes of leadership. The DOD consistently is called to areas that are dangerous and life-threatening, so those issue are genuinely matters of life and death, whether for US troops, enemy combatants, or civilians caught in the crossfire. Miller’s choice to name the Biden Administration is not surprising given the manifest intent of this whole document, but it is disheartening. If he really were as interested in de-politicizing military decisions (p.92), this chapter could have gone a long way of demonstrating how. For example, if “wildly shifting security policies” contribute to the current problems for the DOD, why not name the Trump Administration’s complete 180 on NATO and his accommodating stance toward Kim Jung Un and Vladamir Putin as stunning examples? Miller does mention later, “The United States and its allies also face real threats from Russia, as evidenced by Vladimir Putin’s brutal war in Ukraine …” but does not cop up to how the administration of which he was a part dissed US allies and encouraged Russia. And “vaccine mandates”? That’s only a “problem” if people stubbornly refuse to do what their commanders deem are best for their safety based on the best available science. 

Miller also argues that the DOD should make providing support to the Department of Homeland Security its 3rd overriding priority. The DOD’s 3rd overriding priority! 

There seem to be two issues at play here. First, the militarization of the border reflects a tendency to suspect all immigrants as dangerous. Because it is illegal to enter the US by any means other than ports of entry (air, sea, or land), any immigrant crossing the border outside of those ports are breaking US laws the moment they cross. So, it is easy to call them “criminals” and justify it on those grounds. The problem is when the “criminality” of crossing over the border is equated with being “criminals that rape, kill, import drugs, and eat pets.” That kind of rhetoric manifestly irresponsible. But so is describing border security as the 3rd highest priority of the Department of Defense. 

Second, one can certainly see some border crossings as threats to national security – especially if they bring narcotics and cartel-backed gang violence with them. If we note that danger, we also have to admit that the number one reason there is so much money in the drug trade is because there is so much demand for illegal drugs in the US. The millions of dollars that we see drug lords spending started out in diversified US citizens’ pockets before they bought drugs. 

I’ve only touched the beginnings of Miller’s essay. It has a lot of information and much of it sounds important to hear. So, stay tuned. 

When You Hear "Bureaucracy ..."

I continue to read through the massive Project 2025, which has been criticized both seriously and comically, and which has become something of a stain from which the Trump Campaign has tried to distance itself, although it has been written by many former Trump appointees and with a future Trump (or Trump-like) administration in mind. The next major section of P2025 is a chapter entitled “Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy” (p. 69 of the document; p.101 of the online version,) By Donald Devine, Dennis Dean Kirk, and Paul Dans. I begin with two notes.

First, a few words about one of the principal authors, Paul Dans. Dans was the Director of the P2025 initiative but left the project in August and is now working on a number of issues to which he refers as “election integrity” issues. According to this article by Ken Bensinger, one of those issues is a restoration of “Schedule F” classifications for many federal jobs. Schedule F, passed during the Trump administration but rescinded by President Biden, makes it easier to fire civil servants and replace them with party loyalists. And there’s this quote from Bensinger’s article: “The heart of the Heritage Foundation-funded project, Mr. Dans said, was a database of roughly 20,000 party loyalists who were vetted and ready to fill positions in a Republican administration.” In other words, Mr. Dans' essay is part of a larger planned effort to rid the government’s bureaucracy of civil servants, not necessarily based on their job performance or integrity, but on whether they are deemed “faithful” enough to serve the President’s agenda. Again, one must ask, “What if a President’s agenda conflicts with legal, ethical, or constitutional integrity?” I wish that were a ridiculous question, since presidents take oaths swearing fidelity to the constitution. After January 6, 2021, it no longer seems like a ridiculous question to me.  

Second, I read this section as a person whose father was a civil servant, working for NASA throughout my childhood. I remember well how often my parents would try to make plans for the forthcoming year, deciding whether they could afford a home improvement project or a family vacation to a state park, but could only be tentative about it, because Dad did not know whether he would get a COLA or not. His job – and our family’s livelihood as a result – was always something of a political football. He was a model-maker, making wings or aeronautical models to test in the wind tunnels, hence one of many civil servants who were subject annually to political whims or an ambitious politician’s plans to curry popularity by cutting costs. Those conversations are important, no doubt, but the politicization of those conversations have always struck me as the primary reason why bureaucracy has a bad name. A government serving a country of over 330 million people is a tall task, easy to criticize and difficult to manage well. Therefore, there will always be a reason for people to address “managing the bureaucracy” as this chapter does. 

