All posts by Dr. ESP

Both Sides Now

Politics

Jimmy Carter described his run for the White House as a marathon.  In actually, Presidential politics is more akin to a horserace.  The lead shifts when a candidate is positioned to take advantage of an opponent.  Maximizing that advantage requires vision, strategy and focus.  The last thing you want is to say or do something that erases that edge.

For most of the two weeks following Joe Biden’s “bad night,” the Biden campaign and his supporters had been playing defense.  Trump seized that advantage, until the Biden folks, and at last the media, decided to focus on Project 2025.  In response Trump did the only thing he could to accelerate this momentary shift in attention from Biden’s fitness to serve for another four years.  He tried to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation’s manifesto for an imperial presidency.  More importantly, of course he lied, posting on Truth Social, “I know nothing about Project 2025.  I have no idea who is behind it.” A laughable response considering so many members of his post-2020 brain trust and likely second term officials are listed as authors and contributors to the 940 page document.

Yesterday, everything changed.  But not for the reason you think.  Of course, Trump and his team will take advantage of the fortunately bad marksmanship of a wannabe assassin. Since January 6, 2021, Biden and Democrats had an ace in hole.  Trump peppered his speeches with dog whistles which not only incited violence, but actually produced violence.  January 6th.  El Paso.  Buffalo.  The Tree of Life Synagogue.  In contrast, most Democrats told voters the only way to defeat Trump and MAGA was at the ballot box.

This was the one issue that clearly differentiated Democrats from MAGA.  Of course, that did not stop Trump supporters such as Senator Marsha Blackburn (TN) and Representatives Mike Collins (GA) and Lauren Boebert (CO) from connecting Biden rhetoric to the gunman’s attempt to kill Trump.  When I first heard this, I chalked it up to MAGA propaganda.  Calling Trump and his plans for a second term an existential threat to America is not on the same level as telling the Proud Boys “to stand down and stand by.”

Except this time they brought the receipts.  On July 7, Politico reported that, during a “private” call with donors, Biden included the following in his remarks.

I have one job, and that’s to beat Donald Trump. I’m absolutely certain I’m the best person to be able to do that. So, we’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.

It does not matter if the timing of Biden’s words and Thomas Matthew Crooks’ failed assassination is causal or mere correlation.  In an environment of heightened political tension, uttering phrases like “it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye,” is unacceptable, exactly the way it was when Sarah Palin posted a map of vulnerable Democrats in Congress with a cross-hairs superimposed over their districts.  Just ask Gabby Giffords.

There are a lot of things about Joe Biden I could forgive.  His verbal gaffes.  An inability to prosecute the case against a second Trump term in a 90-minute debate.  His inability to sway to the music.  His agonizingly slow pace when he walks.  His occasional goofy smile.  But this is different.  His lack of self-awareness to understand, first. there is no such thing as a “private” conference call, and second, that he cannot, under any circumstances, use a metaphor involving lethal force to describe a political campaign.  Forget the issues of age and mental acuity, this is the line in the sand that must convince a consensus among Democratic leaders, donors and voters that Biden is no longer a viable candidate for president.

We all have good days and bad days.  The “Good Joe” was on full display yesterday.  He told the nation, “There is no place in America for this kind of violence.”  And he placed a phone call to Trump last night, wishing him a speedy recovery.  Too bad THAT Biden was not on the July 7 phone call with donors. 

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Men of UNreal Genius

Economics, Politics

In his victory speech following the 2016 Nevada primary, then candidate Donald Trump thanked those who made a difference during his campaign including a shout out for one demographic of which he seemed most proud.  “We won with poorly educated.  I love the poorly educated.”  I too would love this segment of the voting population if they continuously supported me despite the fact my policies and programs were not in their self-interest.  The best analogy is Trump as Omega Theta Pi pledge master Gregory Marmaland (James Daughton) in “Animal House,” wielding the ritual paddle on initiation night.  One can imagine Trump’s glee as he recalls, “Each inductee, with tears in their eyes, begged ‘hit me again, SIR.'”

However, if you want to understand the difference between “the uneducated” and “the just plain stupid” despite academic credentials, look no farther than page 696 of the Heritage Foundation autocracy handbook, “Mandate for Leadership:  The Conservative Promise,” otherwise known as Project 2025.

