Dems plan for ‘Project 2029' met with skepticism as party continues to divide: Report
Goldmacher revealed on Monday that while many Democratic strategists are on board with the project's vision, some are skeptical that the agenda set forth could upset the left's 'interest-group Borg' and deepen the divide within the party.
The creator of Project 2029, former Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party Andrei Cherny, is working on organizing Democratic thought leaders to ensure there is a set-in-stone agenda ready.
'The title is an unsubtle play on Project 2025, the independently produced right-wing agenda that Mr. Trump spent much of last year's campaign distancing himself from, and much of his first few months back in power executing,' Goldmacher noted in the piece.
Cherny's plan takes more inspiration from the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 than just its name. Similar to Project 2025, the goal of Project 2029 is to turn Cherny's publication, 'Democracy: A Journal of Ideas,' into a book — and rally the party's presidential candidates behind those ideas during the 2028 primary election season.
3 CEO of Aspiration Andrei Cherny attends a special Washington, DC screening of 'An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power' at The Newseum on July 19, 2017 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images for Paramount Pictures
'The undertaking, which has not previously been reported, strikes at the heart of a raging debate consuming Democratic lawmakers, strategists and policymakers: whether the root of the party's problems is its ideas or its difficulty in persuading people to embrace them,' Goldmacher stated.
According to Celinda Lake, a prominent Democratic pollster quoted in the story, the party 'didn't lack policies,' but rather 'lacked a functioning narrative to communicate those policies.' She criticized the Democratic Party for offering voters 'agencies and acronyms and statistics' rather than presenting a clear story about 'what we're going to fight for.'
On the other hand, some Democrats contend that the party has been faltering due to stale ideas that fail to inspire voters to get behind them.
3 Mallory McMorrow, Michigan State Senator, makes remarks on Project 2025 at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois, USA, at the United Center on Monday, August 19, 2024.
Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post
Neera Tanden, CEO of the Center for American Progress and advisor to Project 2029, argued that liberals 'underestimate the power of Trump's ideas' and that the focus has been his personality.
'We get wrapped up in his personality. But he puts forward an idea like 'No tax on tips,' and that's an important signifier that he is championing working-class people,' Tanden told the New York Times.
Cherny's plan to assemble 'the Avengers of public policy' — a coalition of Democrats aiming to set the agenda for their party's next presidential candidate — did not sit well with some who believe that coalitions are to blame for the party's current predicament.
3 A scoreboard displays 'DNC 2024' ahead of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) at the United Center on August 16, 2024 in Chicago, Illinois. The United Center will host the DNC, which is officially scheduled to kick off on Monday, August 19 and run through Thursday, August 22.
Getty Images
'Developing policies by checking every coalitional box is how we got in this mess in the first place,' stated Adam Jentleson in the piece, the former chief of staff for Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa. 'There is no way to propose the kind of policies the Democratic Party needs to adopt without pissing off some part of the interest-group Borg. And if you're too afraid to do that, you don't have what it takes to steer the party in the right direction.'
Even though Democrats were successful in rallying their base against Project 2025, Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic, claimed that those efforts will not have a negative effect on Project 2029 because — unlike the Heritage Foundation — their 'ideas aren't radical or extreme.'