Dans et al give an overview of numerous attempts to manage the civil service, going back to the Carter administration. No doubt it is a daunting task. One issue he finds important is his argument that the unionization of government workers is incompatible with government management, invoking none other than President Franklin Roosevelt for his case. He lauds three executive orders that the Trump administration issued, each of which tries to empower management over unions. Note the phrase “management rights.”

Executive Order 13836, encouraging agencies to renegotiate all union collective bargaining agreements to ensure consistency with the law and respect for management rights; Executive Order 13837, encouraging agencies to prevent union representatives from using official time preparing or pursuing grievances or from engaging in other union activity on government time; Executive Order 13839, encouraging agencies both to limit labor grievances on removals from service or on challenging performance appraisals and to prioritize performance over seniority when deciding who should be retained following reductions-in-force.

It’s the next section where it feels that the issue comes to a head: “Fully Staffing the Ranks of Political Appointees.” The writers say that a President is constitutionally required to fill top political positions in the executive branch and admit that most Presidents have struggled to do so because of the requirement for congressional approval. Let me interject that the requirement for congressional approval is as much a part of the government’s process of checks and balances as anything else, but this essay seems to see that part of the process as a problem. They argue that President Trump faced special hostility from democrats and the media in getting his appointees considered and approved. There are clearly two sides to this argument and numerous other administrations that might feel the same. 

In the end, this chapter is another argument in a long history of two familiar tendencies – to prefer managerial rights over employee rights, and to de-centralizing much of civil service from Federal to State responsibilities – the point of which seems to ensure a structure that is not accountable to checks and balances but compliant to a president’s will, even if it is harmful to the common good. 

P2025 the OMB and other Executive Offices

I continue to work through “Project 2025.” This week a good friend sent me this link, which argues that “The details of Project 2025 are buried in a dense 900+ page PDF document, yet they have the potential to impact every American. This site was created to help you quickly understand how Project 2025 could affect the things you care about.” It has tools by which you can explore specific areas of concern that you may have. Thanks, Mary!  

The next section of P2025 (pp. 75-100) is an essay entitled “Executive Office of the President of the United States,” by Russ Vought. Vought is another former Trump cabinet member (Director of the Office of Management and Budget or OMB) and the founder and president of the Center for Renewing America. From the get-go, Vought seems determined to carry both the confusion and the vitriol of P2025 forward. He begins by noting that Article II of the U.S. Constitution invests executive power in the President, but quickly says that a modern President inherits a “sprawling federal bureaucracy that all too often is carrying out its own policy and preferences – or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferences of a radical, supposedly ‘woke’ faction of the country.” The “confusion” to which I refer comes from this: Vought himself was once a part of that “sprawling bureaucracy.” The OMB, while sometimes referred to as one of the smaller offices, employs about 450 persons. The “vitriol” to which I refer is Vought’s early onset of us/them language, because the problem of a sprawling bureaucracy is not when does a conservative president’s bidding, but when it has a different vision that can be named by the shorthand term “woke.” And with that, we move beyond the first paragraph. 

Vought’s essay is about the work of the OMB and what he sees as necessary changes in order for the next conservative presidency to be able to implement its will both with regard to budgeting and management. Likening the OMB to the control tower of an airport, Vought argues strongly that the OMB should be privy to all areas of governmental actions, in order to hold other agencies to the president’s vision. Here, Vought shows a difference between the role of the OMB when Trump was in office and the role under the Biden Administration. On pp. 45-46 of the online version, he argues for giving Program Associate Directors (PADs) control over apportionments, rather than Deputy Associate Directors (DADs). The Trump administration gave the oversight to PADs, while the Biden administration reverted back to the DADs. The point – it seems, to someone like me who is not terribly invested in learning the finer points of the bureaucracy – is to streamline the bureaucracy in order to ensure control and fiscal prudence. The issues behind PADs and DADs is one of many structural arguments that Vought offers in pp. 45ff. 

On p.49 one can see one of the effects of Vought’s streamlining. Regarding the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Vought argues that the point is “reining in the regulatory state and ensuring that regulations achieve important benefits while imposing minimal burdens on Americans.” He further argues for reinstating many of the executive orders that President Trump signed to make the regulatory system “more just, efficient, and transparent.” I am not one who is qualified to address the maze of offices and acronyms that Vought presents. I am aware, however, that many regulations over health hazards, pollutants, and safety have often been resisted as burdensome to “Americans,” as if those whose life and livelihood are being protected do not belong to that category as much as those whose profit is being protected. So, I admit my own bias and suspicions that part of the effect of streamlining the process to fit the next conservative president’s agenda is to make health and safety regulations harder to pass and enforce. 

