Trending
To the Journal editor:
"Project 2020" was often criticized by progressives as a blueprint for expanding executive power and reshaping federal institutions. Yet there is a striking inconsistency in that criticism: many of the same voices which denounced the document's existence seem unwilling to acknowledge the absence of a comparably comprehensive, publicly debated governing blueprint from the modern left. If one side is condemned for explaining what it would do with power, why is the other side not held to the same standard?
At its core, Project 2020 presented ideas associated with limited government, individual liberty, administrative accountability, and a reduction of federal authority. People may reasonably disagree with those proposals, and criticism is an essential part of democratic debate. But disagreement is not the same as hypocrisy. It becomes hypocritical when critics portray the mere creation of a detailed policy agenda as dangerous while treating the lack of an equally coherent alternative as a virtue.
The American left certainly produces campaign platforms, speeches, legislative proposals and advocacy literature. However, these materials rarely form a single, sustained public conversation comparable in purpose to a governing manifesto. They are often fragmented across activist organizations, academic circles, media commentary, and party statements. Consequently, voters are frequently offered broad promises--such as "transforming" the country or expanding government programs--without a unified explanation of how power would be exercised, limited or transferred back to citizens.
The contrast with the Federalist Papers is instructive. Those essays did not merely promote a political faction; they openly argued for a constitutional structure, defended the separation of powers, and explained how a proposed government might function. Their authors invited public scrutiny through reasoned argument. A modern movement that claims to represent the future of the nation should be willing to engage in a similarly clear and sustained dialogue.
The real issue, then, is not whether Project 2020 should be criticized. It should be examined carefully, challenged vigorously and judged by citizens. The issue is whether transparency and specificity are standards applied consistently. A democracy benefits when every political movement publishes its goals, defends them publicly and permits voters to evaluate the consequences. Criticizing one side for writing down its intentions while excusing the other from doing so is not principled opposition. It is a double standard.