One of the strangest aspects of this election is that supporters of both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have argued that you should vote for them not because they would implement the specific policies they proposed, but because they would not.
Trump, for example, has repeatedly called for universal policies 20 percent rate on goods entering the United States. You might think this would worry some Trump supporters in the business community, as tariffs make supply chains more expensive and vulnerable, and generally drive up the cost of goods and services. But at least some of Trump’s prominent business people have argued that these don’t matter because Trump won’t implement them.
Some Trump supporters have rejected this idea on the grounds that Trump often brags, floats unrealistic or unworkable policy ideas, and generally should not be taken seriously. But this amounts to arguing that Trump is just a fraud or a liar. That’s not a good reason to vote for him.
A slightly better version of this argument, which is still not very good, is that this is just a clever negotiating tactic: Trump doesn’t really want widespread, economy-crushing tariffs. Instead, as Trump backer Howard Lutnick has done arguedhis call for huge tariffs is merely a ‘negotiating tool’ that could be used as leverage against other countries in trade negotiations. In this view, Trump’s call for high across-the-board tariffs is actually a secret ploy to break down international trade barriers. It’s a remarkable rhetorical trick that turns Trump’s wildest anti-trade proposal into a secret vehicle to boost international trade.
It’s true that Trump has sometimes said he prefers to negotiate by starting with a ridiculously large ask and then accepting a little less. But recasting Trump’s massive tariff proposal as a clever negotiating ploy ignores the Republican candidate’s long history of supporting harmful trade restrictions. Trump is not exactly known for his depth or consistency in his policies, but support for tariffs in particular and more mercantilist trade policies in general is probably his clearest and most consistent policy vision. If given the chance, he might try to impose broad tariffs.
Or maybe not. It’s fair to say we don’t know, because while Trump has a long history of imposing tariffs, he also has a long history of exaggerations, bluffs, brain farts, reversals and outright lies on issues big and small. But that’s a reason to be wary of Trump. If you can’t trust him to accurately describe his own policy agenda, then you can’t trust him.
There’s something similar going on with Kamala Harris’ proposal ban on ‘price gouging’ although it’s less a matter of supporters and more a motte-and-bailey ploy by her campaign. When the idea of price gouging was first floated behind the scenes, the details shared by the campaign made it sound very much like a extensive system of federal price controlswhich would have devastating consequences for the economy.
After an initial round of criticism, the Harris camp quietly backed down, insisting that its plan was only a modest federal expansion of existing price gouging laws. Like these laws, it would be applied rarely, if at all, and only in extreme circumstances. They can’t possibly be price controls. And besides, Democratic operatives notedlaws against price gouging work well with voters. At its core, it is an effective messaging strategy, not a substantive policy proposal.
“Don’t worry, my policies are fake” isn’t exactly a reassuring message from a presidential campaign or its surrogates — especially when there are real legislative proposals from progressives like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that would mean a lot. it’s more like federal price controls, and Harris himself has done just that proposed policies that look a lot like price controls in other areas of the economy, such as housing.
Harris, meanwhile, has continued to tout her ban on price gouging as a way to lower food prices, which is difficult to reconcile with the idea that it would only be applied rarely, under extreme circumstances. If it is hardly ever used, it is difficult to see what effect it would have. If it is used aggressively to control food prices, you can probably call it a price control system.
As with Trump’s tariffs, it is difficult to know what the policy would look like if Harris wins the election. The details are vague, Harris has given few interviews and the Harris campaign has left many questions about her agenda unanswered. But either her price-gouging idea is an economically destructive policy, or it is false advertising, little more than an empty election-year marketing campaign to win over voters. Either way, this is a reason to distrust and dislike Harris.
The fundamental problem is that none of these candidates are remotely serious when it comes to economic policy. Trump is a lifelong liar in the grip of terrible, flawed ideas about trade. Harris is an empty vessel who has repeatedly flirted with clearly awful and unworkable progressive policies.
Meanwhile, a very real economic reckoning is coming: America’s major entitlement programs are headed toward insolvency. Next year will see a tax cliff that received little attention during the campaign. And even as debt and deficits have risen to historically unprecedented levels outside major emergencies, both candidates are proposing policies that will dramatically widen the country’s fiscal gap over the long term — with Trump’s policy mix increasing deficits far more than those of Harris, at least if you believe they will actually carry out their plans.
It’s a shame and a disgrace. America needs level-headed leaders with coherent, consistent ideas for governance. Instead, we have two candidates who can’t even be trusted to explain their own ideas. Whatever else this election is about, the seriousness of the policy is not on the ballot.