The US Election Countdown newsletter offers stories that focus on the intersection of money and politics in the race for the White House. In a recent discussion, Donald Trump was asked whether the current year’s election might culminate in violence, to which he responded, “It depends.” The prevailing distrust in the American voting system is largely attributed to the former president. For nearly 250 years, since the US declaration of independence, the peaceful transfer of power has been a defining trait of the republic. Trump’s campaign for the 2024 election is explicitly anchored on his denial of Joe Biden’s victory in 2020, with his belief being that the outcome of the “stolen election” will be determined on the forthcoming Tuesday.
Trump has made it clear that should there be any uncertainty, his initial action as president would be to pardon the individuals he described as “patriots,” who were convicted for their role in the January 6th attack on the Capitol, which he incited. He consistently informs voters at his rallies of his intent to punish those he holds responsible for his defeat in the 2020 election.
Kamala Harris, Trump’s opponent, has this week compared Trump’s “hit list” for when he assumes office with her own agenda. Harris entered the presidential race late, after President Joe Biden withdrew, and has found it challenging to establish her distinct identity. In an election where the economy is the primary concern for voters, Harris’s solutions are perceived as insufficient. However, the American public does not necessarily need to endorse Harris’s agenda to recognize that her approach contrasts sharply with Trump’s; one candidate upholds the US constitutional order, while the other seeks to disrupt it.
Despite Trump’s challenge to democratic norms, a notable number of Americans remain undeterred. However, there are traditional concerns regarding the risks of another Trump presidency, including his extreme economic plans, the potential impact on global stability, and his dismissiveness of the rule of law domestically and internationally.
Trump’s economic proposals represent a departure from America’s post-World War II global role, with plans to impose a 20 percent tariff on all imports and at least 60 percent on Chinese goods. While Trump claims these tariffs would affect foreign companies, the reality is the costs would largely impact US consumers via increased prices. Initiating a global trade war would provoke retaliatory measures from both allies and adversaries. The International Monetary Fund has predicted that such a shift would reduce next year’s US growth by one percentage point and cut global expansion by a quarter, with the consequences of rising trade barriers escalating by 2026.
Moreover, Trump aims to restrain the US Federal Reserve’s independence, with reports suggesting he might replace its chair Jay Powell a year before Powell’s term concludes. There is currently no rival to the US dollar as the global reserve currency, although there is a growing interest in alternatives, as highlighted in the recent Russia-hosted BRICS summit. Implementing political influence over the Fed, undermining global trade regulations, and deporting millions of undocumented immigrants could catalyze a swift move away from the US dollar.
The advantages of the reserve currency would become evident only if they were lost. Prospects for blue-collar America would be dire with rising inflation leading to higher interest rates and decreased growth, with no middle-class boom during a second Trump term. Even Trump’s wealthiest donors would have to reconsider any agreements made in exchange for immediate benefits like reduced capital gains tax and favorable regulatory treatment, weighed against the security of the system that facilitated their wealth.
America also benefits from its network of alliances. The destabilizing effects of the US turning against the global order it helped establish would be significant, considering Trump’s antagonism toward NATO and allegiance to Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Trump’s admiration for the Russian leader suggests negative implications for Ukraine, as Trump has indicated plans to push for an inequitable settlement between Ukraine and Moscow.
Trump’s approach towards China is unpredictable; he could either reach an agreement with Xi Jinping or strive for complete US-China decoupling. The only consistent element in Trump’s Indo-Pacific strategy is his aversion to alliances, prompting countries like Japan, South Korea, and Australia to prepare for the possible withdrawal of US security support. Other nations may also abandon hopes for further US commitment to collective action against climate change. The doctrine of “America First” equates to America being isolated. An “alliance of the aggrieved” led by autocratic regimes would swiftly fill the void left by a retreating US, making the world a less secure place for democracy.
In contrast to Trump’s proposed disruptions, Harris’s candidacy signifies continuity. Though her traditional platform may not appear captivating, it carries significant merits, such as advocacy for legislation to secure reproductive rights at the national level, thereby ensuring women have autonomy over healthcare decisions. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that Harris’s plans might increase the US federal debt by only half as much as Trump’s. Her focus on renewable energy as a principal agenda item would serve both America and the global community.
Stability is often undervalued, and beyond the details of Harris’s proposals, her stance inherently supports the continued values of liberal democracy and open trade, forming the foundation of prosperity for the US and its partners. The American electorate is on the brink of making a decision that could profoundly impact the nation and the globe for decades to come. There remains an opportunity to pause, consider, and reflect on the potential consequences.