Intermediate Tax Reform. The Treasury should work with Congress to simplify the tax code by enacting a simple two-rate individual tax system of 15 percent and 30 percent that eliminates most deductions, credits and exclusions. The 30 percent bracket should begin at or near the Social Security wage base to ensure the combined income and payroll tax structure acts as a nearly flat tax on wage income beyond the standard deduction.

This chapter in MAGA’s 900+ page encyclopedia of malarkey was written by William L. Walton, Stephen Moore and David R. Burton.  Walton is a venture capitalist with a B.S. and M.B.A. from Indiana University and life memberships in MENSA and the NRA, which suggests he is probably more qualified to address the need for “smart firearms” than economic policy.  Moore is an economist with degrees from the University of Illinois and George Mason University and senior economic writer for the Wall Street Journal.  According to his Heritage Foundation bio, he is the recipient of the Ronald Reagan “Great Communicator” award “for his advancement of economic understanding.”  That honor will crop up again in this discussion.  Burton is a specialist in “securities law, capital markets, financial privacy, tax matters, and regulatory and administration law issues” at Heritage. He holds a B.A. from the University of Chicago and a law degree from the University of Maryland.  Based on his range of policy responsibility, he is the Jared Kushner of Heritage’s “where’s the loophole” division.

With the best education and real-world experience of these three old, white men, let us see what they actually proposed as tax policy to benefit all Americans.  First, it is not original.  Remember Moore’s Ronald Reagan award for communications.  A two-bracket regressive tax system, with rates of 15 and 28 percent, were established in 1988 by none other than (drum roll) Ronald Reagan.  This supply-side fantasy lasted exactly two-years before subsequent presidents including George H. W. Bush proposed a return to a more progressive rate schedule with additional tiers.  [Note: Moore, et. al., do not mention this former iteration of a two-rate system or credit Reagan for its origin.  At Miami University, where I was a professor, we would not have recognized Moore for his communications skills.  We would have charged him with plagiarism.]

Assuming this is Moore’s first offense, we will put him on probation.  It is more important that we understand how this scheme supports MAGA policy objectives.  In 2018, Trump’s Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross lauded the president’s 2017 tax legislation.  “As Americans filed their taxes this spring, they wrestled for the last time with a system that for decades plundered their paychecks and made American businesses uncompetitive.”  Sounds good.  But remember,  in 2016 Ross reimbursed investors $11.8 million and was fined $2.3 million by the SEC for fee overcharges.   In 2017, he was accused of insider trading after selling his shares in the Bank of Ireland.  In 2018, his partners accused him of siphoning $120 million from WL Ross & Co.  To paraphrase John Houseman, “He made money the old fashioned Trump way, grifting.”

Damn, it is so hard to keep on message.  So let’s give Ross a pass (as would the current Supreme Court) and take a deep dive into that paragraph that lays out the 2025 tax proposal and see whose paychecks get plundered and whose do not.  First, it is important that to understand what remains the same and what changes.

  • In the current system and Project 2025, all taxpayers are entitled to a standard deduction, $29,200 for married couples filing jointing and $14,600 for single filers.  Each year the size of the standard deduction is adjusted based on the Consumer Price Index.  Your gross income minus the standard deduction becomes your taxable income.
  • This tax year, there are seven incremental tax brackets ranging from 10 percent on the first $19,900 of taxable income to 37 percent on all taxable income over $628,300.
  • Under the proposed system there would be two brackets, 15 and 30 percent.  The  higher rate would kick in at the “Social Security wage base,” the point at which workers no longer contribute 6.2 percent of their gross salary to the Social Security trust fund.  For 2024, the wage base is $168,000.

With this information, you can now calculate the tax liability of individuals and married couples with different income for tax year 2024 and what it would be if the Project 2025 system was in effect.  Let me give you a few examples starting with Americans at the lower end of the wealth spectrum.

For a Married Couple Making $50,000/year
Taxable Income for 2024 would be $20,800
This year they would pay $2,236
Under Project 2025 rates they would pay $3,120
An additional tax burden of $884

For an Individual Making $50,000/year
Taxable Income for 2024 would be $35,400
This year he/she would pay $4,118
Under Project 2025 rates he/she would pay $5,310
An additional tax burden of $1,192

Maybe I misunderstood the objective.  Maybe Project 2025 tax policy is designed to reduce the federal deficit and national debt.  In which case, this seems like a reasonable contribution by lower income families and individuals.  Let’s see how much the wealthy contribute to this goal.

