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 enact specific policies they have proposed, but because they wouldn’t.
Trump, for example, has repeatedly called for a universal 20 percent tariff on goods entering the United States. You might think this would worry some of Trump’s supporters in the business community, since tariffs make supply chains more expensive and more fragile, and generally drive up the cost of goods and services. But at least some of Trump’s high-profile business backers have argued that this doesn’t matter because Trump won’t enact them.
Some Trump boosters have dismissed this idea on the basis that Trump often blusters, pops off with unrealistic or unworkable policy ideas, and generally shouldn’t be taken seriously. But this is tantamount to an argument that Trump is just a con man or a liar. That’s not a good reason to vote for him.
A somewhat better version of this argument, which is still not a very good one, is that this is just a smart negotiating tactic: Trump doesn’t really want widespread, economy-crushing tariffs. Instead, as Trump backer Howard Lutnick has argued, his call for huge import fees is just a “bargaining tool” that would be used as leverage against other countries in trade negotiations. In this view, Trump’s call for high all-around tariffs is actually a secret ploy to reduce international trade barriers. It’s a remarkable rhetorical trick that transforms Trump’s wildest anti-trade proposal into a secret vehicle for boosting international trade.
It’s true that Trump has sometimes said that he prefers to negotiate by starting with a preposterously big ask and then accepting something less. But recasting Trump’s giant tariff proposal as a clever negotiating ploy ignores the Republican candidate’s long history of backing damaging trade restrictions. Trump is not exactly known for his policy depth or consistency, but support for tariffs specifically and a more mercantilist trade policy generally is probably his clearest and most consistently espoused policy view. He might try to impose broad-based tariffs, if given the chance.
Or he might not. It’s fair to say that we don’t know, because while Trump has a long history of pushing tariffs, he also has a long history of exaggeration, bluffs, brain farts, reversals, and outright lies about issues large and small. But that’s a reason to be wary of Trump. If he can’t be trusted to accurately describe his own policy agenda, then he can’t be trusted.
There’s something similar at work with Kamala Harris’ proposed ban on “price gouging,” although it’s less of a cope from supporters and more of a motte-and-bailey trick from her campaign. When the price-gouging idea first circulated behind the scenes, the particulars shared by the campaign made it sound an awful lot like a vast system of federal price controls, which would have devastating effects on the economy.
After an initial round of criticism, the Harris camp softly backpedaled, insisting that her plan was merely a modest federal expansion of existing state price gouging laws. Like those laws, it would be employed rarely if at all, and only in extreme circumstances. It couldn’t possibly be price controls. And besides, Democratic operatives noted, anti–price gouging laws test well with voters. In essence, it’s an effective messaging strategy, not a substantive policy proposal.
“Don’t worry, my policy is fake” is not exactly a reassuring message from a presidential campaign or its surrogates—especially when there are real legislative proposals from progressives such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) that would act much more like federal price controls, and Harris herself has proposed policies that look a lot like price controls in other realms of the economy, like housing.
Harris, meanwhile, has continued to tout her price gouging ban as a way to reduce grocery prices, which is hard to square with the idea that it would only be used rarely, in extreme circumstances. If it’s hardly ever used, it’s hard to see how it would have much of an effect. If it’s used aggressively to manage grocery prices, then it’s probably fair to call it a system of price controls.
As with Trump’s tariffs, it’s hard 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’s false advertising, little more than empty election-year marketing spin to win over voters. Either way, this is a reason to distrust and dislike Harris.
The fundamental problem is that neither of these candidates is remotely serious when it comes to economic policy. Trump is lifelong fibber gripped by terrible, erroneous ideas about trade. Harris is an empty vessel who has repeatedly flirted with obviously awful and unworkable progressive policies.
Meanwhile, there’s a very real economic reckoning coming: America’s major entitlement programs are headed for insolvency. There’s a tax cliff next year that has received scant attention on the campaign trail. And even as debt and deficits have risen to historically unprecedented levels outside major emergencies, both candidates are proposing suites of policies that would dramatically increase the nation’s long-term fiscal gap—with Trump’s policy mix increasing deficits far more than Harris’, at least if you believe they’ll actually enact their plans.
It’s a shame and an embarrassment. America needs sober-minded leaders with coherent, consistent ideas for governance. Instead, we’ve got two candidates who can’t even be trusted to explain their own ideas. Whatever else this election might be about, policy seriousness is not on the ballot.
