There are many differences between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, but a crucial commonality is that they both propose terrible economic policies that garner political support through widespread voter ignorance.
Trump suggested Massive tariff hikes and Mass deportation of illegal immigrantsHarris' plan includes: Price Controls And rent control. All of these would be very damaging if implemented, but candidates are pushing them because many Americans don't understand the damage they would cause.
These misconceptions are part of a broader problem of widespread voter ignorance about government and public policy.
Trump suggested impose a 10% tariff on virtually all importsThis is expected to lead to price increases for a wide range of products. It costs the average American family about $1,700 a year.The economic damage would be compounded if foreign governments retaliated against U.S. exports. Moreover, because many U.S. industries depend on imported raw materials, tariffs often destroy jobs and cause shortages. The tariffs on aluminum and steel during President Trump's first term More jobs were lost than were createdThese metals are used in many products.
The harmful effects of tariffs are the subject of broad ideological consensus among economists, but tariffs are often supported by voters.When presented as a way to protect American jobs.
Trump'sMass Deportation PlanIt would do similar harm. Illegal immigrants make important contributions to many sectors of the economy. Mass deportations wouldAs expected, chaos will occur, causing prices to rise and shortagesDeportationDestroying more American jobs than creating themThat's because many Americans work in industries that rely on goods and services produced by undocumented immigrant workers — effects that would be made worse by Trump's plan.Drastically cut legal immigrationas well. Cutting immigration would further exacerbate the government's already tight fiscal situation. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that increased immigration in 2021 and beyond could result inReduce the budget deficit by about $1 trillion over the next decade.
As with free trade, There is widespread agreement among economists that immigration has beneficial economic effects.But many voters don’t understand that. About half of Americans Supports the mass deportation of illegal immigrants 70% support We will pave the way for them to citizenship.
Meanwhile, Kamala Harris has sought to ease voter concerns about rising prices.Promises to implement price controls to prevent “price gouging” in food sales. she hasAlso supported President Biden's PlanRent increases for most residential properties will be limited to 5% per year.
Price controls have been in place for a long timeHistory of the shortageincludeIn the 1970s in AmericaWhen governments artificially limit prices, producers have less incentive to increase supply in response to increased demand. The same is true for rent control.Many studies have consistently shown thatThe housing shortage will get worse.
Economists of all political stripes I agree to this. Jason Furman“Chairman of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers said,[r]”Information control is as shameful as economic policy,” yet opinion polls show that Rent Control and Price controls more generally They are often popular with voters, in part because a large proportion of the public mistakenly believes that rising prices are the result of “corporate greed.”
While corporations are certainly greedy for profits, there is no good reason to think that corporations will suddenly become greedy in times of rising prices: corporate greed is a constant and cannot account for variables like rising prices.
Harris's egregious proposals are less dangerous than Trump's because nationwide price and rent controls would be impossible to implement without new legislation, which would be difficult to pass. In contrast, many of Trump's immigration and trade policies could be implemented by executive order alone. Still, ideas supported by major party presidential candidates are more likely to be enacted by it.
Widespread support for these terrible policies is part of a widespread pattern of political ignorance. Decades of data Surveys show that most voters know very little about government and public policy. For example, surveys Only about one-third to one-half of Americans I can even name the three branches of government.
Political ignorance is perfectly rational for most voters. If the only reason you follow politics was to become a better voter, it would be no motivation at all, because the chances of your vote actually affecting the outcome of an election are extremely low (about 1 in 60 million for a presidential election). This “rational ignorance” gives politicians an incentive to promote harmful but popular policies.
The danger of ignorance is not just that it leads voters to choose the “wrong” candidates: ignorance gives both parties an incentive to promote harmful policies that pander to the ignorant. Not all bad policies are caused by ignorance, but voter ignorance promotes some terrible policies that more informed voters would reject.
Many hope that ignorance can be reduced through education, but levels of political knowledge have remained stable for decades. Despite significant increases in education spending and educational attainment.
A more promising approach is to limit and decentralize government power, thereby reducing the effects of ignorance and allowing people to make more decisions by “voting with their feet.” People can vote with their feet in the private sector (by choosing which products to buy or which civil society organizations to join), and also in a federal system by choosing which state or local government to live under. If federal power is reduced, more issues will be left to states, local governments, and the private sector, and people will have a wider range of options to vote with their feet.
Most people spend more time and effort gathering information to decide which television to buy than they do deciding who to vote for in the presidential election — not because the presidency is less important, but because when people choose a television, they know that their decision makes a difference. Experimental Evidence shows that people who vote at polling stations seek out more information and use it more effectively than those who vote at the ballot box.
Limiting government power also reduces the risk of voter ignorance by narrowing the range of issues voters have to consider. Currently, federal regulations extend to almost every type of human activity, from toilets to health care. A government with limited powers would make it easier for voters to keep track of what the government is doing.
At the very least, we need to recognize that political ignorance is a serious problem, and if we continue to ignore it, we will likely see even worse policies.
Ilya Somin is professor of law at George Mason University and the B. Kenneth Simon Professor of Constitutional Law at the Cato Institute.Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter” and “Free to Move: Voting by Foot, Migration, and Political Freedom.”