For a Married Couple Making $1,000,000/year
Taxable Income for 2024 would be $970,800
This year they would pay $289,665
Under Project 2025 rates they would pay $266,040
A savings of $23,625

Surely the 0.1 percent wealthiest Americans will make up for this.

For a Married Couple Making $5,000,000/year
Taxable Income for 2024 would be $4,970,800
This year they would pay $1,769,665
Under Project 2025 rates they would pay $1,466,040
A savings of $303,625

Now I get it.  Project 2025 tax policy is nothing more than an opportunity for Trump to hold a party at Mar-a-Lago for his major donors and tell them once again, “I made you a lot of money today.”  And the uneducated voters he loves so much get screwed again.

But these “men of UNreal genius” are far from finished.  The algorithms I created for the EXCEL spreadsheet to test the impact of the Project 2025 tax proposal provided the means to test the financial costs or benefits for families and individuals at any level of annual income.  And that’s how I found the following anomaly, perhaps the most damning evidence you should not believe anything these idiots tell you.

In the Foreword titled, “A Promise for America,”  Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts writes.

The Heritage Foundation is once again facilitating this work. But as our dozens of partners and hundreds of authors will attest, this book is the work of the entire conservative movement. As such, the authors express consensus recommendations already forged, especially along four broad fronts that will decide America’s future:

    1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.

Okay!  If that is the goal, certainly the tax policy, even it if is biased toward the wealthy, will incent the formation of families.  Wrong!  Consider the following comparison of current tax policy to Project 2025.

For a Married Couple Making $100,000/year
Taxable Income for 2024 would be $70,800
This year they would pay $8,236
Under Project 2025 rates the would pay $10,620
An additional tax burden of $2,384

For an Individual Making $100,000/year
Taxable Income for 2024 would be $85,400
This year he/she would pay $14,261
Under Project 2025 rates he/she would pay $12,810
A savings of $1,451

In simple English, here is the message emitting from the brilliant minds of Walton, Moore and Burton.  Want to save $3,800 a year in taxes?  Don’t get married.  Just shack up.  Of course, you might get arrested by the Christian nationalist morality police for living in sin.  But that’s a small price to pay for a $300/month tax break.

Maybe that’s why we all should embrace the uneducated.  They would never come up with anything half as stupid as these guys, all of whom will likely be members of a second Trump administration under Project 2025’s personnel mandate, “Replace expertise and experience with loyalty.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Sometimes It’s Not a Duck

Politics

The two weeks since the Biden/Trump debate have been the best of times for presidential historians when it comes to media exposure.  Among the panelists on all three major news networks, you can find the likes of John Meacham, Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss.   The program hosts consistently seek enlightenment on the following questions. “Are there historical precedents for the current situation where an incumbent president faces an intra-party challenge?  If so, what can we expect from efforts to replace Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket?”

In fact, there have been three such occasions beginning in 1968 when Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy took on incumbent Lyndon Johnson.  Ronald Reagan v. Gerald Ford in 1976.   And Ted Kennedy v. Jimmy Carter in 1980.  The lesson?  In each case, the candidate who eventually secured the nomination lost the general election.  Pretty strong evidence for those who believe a change at the top of the ticket will guarantee a Trump victory in November.  As they say, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it’s a duck.

However, a closer look suggests 2024 may be more of a phoenix than a duck.  First, we need to understand the context in the three comparable situations.  1968 is easy.  The January 1968 Tet offensive blew the whistle on General William Westmoreland’s declaration two months earlier that “The enemy’s hopes are bankrupt.”  McCarthy rode growing skepticism about the war, especially among young voters, to a near upset in the March 12 New Hampshire Primary.  Nineteen days later, Johnson announced he would not seek nor accept his party’s nomination for reelection.

In hindsight, the 1976 contest for the Republican nomination was more of a “coming out party” for Reaganism which had little, if anything, to do with Gerald Ford.  Voters were tired of Nixon administration scandals and an annual inflation rate of 5.7 percent.  Likewise, some members of the conservative wing of the GOP thought Nixon had gone soft on communism following his visit to China and similar outreach to Russia.  They also questioned his pro-business credentials, particularly following creation of the Environment Protection Agency and issuing an executive order freezing wages and prices in hopes of taming inflation.  What better opportunity to introduce an alternative economic philosophy.  Unfortunately, that alternative was supply-side economics.