Tomasky stated that he hoped the project would help rejuvenate the public's view of the Democratic Party among the less fortunate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
There's a sinister reason for Democrats' collapsing pride in America
One of America's two great political parties no longer thinks of itself as proudly American. As recently as 20 years ago, Democrats were almost as keen on their country as Republicans were, according to Gallup polling. In 2005, fully 81 per cent of Democrats said they were 'very' or 'extremely' proud of being American. Today that number is just 36 per cent. Republicans have hardly changed in that time: 93 per cent were 'very' or 'extremely' proud 20 years ago, and 92 per cent feel that way now. Their national pride didn't decline much even during the Democratic administrations of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Democrats have grown more disenchanted with America whenever Donald Trump has been president, but their alienation isn't only about him. There was a time when even the Communist Party USA went out of its way to present itself as patriotic, insisting that 'Communism is 20th-century Americanism'. The 21st-century Democratic Party is rather less eager to present itself as characteristically American. If the Gallup surveys provide one indication of a post-American mentality taking root among Democrats, recent events supply further evidence. When illegal immigrants clash with law-enforcement in cities like Los Angeles, many Democrats, including office holders, side with the foreign lawbreakers. There are some 212 Democrats currently serving in Congress, but only seven voted for a House of Representatives resolution condemning the recent violent protests in LA. The Democrats have come to see themselves as a party that represents populations other than just American citizens. The charismatic 33-year-old who is the Democratic party's nominee for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, is himself an American citizen. But in 2013 his mother, the filmmaker Mira Nair, was quite emphatic in telling the Hindustan Times that Zohran 'is not an [American] at all. He was born in Uganda, raised between India and America. … He thinks of himself as a Ugandan and as an Indian.' That may have changed since he acquired US citizenship in 2018. Then again, his mother was already a US citizen when she made her boast to the Indian newspaper. Mamdani's father, for his part, is a professor at Columbia University renowned, the New York Times notes, as 'a major figure in the field of post-colonialism'. Mamdani might very well tell Gallup he's very or extremely proud to be an American, if he gets called during the next poll. But it's still fair to suggest that a Democratic Party already drifting in an ideologically 'post-colonial' and post-American direction is apt to accelerate down that path if the son of a top post-colonial academic becomes one of its future leaders. At the elite level with the Mamdanis and at the street level with the riots against Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Left side of America's political spectrum is consistently committed to breaking down the connections between citizenship and the nation-state. Instead of the American federal government serving as an instrument of its citizens, the Left envisions a government administered by an elite without strong national loyalties, which rules in the name of humanity. To their minds, citizenship and national pride are anachronisms, indeed barbarities, that prevent the realisation of a more just, redistributive, 'post-colonial' society – the kind of thing that Mamdani's mayoral campaign might well have in mind with its call to 'shift the tax burden … to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighbourhoods.' Republicans have a steady sense of pride in being American because their view of politics prioritises country over party: America doesn't stop being a source of pride simply because Barack Obama or Joe Biden is president. Democrats, however, clearly have a weaker attachment to the country in general, and that attachment is more party-dependent than it is for Republicans, according to the data. This suggests that what is a source of pride for Democrats is how well America's government approximates the Left's post-national ideal. Trump moved steadily away from that ideal during his first term in office, causing Democrats' degree of pride in America to slump, dropping every year to a low of 42 per cent of Democrats who said they were very or extremely proud of their country in 2020. (The number then shot up to 62 per cent – still 25 points below the Republican mark – in Biden's first year.) In his second term, Trump has asserted national distinctions against transnational ideals still more aggressively, triggering a corresponding collapse in Democrats' sense of pride in America, to today's record lows. For Democrats, 'national pride' means being proud of transcending the old nation. This wasn't always the case. For all the bad publicity Democrats rightly received for the antics of their anti-American, radical Left-wing during the Vietnam War, the party had a patriotic mainstream. The high levels of pride in America recorded by Gallup's polls of Democrats 20 years ago attest to how long that mainstream survived. But since then the party has adopted a new outlook, fostered by a highly educated elite. This first cost the party much of its working-class white support and is now eroding its working-class Hispanic and black support, while Democrats have picked up new donors and publicists from the ranks of old guard Republicans with an internationalist outlook. Yet this influx of a few libertarians and neoconservatives isn't nearly enough to offset the loss of working-class voters, and what's worse, it contributes nothing to restoring the party's feel for the nation – quite the opposite, in fact. One of America's two parties is now a world party instead. Yet voters, especially Americans, prefer the nation to the world. Daniel McCarthy is the editor in chief of Modern Age Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Without compromise, American democracy has no future