It seems ironic that, like Dearborn before him, Vought seems to recognize the need for multiple offices and layers of bureaucracy needed to coordinate them. He goes on to talk about the National Security Council, National Economic Council, Office of the US Trade Representative, Council of Economic Advisors, National Space Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Council of Environmental Quality, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gender Policy Council, and the Office of the Vice President. As one might imagine, within his streamlining of the Council of Environmental Quality, Vought encourages the next president to instruct this council to rewrite its regulations along the lines of the efforts of the Trump administration, including, “restoring its key provisions such as banning the use of cumulative impact analysis” as well as abolishing the working group on the Social Costs of Carbon (SCC), and end using SCC analyses. This seems like a move to stop environmentally sensitive regulations in favor of business-friendly regulations. Likewise, one will not be surprised to learn that Vought simply wants to eliminate the Gender Policy Council because it is simply a tool of “woke” ideology. 

Sigh. 

 

P 2025, the Aug. 29 edition

Last week I began looking at Richard Dearborn’s essay on “The White House Office.” It offers an interesting overview of the roles of many governmental positions that one hears about in passing but may know nothing about in particular. From Dearborn’s position as the Deputy Chief of Staff in the Trump administration, he knows well what it is that these persons in these roles do. This essay could be a helpful introduction to Washington curious, but it does come with an agenda. As I pointed out last week, by naming loyalty to the president and the Constitution as the primary credential for the While House Counsel (p.28), Dearborn skirts one of the more obvious challenges of the Trump administration – when loyalty to the president means disloyalty to the constitution. Just ask former Vice President Pence, whose constitutional role presiding over the Senate was not in service to or answerable to the Executive branch of government. Still he was deemed disloyal for doing his constitutional duty and not doing President Trump’s bidding. 

Much of Dearborn’s essay sounds descriptive, but it is evident that it also has an agenda as part of a larger section called “Taking the Reins of Government.” When Dearborn writes about the work of the White House Communications Director, he helpfully describes the need for this Director to be informed of the breadth of White House activities, as well as having quick-minded skills to fend off or redirect questions, even rebutting the presumptions behind a question, in order to stay on message. To be fair, it strikes me that Communications Directors of every political stripe at every political level face the challenge of whether they are communicating the truth per se, the truth as the know it, or the truth that their office wants communicated. 

The context to keep in mind here is the role of the free press in the US and the extent to which a politician, elected by and for the people, is accountable to it. Particularly in a day when social media enables virtually anyone to publicize claims that may or may not be true, a free press is recognized as a necessary safeguard against political hubris that disguises itself in savvy press releases. At the same time, news media in the US are not perfect, are often driven by economic necessity, and one must recognize the perspectival nature of any news source. News media are both necessary and need to be highly scrutinized. One way that press associations have tried to ensure some level of accountability for their work has been through the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA), known chiefly through questions raised in the White House briefing room or aboard Air Force One, as well as by the WHCA dinner each year, where barbs and teasing flies back and forth between politicians, press, and guests. For over 100 years, the WHCA has encouraged governmental transparency by through press conferences and has encouraged press accountability by requiring White House correspondents to be credentialed by the Standing Committee of Correspondents. Again, the context here is the role of the free press to ensure governmental accountability by insisting on “the people’s right to know.” 

It is disheartening then when Dearborn continues the “us v. them” rhetoric of P2025 saying, “The new Administration should examine the nature of the relationship between itself and the White House Correspondents Association and consider whether an alternative coordinating body might be more suitable” (p.30). In plain English, this is an invitation for the next President to destroy a century-old process of accountability and replace it a body of reportage that is hand-picked, or “more suitable.” So, not only has Dearborn paved a way for the Communication Director to offer information that is loyal to the president’s agenda, he is encouraging the administration to ensure that the CD will present that information to a press corps that is also deemed loyal, marking the end of accountability and an invitation for hubris. 

Again, this would be a wonderfully informative essay about the various roles within the White House if it weren’t contextualized within such a blatant maneuver to dismantle hard won structures of accountability surrounding a president. 

MD

P2025: Richard Dearborn on Taking the Reins

 I continue blogging through the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” which I will call for short, P2025. To start, I want to acknowledge two things. 

