Tens of millions of Americans will vote for Donald Trump next week. Some will do it out of revolt, because they think that Kamala Harris is a radical Marxist who will destroy their country. Others are fueled by national pride, as Trump inspires them and instills faith in them that America will stand tall while he is in the White House. Still, some will calmly decide to vote for Trump, considering it a calculated risk.
This latter group of voters, which includes many Economist readers, may not see Trump as someone they want to do business with or a role model for their children. However, they probably think that when he was president, he did more good than bad. They may also believe that the charges against him are exaggerated. Key to this assessment is the idea that his worst instincts would be contained by: his associates, the bureaucracy, Congress, and the courts.
This paper finds such an argument recklessly self-indulgent. America may be able to survive four more years with Trump, as it has survived the presidencies of other flawed men from both parties. The country might even prosper. However, voters who claim to be pragmatic overlook the risk of serious consequences of a Trump presidency. By giving Trump the role of leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace. We cannot measure the chances of something going wrong: no one can. But we believe that voters who minimize this risk are being fooled.
One reason to fear a second Trump term is that the world has changed since 2017-21. Wars threaten America's security, and there is a risk that Trump will be less restrained
Some will dismiss this as spreading panic. The truth is that our worst fears about Trump's first term have not come true. At home, he cut taxes and deregulated the economy, which was growing faster than any other in the developed world. His administration deserves credit for funding Covid-19 vaccines, even though he has refused to encourage Americans to get vaccinated. Abroad, he has shown strength, shifting the consensus toward confrontation with China. He helped broker the Abraham Accords, which formalized relations between Israel and some of its neighbors - a peace that has so far survived the regional war. He encouraged some US allies to increase defense spending. Even as Trump behaved abhorrently, inciting an attack on the Capitol to stop the handover on January 6, 2021, American institutions stood firm.
If "The Economist" could not predict so much in 2016, why listen to our warning now? The answer is that today the risks are greater. That's because Trump's policies are worse, the world is more dangerous, and many of the sane, responsible people who suppressed his worst instincts in his first term have been replaced by true believers, followers, and calculators.
The argument against Trump starts with his policies. In 2016, the Republican program still balanced between Mitt Romney's wing and Donald Trump's wing. Today's version is much more extreme. Trump advocates a 20 percent tariff on all imports and talks about tariffs of over 200 percent and even 500 percent on cars from Mexico. He proposes deporting millions of undocumented immigrants, many of whom have jobs and American children. He wants to extend tax breaks even though the budget deficit is at a level usually seen only during war or recession, indicating an indifference to fiscal responsibility.
These policies would be inflationary, potentially leading to conflict with the Federal Reserve. They would risk provoking a trade war that would ultimately impoverish America. The combination of inflation, out-of-control deficits, and institutional decay would bring the day when foreigners would start worrying about making unlimited loans to the US Treasury.
The American economy is the envy of the world, but it is based on the fact that it is an open market that embraces creative destruction, innovation and competition. Sometimes it seems as if Trump wants to return to the 19th century, using tariffs and tax breaks to reward friends and punish enemies, as well as to finance the country and minimize the trade deficit. Politics could yet destroy the foundations of American prosperity.
By giving Trump the role of leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace
Another reason to fear a second Trump term is that the world has changed. In the period 2017-2021. the world was mostly peaceful. Trump's supporters attribute this to his unpredictability and willingness to take strong and unconventional action, a combination that can really keep troublesome countries under control. When foreign policy analysts warned of catastrophic consequences after the assassination of Qasem Suleimani, one of Iran's top generals, Trump was right. However, the next president faces two wars that threaten American security. In Ukraine, Russia has the upper hand, putting Vladimir Putin in a position to threaten further aggression in Europe. A war in the Middle East, which is moving ever closer to Iran, could involve the United States.
These conflicts would test Trump in a way that the first term did not. His superficial promises to bring peace to Ukraine in a day, as well as his open support for Israeli offensives, are not encouraging. Even worse is his disdain for alliances. Although they are America's greatest geopolitical force, Trump sees them as frauds that allow weak countries to take advantage of its military might. Noise and threats may help Trump to survive, but they can also destroy NATO. China will monitor the situation as it weighs how aggressive to be toward Taiwan. Asian allies may judge that they can no longer trust America's nuclear guarantee.
It is hard to imagine that Kamala Harris will be a great president, although people know how to surprise. But you can't imagine that it will cause a disaster
The domestic and foreign policy risks are heightened by the last big difference between Trump's first term and a possible second term: He would be less constrained. The president who was thinking about firing rockets at drug labs in Mexico was stopped by the people and institutions around him. Since then, the Republican Party has organized itself around loyalty to Trump. Friendly institutes have drawn up lists of loyal men to serve in the next administration. The Supreme Court weakened the president's restrictions by ruling that they cannot be prosecuted for official acts.
If external restrictions are looser, much more will depend on Trump's character. Given his disdain for the constitution after losing the 2020 election, it's hard to be optimistic. Half of his former cabinet members refused to support him. The top Republican senator described him as "a despicable human being." His former chief of staff and former chief of staff call him a fascist. If you were interviewing a job candidate, you wouldn't lightly ignore such character recommendations.
Good presidents unite the country. Trump's political genius is reflected in turning people against each other. After the death of George Floyd, he suggested the military shoot protesters in the legs. American prosperity depends on the idea that people are treated fairly, regardless of their politics; Trump has threatened to turn the Justice Department against his political enemies.
Compared to Trump, Kamala Harris represents stability. It is true that she is a political machine that does not leave a special impression. She is struggling to clearly present to voters what she wants to achieve in power. He seems hesitant and uncertain. However, she abandoned the most left-wing ideas of the Democrats and is campaigning closer to the center, with the support of Liz Cheney and other Republican exiles.
She has common weaknesses and none are disqualifying. Some of her policies are worse than those of her opponent, for example her preference for regulation and additional taxation of wealth creation. Some are just less bad, like for example in trade and deficit. But some, related to climate and abortion, are unequivocally better. It's hard to imagine that Harris will make a great president, although people know how to surprise. But you can't imagine that it will cause a disaster.
Presidents don't have to be saints, and hopefully a second Trump term would avoid disaster. However, Trump represents an unacceptable risk to America and the world. If "The Economist" had the right to vote, he would vote for Kamala Harris.
Prepared by: A. Š.
Bonus video:
