The Rational Case for Harris

Note: The counterpart to this essay, The Rational Case for Trump, is available on the homepage at maximumtruth.org.

This is a guest post by a friend. I am posting my friend’s essay unedited and as-is, in terms of editorial content.

Introduction

In the history of US Presidential elections, the rational decision for voters has rarely been clearer: Kamala Harris is the correct choice for President. For moderates, and for those few remaining undecided voters, here are 4 of the best arguments for Kamala Harris’ presidency.

Harris Is Better For The Economy

The economy is doing well now, and will continue to do well under democratic leadership. The evidence for this can be seen in the unemployment data. In the third quarter of 2023, GDP grew by 4.4%; in the fourth quarter of 2023, GDP grew by 3.2%; in the first quarter of 2024, GDP grew by 1.6%; and in the second quarter of 2024, GDP grew by 3.0% (Bureau of Economic Analysis, Annual Update, September 26, 2024). Four quarters of growth, combined with similarly strong post-pandemic growth in general since mid-2022, has put the US economy ahead of every other advanced economy in the world since Biden took office. From February 2022 to April 2024, Biden oversaw the longest period of sub-4% unemployment since the 1960s.

Furthermore, despite the widespread misperception that recent revisions in job growth estimates indicate a weaker economy, “total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 142,000 in August, and the unemployment rate changed little at 4.2 percent.” (Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 6, 2024). September 2024 job growth was similarly positive.

Inflation is also down to around 3.7% from its pandemic high of around 6.6%, indicating that Democratic economic policy has been effective in curbing inflation while avoiding pessimistic predictions of a post pandemic recession (Source). Conservative commentators sometimes argue against these numbers in conspiratorial ways, saying that the various metrics used by the Fed and other agencies to measure inflation, unemployment, and GDP growth do not represent the ‘true’ or ‘real’ state of the economy. But investors are not falling for conservative counter-messaging: in recent weeks, the stock market hit new highs, including the DOW and Tech sector stocks, and IPOs are seeing high valuations.  

The economy will continue to do well in the future under Democratic leadership. First, given the stellar post-pandemic economic recovery, if Harris simply continued Biden’s policies, the economy will continue to grow and prosper. But Harris has a plan to build on Biden’s wins, which she elucidated in an 82-page dossier this month. Her plan includes policies to cut taxes for working class Americans, reduce the cost of groceries, lower healthcare costs, including the cost of prescription drugs, and lower energy costs. Her plan will address average Americans’ concerns regarding the rising cost of living in America. Many Americans have the mistaken perception that the economy is not doing well in part because the cost of groceries, housing, consumer goods and services, and energy are all higher than 4 years ago, and wage growth has not offset these high costs. Harris has a plan to fix that so that working class Americans can experience the wider economic prosperity that upper class business owners like Trump are currently enjoying.

Harris will be, not just good, but better for the economy than Trump. Trump does not have a clear plan to contrast the Harris plan against. He has concepts of a plan for healthcare, which could become part of a comprehensive economic plan he has been promising to reveal since 2016, but as of this writing, Trump has not produced anything as concrete as the Harris campaign regarding economic policy. At most, one could reasonably surmise from his characteristically vague pronouncements that Trump intends to enact disastrous tax cuts for big businesses and wealthy Americans such as himself, just as he did when he was president, and introduce tariffs that will hurt working class consumers. As Hannah Kling, assistant professor of data analytics and economics at Belmont Abbey College, told the National Catholic Register recently in her bipartisan, balanced criticism, “that tariffs and price-gouging laws are extremely popular among the general public while all economists know they only hurt the general public really breaks my heart.”

The cost of tariffs on foreign goods will be passed on to consumers. Raising costs for consumers will spur a manufacturing renaissance by creating demand for domestically produced goods, if Trump is to be believed. But as Dr. Kling said, all economists know this thinking is wrong. Trump’s current promise to bring back manufacturing jobs is very similar to the empty promises he made during his time as President, by the end of which the Rust Belt states had lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs, a trend that only accelerated in the wake of Trump’s failed response to the pandemic. To be clear, the damage that Trump inflicted on the Rust Belt cannot be attributed to the pandemic because almost 1,800 factories disappeared during the early years of Trump's administration between 2016 and 2018; but Trump’s slow response to the pandemic did exacerbate the manufacturing recession he presided over.

Bringing it all together, then, the argument is clear. The economy is doing well now, and it will continue to do well in the future under Harris and Democratic leadership. Trump’s economic agenda failed in the past, and Trump’s tax and tariff policies are likely to fail again in the future. The conclusion a rational thinker will draw from this evidence is that Harris is better for the economy than Trump.

Harris Is Better For Foreign Policy

Harris has a better temperament for wielding power. She is cool under pressure and respected by world leaders. On the war in Gaza, she has expressed the appropriate amount of support for Israel and she met with Netanyahu, while also expressing concern for civilians in Gaza. Harris is also well positioned for a post-Netanyahu Israel, having voiced strong support for peace between Israel and its adversaries, and having a husband who is Jewish, which gives her unique access to Jewish lived experiences. Harris also has close ties with leadership in Japan, Mexico, Jordan, the Philippines, and Ukraine.

Beyond her positive relationships with American allies, Harris will be a far more reasonable and level headed thinker than Trump if she is ever faced with a 5 minute countdown to launch a nuclear response. Americans would be able to rest easy with Harris carrying the nuclear codes. Her mind is clear and character is stronger than her opponents. Moreover, the single major criticism of her foreign policy record is only applicable if one buys into the fallacy of blame by proximity: she was reportedly the last in the room with Biden during the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Trump, it should be noted, was not able to pull off a withdrawal from Afghanistan while president even after promising to do so, asking his advisers if it was possible to do so, and undercutting the Afghani Government by negotiating a deal directly with the Taliban in an attempt to do so. He even planned to invite the Taliban to Camp David just before September 11th as a reward for the deal, but flip flopped in response to public outcry.

In the end, it is character that determines how well a president will lead, according to General Stanley McCrystal. When it comes to character, there are few Presidents in modern American history who have been as selfish, vindictive, and avaricious. Dangerously, Trump is cunning in his moral turpitude. He is a convicted rapist and serial philanderer, a scam artist who sells whatever he can, and a Judas who feigns interest in Christianity for his own gain; yet he has so far evaded any political accountability for superlative moral failings. He deserves to lose at the ballot box for those reasons alone.

Importantly for foreign relations, when provoked or flattered, he is easily manipulated. During the only debate with Harris that Trump has so far agreed to, in response to Harris’ goading remark that Trump is not respected by world leaders, a fact the truth of which Trump does not enjoy, Trump was flustered. He then resorted to bragging that the authoritarian leader of Hungary, Victor Orban, who has been president of Hungary since 2002 after undemocratically rewriting the Hungarian constitution in 2011, is a strong supporter of his candidacy, as if that were a good thing. This answer at once betrays both how much Trump cares about what other people think of him and how easily he can be manipulated through flattery (by Orban) and mockery (by Harris). That exchange was a small example of the much deeper problem that would face America if Trump is elected for another term: he is a narcissist, and every narcissist has roughly similar psychological tendencies. They need endless positive attention, and they will attack or avoid anyone who does not provide obsequious adulation. That is a weakness America’s enemies often exploit.

To underscore this point: Harris was able to get under his skin so easily during the debate because she understands that Trump is a narcissist, as do America’s enemies. As is true of every narcissist, Trump is extremely image conscious. Harris has prosecuted many such people and knows them well. Insult their pride, and they will show their vindictiveness, as Trump did when he turned on Netanyahu after Netanyahu refrained from joining in Trump’s election denialism and, instead, congratulated Biden for winning the 2020 election. Reward their greed, and they will do the bidding of whomever pays them, such as when Trump allegedly received a $10 million cash bribe from the president of Egypt in return for “releasing $195 million in military aid that was previously withheld because of human rights abuses committed by the Egyptian government, and he later released $1.2 billion more in military assistance,” according to the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Putin clearly understands Trump’s narcissism as well as Harris does. Putin surrounds himself with oligarchs like Trump, and, in the same way that Putin expects loyalty from his oligarchs, Putin evidently enjoys Trump’s loyalty, rewarding Trump with an exclusive relationship that has included many secretive, closed door, one-on-one meetings. Records of what was discussed between Trump and Putin, one of America’s greatest adversaries, do not exist, and Trump went to great lengths to conceal the contents of these meetings even from his own administration. As a result, we may never know why Trump loved meeting with Putin so frequently, but whatever the reason, Putin has used Trump’s narcissistic tendencies to manipulate him into advancing Russia’s anti-American agenda by, for instance, advocating that Ukraine capitulate to Russia.

Beyond Trump’s weakness of character, he was also a horrible administrator as President. Trump displayed no aptitude for fortifying the organ of governance that the US relies on to manage foreign relations: the State Department. Trump left the department in shambles, through high rates of turnover, including one quarter of senior officials, and unfilled vacancies in nearly a dozen Assistant Secretary or Under Secretary posts, as well as extremely low morale and a wave of employee departures (the State Department lost about 12 percent of its foreign affairs specialists in the first 8 months of Trump’s administration.) Given the severe damage Trump inflicted on the department during his term, it is not clear that the State Department, and American foreign policy in general, would survive in an effective form, let alone bring stability to international relations, under another incompetent Trump administration.

More likely, Trump will sow chaos and disorder abroad, as he did when he randomly dropped a MOAB on Afghanistan for no strategic advantage, pulled out of the World Health Organization in the midst of the pandemic, canceled the Nuclear deal with Iran, and then assassinated a high level Iranian general, thereby setting US-Iran relations back by a decade and radically increasing tension across the Middle East. Trump will lower America’s standing in the world by damaging trust with US allies and capitulating to our enemies. Harris is the only responsible choice for improving American foreign relations.

Harris Is Better For Women’s Rights

Trump famously said that he liked to “grab [women] by the pussy,” which is a form of sexual assault, and later, he was convicted of sexually abusing (ie, raping) E. Jean Carrol by a jury in New York. Allegations of further misconduct swirl around Trump, with onlookers noting that Trump was very close with notorious rapist Jeffrey Epstein, as well as noting a 2016 case regarding allegations that Trump raped Katie Johnson when she was 13 years old. Trump regularly demeans women, having called them “fat pigs,” “dogs,” “slobs,” and “disgusting animals” at various times. Trump has bullied women for years this way, for example, saying of one contestant on the Celebrity Apprentice that “it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.” Trump has similarly insinuated that Harris is only successful because she performs fellacio on men. More recently, during the presidential debate, Trump continued to demean Harris by accusing her of being sexually promiscuous, saying “All I can say is I read where she was not Black, that she put out.”

As the evidence above demonstrates, Trump is a misogynist. He has no empathy or respect for women’s rights. He treats women’s healthcare with shocking glibness. Trump recently declared himself the Father of IVF despite having learned what IVF is only days beforehand. That kind of bizarre pronouncement exemplifies the kind of carelessness Trump brings to conversations about women’s rights. He is directly responsible for the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which has given conservatives the power to use the government to control what women do with their bodies in healthcare settings. Here is what Melania Trump had to say on this matter:

“It is imperative to guarantee that women have autonomy in deciding their preference of having children, based on their own convictions, free from any intervention or pressure from the government,” wrote Melania Trump in her recent memoir, and continuing, “Why should anyone other than the woman herself have the power to determine what she does with her own body? A woman’s fundamental right of individual liberty, to her own life, grants her the authority to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes. Restricting a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is the same as denying her control over her own body. I have carried this belief with me throughout my entire adult life.”

Evidently, Trump’s own wife does not believe that he is a good advocate for women’s rights.

Harris, by contrast, deeply respects other women, and as a woman herself, she understands the importance of reproductive rights from a personal perspective. Harris wants to keep the government out of women’s healthcare decisions. She will support a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body. Harris will pass legislation to make it easier for women to receive the care they need and deserve from healthcare providers. Considering the above evidence, the following statement is obvious, but for completeness and clarity: Harris is better for women’s rights.

Harris Is Better For Democracy

The final reason to vote for Harris is the clear threat that Trump poses to American democracy. This point follows naturally from the contrast between the two candidates. On the one hand, Harris is a star prosecutor, the former AG of California, and has a deep understanding of Constitutional law. On the other hand, Trump has little understanding or respect for the constitution. He wishes to “terminate” this sacred document of American democracy and rewrite it, just like his pal Victor Orban did when Orban rewrote the Hungarian constitution. Moreover, Trump blatantly attempted to take power and effectively end Democracy in the US following his election loss to Biden in 2020. Trump did this in at least two ways that we know of: first, by leading an insurrection on January 6th, 2021, and second, by attempting to tamper with the election he lost. Together, these twin efforts amounted to an attempted Coup d’État.

Throughout history, a standard way in which authoritarians take power is by using the Executive office they hold to attack the Legislature that represents the people. The Russians have a long history of engaging in this style of power grab. Under Lenin, the Bolsheviks stormed the Winter Palace and overthrew the fledgling Russian Republic in 1917. In 1991, Yeltzin shelled the Russian Parliament. Beyond Russia, many other examples exist. The Nazi Party set fire to the Reichstag in order to precipitate Hitler’s power grab in 1933. Napoleon dissolved the French legislature during the Coup of 18 Brumaire in 1799. Pinochet overthrew the Chilean government and dissolved the Chilean Congress in 1973. The authoritarian Fujimori dissolved the national legislature when he became dictator of Peru in 1992. Recently, in 2012, Morsi tried a similar move in Egypt by attempting to sideline the legislature to remain in power.

The pattern is clear. A tried and true method of overthrowing democracy is for the Executive to negate the Legislative. When Trump sent his supporters to storm the capitol building and prevent the US Congress from certifying the 2020 election results on January 6th, 2021, his failed coup attempt was added to the above list of historical attacks by executive power on legislative power. If Trump is elected again, he will likely take what he learned about his failed coup attempt in 2021 and implement a more effective attempt in 2028. In July, he said to his followers at a rally, "in four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote."

In addition to leading an insurrection against the Legislative branch of the US government, Trump attempted to end Democracy in the USA by tampering with the results of the 2020 election at the state level. There is not enough room to go into all of the details of the anti-democratic actions Trump took to alter the outcome of the 2020 election, from his request that the Secretary of State of Georgia “...find, uh, 11,780 votes...” for which Trump was impeached a second time, to his fake electors plot. But suffice it to say, Trump, cunning as he is, will do more damage to the fidelity of our election system in the future if he loses the 2024 election, and if he wins, voters would do well to take him at face value when he promised that Americans will not vote again in 2028.

The message is clear. The pattern is clear. A vote for Harris is a vote to preserve democracy, while a vote for Trump is a vote for the dissolution of democracy.

Note: The counterpart to this essay, The Rational Case for Trump, is available on the homepage at maximumtruth.org.