The lessons from Kennedy’s 1980 unsuccessful attempt to oust Carter as the party’s nominee?  Politicians enter dangerous territory when they try and have an honest conversation with voters.  And, if you’re going to go there, end on a positive note and tell voters what you will do to reverse the situation.  I am, of course, referring to Carter’s infamous July 25, 1976 “malaise” speech which included the following.

The threat [to American democracy] is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

Kennedy justified his candidacy on three tenets.  Economic recovery post-inflation during the Nixon/Ford years did not meet voter expectations.  Carter’s inability to get the release of U.S. hostages in Iran following the Islamic revolution.  And Carter’s lack of a concrete plan to address both these crises, though crisis may be an overstatement.  As I pointed out earlier this week, the average annual growth in the gross national product during the Carter years was 3.6 percent, a full point higher than Trump’s pre-COVID rate of 2.6 percent, you know, the economy he trumpets as the best of all time.

Which brings me to 2024 and while it may share some characteristics with a duck, it is not.  Unlike 1968, American soldiers are not dying in an ill-conceived war halfway around the world.  Unlike 1976, the only scandals the Biden administration is guilty of are free of any evidence and reside solely in the minds of MAGA conspiracy mongers and right-wing media.  No one is wearing a “Whip Inflation Now” button because the trend is in the right direction and is now almost half that at the end of the Nixon/Ford era.  Unlike 1980, the threat to democracy is not the mindset of the American public but a demagogue unleashed by a runaway Supreme Court.  Plus, no one can accuse Biden of inaction, having signed more legislation than any of his predecessors in the last 50 years.  And rather than bemoaning a dismal future, Joe Biden constantly reminds voters “I am never more optimistic about America.”

But for once, the past is not prologue.  Even though Biden has a strong record to run on, and Democrats are on the right side of most 70/30 issues, Democrats have done a lousy job reminding votes of those facts.  Especially when Trump is a fire hose of lies and misinformation.  Biden is a perfect example of what doomed Michael Dukakis in his race against George H. W. Bush.  Technocratic skills translate into good governance, but mediocre campaigns.  Winning campaigns depend on effective messengers.  Successful administrations depend on the knowledgeable and experienced team the winner puts together.

Therefore, I now propose Plan Z+1.  It begins with everyone who is interested in replacing Biden at the top of the ticket agreeing to the following.

  1. But for the age issue, based on his accomplishment the last four years, Biden would be a heavy favorite to win reelection.
  2. Despite the age issue, he won more than 90 percent of the elected delegates to the convention.
  3. He deserves to be rewarded for those successes.
  4. The best reward?  The right to pick his successor, someone he feels is most likely to carry forth the agenda from his time in office.  And someone best qualified to prosecute the case against Trump and Project 2025.

Given this opportunity, I would still encourage Biden to make the case for a Harris/Murkowski “unity” ticket.  Second choice is an all-Democratic, all-female Harris/Gretchen Whitmer ticket.  Not far behind is a Harris/Andy Beshear ticket.  If we, in fact, face the most existential internal threat to the United States since the Civil War, we need not ask presidential historians for their advice.  We have it straight from the horse’s mouth.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.  I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided.  It will become all one thing, or all the other.

~Abraham Lincoln/June 16, 1858

If Lincoln delivered this speech today, the second sentence would describe a choice, not about slavery, but democracy and autocracy.  He would argue there is no scenario where the United States would have democratic states and autocratic states.  To repeat Lincoln’s warning, “I do not expect the house to fall–but I do expect it will cease to be divided.  It will become all one thing, or all the other.”  Ensuring that the “all one thing” be a nation without slaves depended on Lincoln’s re-election in 1864.  To do that he replaced his first term vice president Hannibal Hamlin of Maine with a southerner Andrew Johnson of Tennessee.  Ballots listed the Lincoln/Johnson ticket as nominees of the “National Union Party,” a coalition of Republicans, War Democrats and the Unconditional Union Party.

Bold and decisive actions such as the one to replace Hamlin with Johnson explain why Lincoln was recently ranked #1 among all U.S. presidents by 154 current and former members of the American Political Science Association.  For the record, Joe Biden tied for 13th with John Adams and Donald Trump was last at #45.   This was the third such ranking  going back to 2015.  Let me assure you, if Biden and the Democrats do not do whatever it takes to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office next January,  Biden can kiss that #13 ranking goodbye.  And that’s no malarky.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The Lede

Politics

O.J. Simpson, who ran to fame on the football field, made fortunes as an all-American in movies, television and advertising, and was acquitted of killing his former wife and her friend in a 1995 trial in Los Angeles that mesmerized the nation, died on Wednesday at his home in Las Vegas.

