By Matt Underwood Project 2025 writer resigns over boss’ ‘indefensible’ comments. Let’s unpack this. It’s pretty wild, isn’t it? A writer associated with Project 2025, which, let’s be honest, is a blueprint for a certain kind of future, resigned over their boss’s comments. Not, mind you, over the broad strokes of the project itself – the dismantling of education, the gutting of social safety nets, the potential restrictions on healthcare – but over the comments. Comments that, by any reasonable standard, are deeply problematic.
The crux of the matter revolves around the Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, and his defense of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes. Fuentes, as you might recall, is known for his…let’s call it “controversial” views. The comments Roberts made, defending Carlson and criticizing those who criticized him, seem to have been the breaking point. The specific comment that triggered the writer’s departure included Roberts calling Carlson “a close friend of the Heritage Foundation”. He also referred to those criticizing Carlson as “the globalist class” and a “venomous coalition.”
Now, it’s interesting to consider what constitutes “indefensible” in this context. Apparently, advocating for a significant reshaping of American society to align with some very specific ideals is perfectly acceptable. Yet, associating with certain figures and, seemingly, giving a pass to certain views…that’s where the line is drawn? It’s a question that raises some serious eyebrows. It’s almost as if the writer was okay with a project that would destroy what America is, but was not ok with the company the President kept.
The fact that someone involved with Project 2025 – a project with some seriously concerning implications – would resign over *this* is a stark reminder of the moral compromises involved. This seems to be the trend. You can be against the democrats but not go so far as being openly racist, because that is “wrong.” This is not a moral stand, but rather an issue of brand image.
This whole situation highlights the hypocrisy at play. The writer, presumably, was comfortable with the project’s broader goals, which encompass a radical transformation of the American system, including rolling back many years of progress. But the comments? That’s where they draw the line? Is this about principles, or is it more about optics? It’s hard to say for sure, but the timing is certainly interesting. The fact that other resignations have followed suggests a possible internal rift at the Heritage Foundation. It will be interesting to see how the fallout plays out.
The response to this writer’s departure, and the comments themselves, also reveals a troubling trend of deflection. It seems like the core values of project 2025 are fine, but any criticism is “venomous.” It’s not about the substance of the criticisms. It’s about protecting the image. It’s a convenient way to evade accountability and maintain a façade of respectability.
In any case, this is not just about one writer or one set of comments. It is indicative of a deeper conflict within conservative circles, where the lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior are constantly being redrawn. This isn’t a battle of ideas.
And what’s truly “indefensible”? It is not this writer resigning. It’s the project itself. It is the very foundation that allows such comments to be made in the first place. The writer, it seems, has now left the project. Now what? Where do they go? Will this person find new work? It’s a complicated situation, made all the more so by the highly politicized environment we find ourselves in.