1) While the online version of the document that I am using is a whopping 920 pages, that number turns out to be a bit misleading. The first 32 pages are easily skippable, with reference information that one can turn to as needed. And, in between sections, like Kevin Robert’s “Foreword” and the first main section, there are blank pages, albeit they are missing the customary “This page left intentionally blank” memo. Even so, the document remains plenty long and one wonders whether the volume is intended to be thorough or just too intimidating to offer a reasonable read. 

2) I have some reservations over whether what I am doing is even worth the effort. Keenan Thompson’s hilarious send up of “Project 2025” during the third night of the Democratic National Convention may be a better approach than my effort – which one person dubbed my “perverse devotional.” When I wrote my book, Left Behind and Loving It, I chose to use humor as my primary tone very deliberately. While I think humor is often ill-intended and hurtful, I also think it is a powerful tool for deflating hubris. I think those writers who have made a mint off stoking fear over the imminent rapture and those who are trying to enforce their small view of the world through governmental change in this document are prime examples of hubris and need to be deflated. We often hear someone say, “I’m not going to dignify that remark.” As I blog my way through P2025, I may eventually reach that same conclusion. Does something, so filled with vitriolic and demeaning language, really deserve a measured and thoughtful response? Or should we just let the comic genius simply display it for what it is? I revisit that question every week. 

The first major section of P2025 is entitled, “Taking the Reins of Government.” It has an anonymous three-page preface, which seems to have been written by Roberts. If nothing else, it continues the kind of “us v. them” language of Robert’s Foreword. And the preface makes it clear that what follows will be an argument that civil servants have the role of serving the agenda of the President. The presbyterian in me is on high alert here. 

The first chapter of this section is entitled, “White House Office,” by Rick Dearborn, former Deputy Chief of Staff for President Trump and Executive Director of the 2016 President-elect Trump’s transition team. As such, Dearborn offers a description of civil servants that differs from the preface. Whereas the preface says, “Federal employees are often ideologically aligned—not with the majority of the American people—but with one another, posing a profound problem for republican government, a government ‘of, by, and for’ the people; Dearborn describes those who work in the White House Office hold approach their work as their “shared patriotic endeavor,” hold jobs that are “among the most demanding in all of government.” Relying on his position within the White House, Dearborn describes the work of the Chief of Staff, as well as all the other deputies and department leaders within the chain of command. For example, Dearborn describes the role of the White House Counsel in part this way: 

"While the White House Counsel does not serve as the President’s personal attorney in nonofficial matters, it is almost impossible to delineate exactly where an issue is strictly personal and has no bearing on the President’s official function. The White House Counsel needs to be deeply committed both to the President’s agenda and to affording the President proactive counsel and zealous representation. That individual directly advises the President as he performs the duties of the office, and this requires a relationship that is built on trust, confidentiality, and candor." (p.27)

I appreciate the distinction of the WH Counsel’s role from the president’s personal attorney, as well as the gray areas that may arise with that distinction. He does include an important parenthetical phrase that the President’s agenda must be “within the bounds of the law,” a sentiment that shows up often. 

But there seems to be something else afoot here. On p.28, Dearborn says, 

"When a new President takes office, he will need to decide expeditiously how to handle any major ongoing litigation or other pending legal matters that might present a challenge to his agenda. To offer guidance, the White House Counsel must get up to speed as quickly as possible on all significant ongoing legal challenges across the executive branch that might affect the new Administration’s policy agenda and must be prepared at the outset of the Administration to present recommendations to the President, including recommendations for reconsidering or reversing positions of the previous Administration in any significant litigation. This review will usually require consulting with the new political leadership at the Justice Department, including during the transition period." 

Okay, is it just me or is this a clear signal that a first priority of a future Trump administration would be to put the kibosh on all of the pending lawsuits and verdicts that he is facing? Whether it is on account of actions taken to deny the 2020 election results or personal actions involving porn stars, this argument offers rationale and urgency to bringing the White House Counsel and the Department of Justice to heel, in the name of ensuring that the president’s agenda is not disrupted. Apparently, the courts and civil servants cannot be trusted to do their job. Dearborn concludes his description of the Counsel’s job with this on p.28: “… while a candidate with elite credentials might seem ideal, the best one will be above all loyal to the President and the Constitution.” The problem arises when the choice is between loyalty to the President or to the Constitution. 

More to come. 

"Project 2025" pt. 4 - Final look at the Foreword

 I am blog/slogging through the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025.” Starting next week, I will begin addressing it in larger chunks, since it is enormous. It is an ironic case of self-instantiation that a document, criticizing bureaucratic overreach, is so long. 