~New York Times/April 11, 2024

Ernest Hemingway was found dead of a shotgun wound in the home in Ketchum, Idaho.

~New York Times/July 3, 1961

James Dean, 24, one of Hollywood’s brightest new motion picture stars, was killed early last night in a head-on-collision at the rural town of Cholame, 19 miles east of Paso Robles, the California Highway Patrol reported.

~Los Angeles Times/October 1, 1955

Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, who built a global reputation on anti-Communist investigations, died tonight of a liver ailment at the age of 47.

~New York Times/May 3, 1957

For those unfamiliar with newspaper lingo, a “lede” is defined as “the opening sentence or paragraph of a news article, summarizing the most important aspects of the story.”  The lede in the above obituaries would be much different if Simpson had not been tried for murder, Hemingway had not killed himself, Dean was a more careful driver and McCarthy had a few less drinks with Roy Cohn. I first started thinking about the lede in Joe Biden’s obituary during the following exchange during his interview with George Stephanopoulos.

STEPHANOPOULOS
And if you stay in, and Trump is elected, and everything you’re warning about comes to pass, how will you feel in January?

BIDEN
I’ll feel, as long as I gave it my all, and I did the — good as job as I know I can do — that’s what this is about.

Imagine if Stephanopoulos had reframed the question.  “If you stay in, and Trump is elected, and everything  you’re warning about comes to pass, what do you think the first sentence in your obituary would say.”  It might read something like this, assuming the New York Times and Washington Post survive a second Trump administration.

Joe Biden, 46th president of United States, after successfully ending Donald Trump’s chaotic and controversial first term, insisted on running again at the age of 81, opening the door to an even more turbulent era in which American democracy. as we once imagined it, is forever changed.

A potentially accurate, but sad commentary on the life of a man who dedicated 52 years of his life to service of his country and its citizens.  Joe Biden deserves better.

I am not foolish enough to predict what the outcome of a Biden/Trump contest will be.  But I think I have finally made my choice whether Biden should stay in or hang it up.  If Trump is going to win, which of course I hope he does not, Biden should not be the person to give the concession speech. Or have to apologize to his supporters even if, as he said, “…gave it my all.”

Biden  has nothing to apologize for and it has nothing to do with returning civility to the presidency.  Or his leading the nation out of the worst pandemic in a century.  Or his record of bipartisan, consequential legislation.  I believe his most significant accomplishment was defeating Donald Trump at the ballot box, and by doing so, exposed Trump as the most dishonest, narcissistic and un-patriotic person to ever hold public office in this country.  The folks who need to apologize are all the members of the U.S. Senate, and especially Mitch McConnell, who had a chance to convict Trump and ban him from any role in the nation’s political future.  Instead, in light of everything they saw and knew, they chose to ignore the obvious.

**********

Joe, if I may, let me speak to you directly.  You said it yourself.  On December 7, 2023, as you left the podium following remarks urging Congress to support the security aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, you were asked about your candidacy in 2024.  You replied, “No, I’m not the only one who can defeat [Trump], but I will defeat him.”  As you walked out the door, you turned and added there were “probably 50 Democrats” who could beat him. 

One of those 50 Democrats, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer appeared on today’s edition of “Morning Joe.”  Mika asked her to complete the sentence, “If Donald Trump wins…”  She did not hesitate.  “If Donald Trump wins, America has failed.”  The only way Trump returns to the White House is if a majority of voters in battleground states do not know or appreciate what the American experiment was all about.  Thomas Jefferson’s admonition, “The government you elect is the government you deserve,” will be more prescient than ever. Joe, do not let those voters off the hook.  Do not be their scapegoat.

And if a Democrat wins, you will be lauded for making the right decision, putting party and country before your personal interests.  In that situation, I would be honored to write the lede for your obituary (sometime far in the future).

Joe Biden, 46th president of the United States, twice at the end of his political career guaranteed the United States envisioned by the Founding Father survived the attempt by a demagogue to transform our democracy into a dictatorship.  First, by defeating Donald Trump for president in 2020 and then by wisely making room for others to carry that torch.

