Lies about Project 2025
ryanmcbeth.substack.com
Lies about Project 2025
Telling the truth 17% of the time means that something is wrong with your policy
Project 2025 is a roughly 900 page vision document that was created by conservative research institution the Heritage Foundation.
In response to this document, an unknown online entity created the infographic below, which I fact-checked.
Soon after the report was released, an "Active Measures" infographic was released online which misrepresented or outright lied about some of the intentions of Project 2025. This particular propaganda infographic was amplified by democratic pundit Christopher Hahn and is still being circulated today:
Of the 29 claims in the infographic, only 17% can be considered truthful.
The full Project 2025 document can be found here:
I’m afraid you may have stepped right into a steaming pile of culture war, Ryan, in an effort to make an example of this document. The problem is that (I think) the majority of your grading as “partially true” (or yellow) means that these items are open for interpretation, though I can see that this is not your intention.
In choosing an example about Project 2025, a third-rail, hot button political issue right now, you open yourself to questions about bias or clarity. Of course the guys that wrote the original Heritage Foundation document would have made some effort to defuse what they knew would be outrage at some of these positions, so somebody with a right wing point of view could say “Well, that sounds reasonable” while somebody from the left would look at it from the worst case point of view. “Promoting traditional marriage” for instance, is considered by the left as code for “opposing gay marriage” which of course is seen as part of an overall bigoted position against all gay people (not without reason). But you treat this as if this were ordinary language, which it is not. You are missing context as you do in a number of similar yellow items (in my opinion).
One of the problems with the whole discussion is that both the left and the right try to use language that will seem reasonable to their constituents, while being seen as coded outrageous language by their opponents. That is to say, both sides are full of shit when these tactics are employed.
I’m afraid that by using simple word searches you miss a lot of context. I think you do this in an effort to be dispassionate and objective, but I’m afraid your lack of focus on context makes you appear biased towards the right, though I think you are actually not biased at all.
Your final score of 17% truthful seems skewed because my own reading would put all or most of the the partial truths into the true category (which I think most liberals would) because of the weasel wording of the document and your lack of recognition of a lot of the context.
But really, there is no way you could wade into this subject without making people like me (a liberal) unhappy. It is simply too loaded. Even if it turned out that the document in question was 100% lies, I would still think there was something to it, because that’s the way human beings are and that’s one of the reasons this kind of disinformation works. I ain’t saying that’s fair, but I think it’s true. Most of us have our ingrown native bias about this stuff. But thanks for doing this thoughtful piece of work.
I get that the video had to be brief, but I think it skips over some important details when it comes to Project 2025. If you dig into the actual document and what the Heritage Foundation has been saying, some of what’s called out as lies could be seen as at least half-truths, if not completely accurate, depending on how you look at it.
Take the push to limit abortion access and restrict travel for procedures, for example. For many women, especially those without money, that’s pretty much the same as banning abortion outright. Historically, it’s been the women with means who could get abortions, while poor women were often forced into dangerous situations. Project 2025 could make that even worse by effectively making abortion out of reach for those who can’t afford to travel.
On top of that, the idea of reshaping the federal government by turning civil service jobs into political appointments is a big concern. This could turn the government into a group of political yes-men instead of experts who are supposed to be impartial. It’s hard to trust a system that might prioritize loyalty over competence, especially in critical areas like public health and law enforcement.
And then there’s the whole thing about consolidating power under the unitary executive theory. That’s a fancy way of saying the president would have way more control over the government, which could really mess with the balance of power that’s supposed to keep things in check. With how polarized things are right now, that’s a pretty scary thought.
Yeah, there’s definitely propaganda on both sides, but the risks here are real. Project 2025 could roll back rights and shake up how our government works in ways that might not be easy to undo. This isn’t just about political differences—it’s about making sure our democracy stays fair and that the government works for everyone, not just a select few.