So far, I have focused on the “promises” that are described in the Foreword, “A Promise to America,” by Kevin D. Roberts, Ph.D. More irony: Mr. Roberts, despite speaking often of intellectual elites, adds his academic degree after his name. Apparently, academic elitism is only a problem for “them” and is a virtue for “us.” I say that because part of what makes me recoil when reading this Foreword is how emphatically Roberts insists that “they” are evil, and “we” are not. You can read the document yourself here. 

The fourth promise Roberts addresses is to, “Secure Our God-Given Individual Right to Enjoy ‘The Blessings of Liberty.’” The term “liberty” is directly associated with the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that reads, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I have cited the original document in its non-inclusive language deliberately, as I will note below. As with Roberts’ previous three promises, “the Blessings of Liberty” seems to be a matter on which most people agree. But Roberts will assert that is not the case. Simply put, the American people live into these blessings while “they” – described variously as “Marxist/Socialist/Communist elites,” “the Left,” “the ruling class,” and of course, “woke cultural warriors” – do not. 

Roberts argues that when the Founders spoke of “the pursuit of Happiness,” what they meant might be understood today as the “pursuit of Blessedness,” which he says is “found primarily in family—marriage, children, Thanksgiving dinners, and the like.” (p.13) As I have noted before, it is hard to imagine that anyone is against marriage, children, Thanksgiving dinners, and the like. I have a friend who loves Thanksgiving dinner so much that he and his husband would prepare eight turkeys and invite everyone else to bring side dishes so we could gather at our church and have this meal together. I don’t suppose their homosexual, interracial, Woke Left union is quite the Rockwellian notion that Roberts has in mind, but they do love Thanksgiving dinner. And each other. Once again, Roberts has laid claim to the high road regarding something that plenty of folks he disparages also embrace. 

My first response to Roberts’ fourth promise is that, because he has chosen to approach this promise under the stark “us/them” paradigm, it is another opportunity lost. Americans share many common goals yet define them differently and have different ideas about how to attain them. For Roberts, those that differences worth discussing are treated like oppositions worth fighting about. 

The second response I have to Roberts’ fourth promise is that its account of history is dishonest. It is not dishonest like someone saying, “My crowd was bigger than theirs,” but dishonest by means of oversimplifying complexities and aggregating things that do not belong together. Here is what I mean, from page 14: “Left to our own devices, the American people rejected European monarchy and colonialism just as we rejected slavery, second-class citizenship for women, mercantilism, socialism, Wilsonian globalism, Fascism, Communism, and (today) wokeism. To the Left, these assertions of patriotic self-assurance are just so many signs of our moral depravity and intellectual inferiority—proof that, in fact, we need a ruling elite making decisions for us.” 

What a dishonest mishmash of contested ideas. Most people I know see the Revolutionary War and the establishment of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches as rejection of European monarchy. But did the US reject colonialism itself? Or, did we reject being the colony? Did “the American people” reject slavery, or did we not have a war pitting Americans against Americans, because many Americans wanted to preserve slavery? Did “Americans” reject second-class citizenship for women? Don’t forget the explicitly male language of the Declaration of Independence cited above, and the explicitly exclusive laws that only changed because they have been challenged over the years by “woke warriors” who opposed them. Which of the “American people” were the “American people” during Jim Crow, Suffragist movements, Civil Rights movements, and the like? Weren’t these accomplishments gained during these periods the results of agitators, questioners, protesters, and marchers who loved their families and Thanksgiving dinners and stood up for human rights?  

Roberts’ depiction of what makes America great reads like one of those dreadful history books that conservative publishing houses have been propagating in home schools and private schools and are trying to force into public schools. Nagging truths, like the fact that the writers of the noble words of the Declaration of Independence owned people, are excised in order to create a pseudo-narrative that the Woke Left will destroy every accomplishment unless we elect a conservative right now. I am not exaggerating. Here are Roberts’ own words on p.16: “Conservatives have just two years and one shot to get this right. With enemies at home and abroad, there is no margin for error. Time is running short. If we fail, the fight for the very idea of America may be lost.” And p.17: “The Conservative Promise represents the best effort of the conservative movement in 2023—and the next conservative President’s last opportunity to save our republic.” All of this from the one who calls others “warriors.” 

In the end, Robert’s "Foreword" is a disappointing alarmist diatribe that, instead, ought to be a serious attempt to describe our mutual challenges and look for ways to address them together.