But just in case you’re wondering, if you are at the top of the ticket, I will enthusiastically vote for you.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

An Unwitting Asset

Culture, Politics

In 2006, comedian Robert Wuhl co-wrote and starred in a two-part HBO special “Assume the Position.”  Wuhl plays a professor in a history class at New York University (the students are actually film majors).  At the outset, he prepares his students (and the HBO audience) for what is to come with the following:

  • Tolstoy said, “History is a wonderful thing, if only it were true.”
  • The key to history is who tells the story.
  • When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

The first example Wuhl provides is Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s ode to Paul Revere.  Revere was neither the first or the most rigorous messenger when it came to informing the colonies, “The British are coming!” The more deserving hero was Israel Bissell, a postal rider who on April 19, 1775 carried word of the battle of Lexington and Concord from Massachusetts to New York to New Jersey and eventually arriving in Philadelphia on April 24, a distance totaling more than 300 miles.  In contrast, Revere’s gallop from Lexington to Boston was approximately 15 miles.  Unfortunately,  the rhyme scheme “Listen my children and you shall HEAR of the midnight ride of Paul REVERE” rolls off the tongue more easily that whatever rhymes with Bissell. 

“The key to history is who tells the story.”  The same is true of other media. Not only should Wadsworth’s poem been titled, “The Five-Day Ride of Israel Bissell,”  Grant Wood’s painting of the same name as Longfellow’s poem would include an image of the postal worker and one of the two horses he rode over the five-day journey.  And Walt Disney’s movie “Johnny Tremain” would have featured Tremain as a postal service apprentice rather than a protege of silversmith Revere. 

[Cinematic Note:  The “Johnny Tremain” cast included character actor Whit Bissell (1909-96), better known for his roles in “The Time Machine,” “Hud,” and “The Manchurian Candidate.”  I could not find any documentation whether Whit Bissell was related to Israel Bissell.  Even if it is not true, it should be.  Just remember, you heard it here first.]

This week, I found myself hoping Wuhl would revive “Assume the Position” to cover Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. As he debunked popular myths about Revere, Christopher Columbus and other historical figures, Wuhl could start by debunking the myth Trump is the leader of the MAGA movement.  At best he gave it a catchy name and bumper sticker.  Instead he is the unwitting asset of a cabal of more than 100 right-wing organizations who needed a media savvy racist, misogynistic, homophobic isolationist supply-sider to be the public face of its agenda.

This was never more apparent than last weekend when the liar-in-chief claimed he knew nothing about about Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s plan for the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. It’s not that Trump disagrees with the policy recommendations, his enmity is due more likely to the fact the Project 2025 team did the one thing he will not tolerate, taking credit rather than attributing it to him.  From “About Project 2025” on their website:

The project is the effort of a broad coalition of conservative organizations that have come together to ensure a successful administration begins in January 2025. With the right conservative policy recommendations and properly vetted and trained personnel to implement them, WE (my emphasis) will take back our government.

There is no “we” in Trump.  And the very thought that Kevin Roberts did not give Trump the opportunity to claim he coined the phrase, ” a second American revolutionary, bloodless if the radical left lets us,” shifted Trump’s Truth Social thumbs into overdrive.

If Trump thinks civil service employees were running the show during his first administration, just wait until he encounters the 50,000-strong army of Schedule F hires (based on loyalty rather than expertise) vetted by his Office of Personnel Management.  Again, from “About Project 2025”:

Paul Dans, former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) during the Trump administration, serves as the director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to the president and associate director of Presidential Personnel, serves as associate director of the project.

Dans and Chretien understand who will be driving the agenda for a Trump transition and beyond.  That is why they are now part of the Heritage Foundation and not the Trump campaign.  And there will be loyalists throughout every federal federal agency.  However, their allegiance will not be to someone who theoretically should be in office for just four years.  Roberts’ “revolution,” which began during the Reagan years could be there long after Trump is gone.  Schedule C civil service offers only a lifetime of service to one’s country without political pressure or interference.  In contrast, Schedule F provides longer tenure and a career path to become more than just a foot solder in an ideological movement based on your allegiance to the cause.

Donald Trump is not the master of his domain.  He is a wholly owned subsidiary of a conglomerate that was created 64 years ago.  Which explains why you never hear the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society or any other architects of this revolutionary transformation of the American experience complain about the time Trump spends at his golf courses.  That is exactly where they want him to be. 

The only remaining question?  Who will tell the story of this battle for the soul of America?

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP