The last nominee for president from either major party who met even
minimal criteria for knowledge, experience, character, intelligence,
and fidelity to the Constitution was Mitt Romney in 2012. Since then
things have been bleak, and this year we have Trump and Harris. The
question for voters in this election is not which of them should
become president. The clear answer is that neither of them should.
The question is which of them is likely to do less harm.
Both have authoritarian tendencies, Harris from leftist ideology and
Trump from non-ideological power mania. Both have authoritarian
leaning running mates (though to be fair, both Vance and Walz had
different opinions when it was expedient for them and so may be just
ordinary lying political scoundrels at heart). On foreign policy
Harris is too soft on Hamas and Iran in Gaza, while Trump is too
soft on Putin in Ukraine. Both are a little vague on dealing with
the strategic threat from China. Trump has talked about the need for
strong and unequaled armed forces and is probably better than Harris
on national defense. (At least he seems unlikely to appoint people
who write about the need for “queerness” in nuclear policy to
important positions dealing with nuclear policy.) On illegal
immigration Trump wants to deport too many people, while Harris wants
to keep the southern border effectively wide open. On economic
issues, Trump’s worst scheme is for a huge increase in tariffs and
restriction on international trade. Harris’s bad ideas include
price controls, taxes on unrealized capital gains, dictating what
sort of vehicles and appliances people can buy, race and gender
quotas, and generally a more powerful and robust regulatory
bureaucracy, especially on green issues. Neither of them has a
serious plan for reducing or eliminating the annual federal deficit.
While bad enough, Trump’s plans here are less harmful.
Both have well earned reputations as ignorant, arrogant, dishonest,
power hungry, repulsive people who cannot be trusted. But bad as
Harris is, she never tried to overthrow the government or called for
overturning the Constitution, things which should have disqualified
Trump from holding any elected office in the United States. On the
evidence she is the less bad human being.
It is a truism of strategic analysis that one should consider not
only the enemy’s intentions but, also and especially, its
capabilities. It is likely that Harris’s capability for doing bad
things is far greater than Trump’s. Trump would have the
traditional media, the federal bureaucracy, the intelligence
agencies, and most of the country’s big money and large tech
companies working against him. Harris would have the same people
mainly working for her, giving her a higher likelihood of getting
what she wants done. That is major point in Trump’s favor, though
it is a little saddening to have to evaluate presidential candidates
the way one does hostile foreign nations.
Though I dislike saying it and thought I never would say it, if I had
to vote for one of them today, I would vote for Trump. But I surely
don’t like it and surely respect the opinions of those who see
Trump administration as likely to be worse than a Democrat one.
Before Gaza and the selection of Harris, I did too. I do have
trouble respecting the opinions of people who think either of them
is hot stuff. They both are bad news.
Labels: Harris, politics, Trump