Both candidates have serious flaws. But Trump's record of trying to overthrow constitutional democracy after he lost the 2020 election creates a strong presumption against him. In addition, he is worse on key policy issues, most notably, trade, immigration, federal spending, and maintaining the Western alliance in the face of threats from authoritarian powers.I agree that Donald Trump is often his own worst enemy, disagree with his assessment, and recommend reading his argument in full, as he is taking on the Cult of the Presidency and the administrative state as he extends his argument. Note also that he's voting as if other voters are treating their choice as binary. Note, as well, his arguing style, creditably noting that people might disagree.
This outweighs Kamala Harris's significant weaknesses on some other issues, especially because Trump is more likely to be able to implement his worst policies through unilateral executive action, while Harris's worst ideas require hard-to-secure new legislation. Arguments that Trump is superior on deregulation and issues related to the judiciary are greatly overblown, and nowhere near enough to offset his awfulness elsewhere.
When it comes to public policy and choosing candidates, my priorities are promoting freedom and human happiness. Thus, I give greatest weight to those issues with the biggest impact on them. People with relatively similar values are likely to find my assessment of greater relevance than those with very different ones.I concur, although my reason for voting a straight Republican ticket is to punish Democrats for turning January 6 into an excuse to impose destructive policies signed into law by a senile sock puppet, which makes me skeptical of Mr Somin's calm contemplation of more executive orders signed by a Democrat. Weigh his assessment of Donald Trump's role in that futile and stupid gesture at the Capitol accordingly.
Elsewhere, I have defended the idea of voting for a lesser evil, which means the least-bad candidate among those with a realistic chance of winning the election. Check out my earlier writings on that subject if you want to know why I'm not going to vote for a third party candidate, even though Libertarian Party nominee Chase Oliver is far superior to both Harris and Trump on most issues (with the important exception of national security policy). The other third party candidates—RFK, Jr. (where he remains on the ballot), Jill Stein, Cornel West, etc.—all both have zero chance of winning and are absolutely terrible on policy.
Before getting into policy issues, it is important to emphasize that Trump's efforts to undermine the Constitution and overturn the results of the 2020 election by force and fraud create a strong presumption against him. If such behavior is left unpunished and instead rewarded with another term in office, it creates an obvious incentive for both Trump and other politicians to engage in similar—and perhaps even worse—skullduggery in the future. If future presidents are permitted view acceptance of electoral results and peaceful transition of power as optional, that poses a serious threat to the entire system of constitutional democracy.I agree. In primary season, my preference was for Governor DeSantis or Governor Haley. Neither of them could close the sale, despite being clear they would not be the kind of tame Republican who would lose graciously. The Trump policy positions align more closely with those of median voters, apart from abortion.
Perhaps now might be a good time for all citizens to agree on the value of honoring the Constitution as written, and amending it in the prescribed way. That doesn't sound like Kamala Harris on the campaign trail.
Trump could severely undermine basic norms of liberal democratic government, and his past track record indicates he has every intention of trying to do so. His authoritarian tendencies are so blatant that even many of his former cabinet members and advisers — such asGen. John Kelly (Trump's former chief of staff) warn against them, and have refused to support him for a second term.Why?
Libertarian political philosopher Michael Huemer cogently argues this danger is so great that it renders normal policy issues irrelevant, even though he is also no fan of the political left, which he regards as the biggest long-term threat to liberty. I wouldn't go quite that far. A sufficiently great superiority on other issues might still justify backing Trump over Harris.
But Trump's track record of trying to overthrow constitutional democracy at least creates a very strong presumption against him, one that can only be overcome by truly overwhelming advantages elsewhere. As we shall see, not only is there no such overwhelming advantage, but Trump's policy agenda is actually much worse than Harris's.
A Harris administration would surely still succeed in enacting some terrible regulations. But nothing with the enormous impact of Trump's tariff and immigration policies.And perhaps the best outcome for the next few years is a gridlocked government with a Democrat as president and a Republican House, as Republicans are only deficit hawks when a Democrat is president. Should that be the outcome, though, median voters are going to have to be active playing defense, as the executive orders and legislative proposals coming out of the Federal Capital will not turn out favorably for median policy preferences. And the noise about abortion access will never cease.
Government spending is another major area where Trump is likely to be worse. Both Harris and Trump are both awful on spending issues, with neither willing to do much to address the looming fiscal crisis facing the nation.
We'll see in another week whether that comes to pass. "In sum, we face two bad options in this election. But for people who care about freedom, liberal democratic institutions, and the strength of the Western alliance, one is clearly far worse than the other." I concur, although my choice will not be Mr Somin's.
No comments:
Post a Comment