Originally published at Project-Syndicate | Sep 9th, 2024
Republicans and Democrats differ significantly on the role of government in society, a divide that the US Supreme Court used to mediate. But now that the Court is blatantly biased toward Republicans, a Donald Trump victory in November’s presidential election could be devastating for the country – and for many other democracies.
NEW HAVEN – Last month’s expertly choreographed Democratic National Convention has added a frisson of excitement to the US presidential election. After President Joe Biden’s historic decision in July to withdraw from the race (at which point Donald Trump was leading in the polls), the DNC marked the start of a new chapter, with Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, reinvigorating the Democratic base. The crowd’s exuberance was palpable.
The Democrats’ new momentum has added a dramatic edge to the campaign as it enters its final months. As a political economist, however, I tend to focus on voters’ views of the economy and, relatedly, the deep divide between Republicans and Democrats on the role of government in society – a difference that, should Trump win, could alter the United States’ trajectory for years to come.
For starters, many voters believe that Trump’s trappings of success (regularly using his Mar-a-Lago resort as a backdrop and rubbing shoulders with the likes of Elon Musk) means that he is strong on the economy. In fact, Trump has a long history of business bankruptcies and is currently embroiled in legal cases related to charges of fraud, racketeering, and more.
At the same time, voters tend to discount the fact that Biden oversaw America’s remarkable economic rebound from COVID-19. While economists applaud the significant reduction in inflation under his administration, the average American is more concerned about still-elevated prices. When you are struggling to afford groceries, it can be easy to forget that Trump’s huge tax cut for the rich laid the groundwork for inflation by driving up asset prices and increasing aggregate demand.
To understand Republican tax policies – and the party’s agenda more broadly – it is, however, necessary to leave economics behind and reflect on America’s founding and subsequent history, particularly the displacement of Native Americans and enslavement of Africans. Without this forced migration, the US would not exist in its current form.
The 1960s civil-rights movement, which aimed to dismantle racial segregation, was relatively successful in securing equal rights for minorities and overcoming the legacy of slavery. Some ethno-nationalists, however, wish to return to a past when white men were atop the social hierarchy. Believing that Trump is best positioned to help recreate this America, they have flocked to the Republican Party.
The Republican Party’s efforts to roll back civil rights is consistent with its stance on government’s role. The Democrats, for their part, conceive of government as working for people, which includes extending a helping hand to the disadvantaged and providing a safety net for those in need. But Republicans believe that confronting challenges forces people to innovate and create wealth, and that improving one’s situation through hard work and risk-taking is essential for building a competitive economy. The history of the US economic development certainly reflects this spirit of agency. According to this view, excessive state protection such as loan forgiveness and affirmative action in college admissions undermines efficiency and growth.
The Supreme Court, which is charged with protecting constitutional rights, has become the arbiter on these divisive issues. For example, the Court struck down Biden’s student-loan forgiveness program, which would have canceled hundreds of billions of dollars of student debt. In this instance, I agree with the majority opinion because loan markets function as a form of pressure on students to repay debt, which generates additional benefits for society. For that reason, loan forgiveness should be available only for borrowers experiencing unexpected misfortune.
Likewise, I believe that affirmative action in college admissions should eventually be abolished, not least because it puts other ethnic groups at a disadvantage. But given the continued effects of past segregation and discrimination, and because affirmative action has been such an obvious source of equality in the US, I disagree with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to reject race-conscious admissions programs at American universities. The playing field is far from level, making such a move premature.
However much I understand the Supreme Court’s reasoning in these matters, I wholeheartedly disagree with its ruling that Trump and other former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts – notably, in Trump’s case, inciting an insurrection. Electing a president who refuses to accept the results of a free and fair election would jeopardize US democracy and threaten to usher in a period of chronic, perhaps violent, political turmoil.
Equally important, the US election on November 5 will have global implications. Dictators and aspiring authoritarians around the world are hoping for a Trump victory. If they get their wish, all democracies might become fair game.
Koichi Hamada: Professor Emeritus at Yale University, was a special adviser to former Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzō.