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The following day, Bacon announced that he'd also had enough of the intolerant partisanship dominating Congress. The former Air Force brigadier general, Advertisement Tillis and Bacon aren't rebels. They just don't believe their job is to elevate hardline ideological rigidity above all other considerations. In that sense they are like former Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, two Democrats who likewise found themselves demonized for occasionally making common cause with members of the opposing party. Last year, they too chose not to run for reelection. Advertisement Of all the developments that have sickened American politics in this generation, the abandonment of democratic civility and the resulting hostility to compromise are the most toxic. The virtues of moderation and magnanimity, the willingness to engage respectfully with others' views, the assumption that individuals with contrary opinions may be wrong but are not evil — without these, our political institutions cannot function. The first and most vital task of liberal democratic politics is to accommodate strong differences without tearing society apart. But that becomes impossible when conciliation is regarded as treachery — and when politics stops focusing on persuasion and debate and becomes obsessed instead with defeating enemies by any means necessary. Granted, Yet compromise has been the lifeblood of the American experiment from its earliest days. The very possibility of self‑government is grounded in the presumption that citizens with intensely held but divergent views can find ways to cooperate. The American founders knew perfectly well that there would always be deep disputes over principles, tactics, means, and ends. That is why they regarded compromise not as a necessary evil but as an essential element of our constitutional system. Advertisement 'Those who hammer out painful deals perform the hardest and, often, highest work of politics,' the American thinker Jonathan Rauch wrote in In ' America's independence holiday is a good time to remember that some of this nation's greatest achievements emerged from political give‑and‑take, not from unilateral assertions of power. The Constitution itself was born of compromise. At the convention in 1787, delegates were deadlocked between a population-based legislature (favored by large states) and one that would treat all states equally (favored by small states). Had the impasse not been broken by what was later called the Great Compromise — a bicameral Congress with proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate — the convention would have collapsed and the fragile confederation of states might never have endured. American progress has depended time and again on the ability of political leaders to transcend their partisan, sectional, or ideological loyalties and reach a compromise all sides could live with. Advertisement Consider the bargain struck in 1790 between Alexander Hamilton of New York and Virginia's Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Hamilton wanted the federal government to assume all state debts, which would amount to a dramatic expansion of national power. That prospect alarmed Southern leaders like Jefferson and Madison — but they agreed not to derail the plan in exchange for locating the new national capital on the Maryland-Virginia border instead of in one of the major commercial centers of the North. Though each side had to swallow a bitter pill, the deal achieved two vital ends: national creditworthiness through debt assumption, and a seat of government accessible to both North and South. And it showed that even foundational questions about the scope of federal power could be resolved through negotiation rather than force. Congress similarly chose compromise over caustic stalemate in 1964, with a Civil Rights Act that combined Southern concessions on federalism with Northern demands to outlaw segregation. The law was far from perfect, but it transformed American society and politics. It passed despite the opposition of hard-core segregationists, thanks to a bipartisan coalition hammered together by President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican minority leader — proof that compromise, when linked to moral conviction, can dismantle entrenched injustice. To mention one more, recall the 1997 budget agreement. When Republicans under Newt Gingrich won control of the US House for the first time in decades, their ' surpluses . It was one more illustration of how ideological opponents, if they are motivated to do so, can find ways to compromise. Advertisement None of this is to suggest that all compromises are good. That would be as ridiculous as insisting that any compromise is bad. The point, rather, is that without the ability to compromise — and without the civility and mutual respect that make that possible — our democratic republic cannot survive. Maybe we've already crossed that point. Is there any reason to be optimistic about a Congress in which fanatics like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Bernie Sanders flourish while thoughtful legislators such as Thom Tillis and Kyrsten Sinema are marginalized until they resign? In ' What would have happened if those men hadn't been able to reason together — if they had abandoned all efforts to persuade and had resorted instead to invective and intimidation? The American experiment might have ended before it even got off the ground. If today's leaders continue to scorn compromise and civility, ours may be the generation that brings it crashing back to earth. Advertisement Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
2 hours ago
Trump branded, browbeat and prevailed. But his big bill may come at a political cost
WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama had the Affordable Care Act. Joe Biden had the Inflation Reduction Act. President Donald Trump will have the tax cuts. All were hailed in the moment and became ripe political targets in campaigns that followed. In Trump's case, the tax cuts may almost become lost in the debates over other parts of the multitrillion-dollar bill that Democrats say will force poor Americans off their health care and overturn a decade or more of energy policy. Through persuasion and browbeating, Trump forced nearly all congressional Republicans to line up behind his marquee legislation despite some of its unpalatable pieces. He followed the playbook that had marked his life in business before politics. He focused on branding — labeling the legislation the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' — then relentlessly pushed to strong-arm it through Congress, solely on the votes of Republicans. But Trump's victory will soon be tested during the 2026 midterm elections where Democrats plan to run on a durable theme: that the Republican president favors the rich on tax cuts over poorer people who will lose their health care. Trump and Republicans argue that those who deserve coverage will retain it. Nonpartisan analysts, however, project significant increases to the number of uninsured. Meanwhile, the GOP's promise that the bill will turbocharge the economy will be tested at a time of uncertainty and trade turmoil. Trump has tried to counter the notion of favoring the rich with provisions that would reduce the taxes for people paid in tips and receiving overtime pay, two kinds of earners who represent a small share of the workforce. Extending the tax cuts from Trump's first term that were set to expire if Congress failed to act meant he could also argue that millions of people would avoid a tax increase. To enact that and other expensive priorities, Republicans made steep cuts to Medicaid that ultimately belied Trump's promise that those on government entitlement programs 'won't be affected.' 'The biggest thing is, he's answering the call of the forgotten people. That's why his No. 1 request was the no tax on tips, the no tax on overtime, tax relief for seniors,' said Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. 'I think that's going to be the big impact.' Presidents have seen their signature legislative accomplishments unraveled by their successors or become a significant political liability for their party in subsequent elections. A central case for Biden's reelection was that the public would reward the Democrat for his legislative accomplishments. That never bore fruit as he struggled to improve his poll numbers driven down by concerns about his age and stubborn inflation. Since taking office in January, Trump has acted to gut tax breaks meant to boost clean energy initiatives that were part of Biden's landmark health care-and-climate bill. Obama's health overhaul, which the Democrat signed into law in March 2010, led to a political bloodbath in the midterms that fall. Its popularity only became potent when Republicans tried to repeal it in 2017. Whatever political boost Trump may have gotten from his first-term tax cuts in 2017 did not help him in the 2018 midterms, when Democrats regained control of the House, or in 2020 when he lost to Biden. 'I don't think there's much if any evidence from recent or even not-so-recent history of the president's party passing a big one-party bill and getting rewarded for it,' said Kyle Kondik, an elections analyst with the nonpartisan University of Virginia's Center for Politics. Democrats hope they can translate their policy losses into political gains. During an Oval Office appearance in January, Trump pledged he would 'love and cherish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.' 'We're not going to do anything with that, other than if we can find some abuse or waste, we'll do something,' Trump said. 'But the people won't be affected. It will only be more effective and better.' That promise is far removed from what Trump and the Republican Party ultimately chose to do, paring back not only Medicaid but also food assistance for the poor to make the math work on their sweeping bill. It would force 11.8 million more people to become uninsured by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office, whose estimates the GOP has dismissed. 'In Trump's first term, Democrats in Congress prevented bad outcomes. They didn't repeal the (Affordable Care Act), and we did COVID relief together. This time is different,' said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. 'Hospitals will close, people will die, the cost of electricity will go up, and people will go without food.' Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., repeatedly argued the legislation would lead to drastic coverage losses in his home state and others, leaving them vulnerable to political attacks similar to what Democrats faced after they enacted 'Obamacare.' With his warnings unheeded, Tillis announced he would not run for reelection, after he opposed advancing the bill and enduring Trump's criticism. 'If there is a political dimension to this, it is the extraordinary impact that you're going to have in states like California, blue states with red districts,' Tillis said. "The narrative is going to be overwhelmingly negative in states like California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.' Even Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who eventually became the decisive vote in the Senate that ensured the bill's passage, said the legislation needed more work and she urged the House to revise it. Lawmakers there did not. Early polling suggests that Trump's bill is deeply unpopular, including among independents and a healthy share of Republicans. White House officials said their own research does not reflect that. So far, it's only Republicans celebrating the victory. That seems OK with the president. In a speech in Iowa after the bill passed, he said Democrats only opposed it because they 'hated Trump.' That didn't bother him, he said, 'because I hate them, too.'
