Sydney J. Harris, the longtime Chicago Tribune columnist, once said, “Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be.”
In our system, elections are the means of allocating goods and services that cannot be determined by prices or markets. Thus, citizens can express their voices through the ballot box as opposed to violence or corruption. Given the conclusion of a turbulent election season, what are voters saying and how can policymakers shape their constituents’ intent into governance?
The past three presidential election cycles have seen the end of large governing mandates. Gone are the days of Ronald Reagan’s 49-state romp (losing Walter Mondale’s home state of Minnesota by only a slim margin) and the Bill Clinton-style coalition that combined both Arkansas and Louisiana with New York and California. Instead, we have entered an age where small numbers of voters in a handful of swing states oscillate between the two major party candidates.
But what do these voters want and how will their desires shape party coalitions in the future? Most exit polls point toward concerns about high inflation. After the sluggish recovery after the 2008 financial crisis, many economists felt that given the tradeoff between unemployment and inflation, policymakers should focus on unemployment. However, recent research from Harvard’s Stefanie Stantcheva and co-authors show that while economists may see inflation and unemployment as an even trade-off, voters see rising prices through a prism of fear and uncertainty. Unemployment may be a severe tax but it is paid by the few. Inflation is a less harsh tax paid by everyone. That’s hardly a recipe for electoral victory in a system that requires 50% of voters to feel like the country is on the right track.
Wages have started to catch up, and consumers will see their purchasing power increase again. However, these wage adjustments come at the end of the year, while inflation consistently makes consumers feel like their lifestyles are eroding.
Voters also crave a sense of normalcy. Immigration, another hot topic, has always been part of our national identity. Disorder and illegal crossings at the border signal dysfunction and a lack of political will to enforce law and order. Immigration has the potential to grow the economy, reduce prices on important goods like food and services, and add new ideas and flavors to the American palate. These benefits come in the long run, however, while communities pay a cost in the short run.
Finally, the economy has fundamentally changed over the past 40 years. Automation has made many manufacturing jobs disappear, especially those available to workers who only have high school diplomas. The gains from trade and technological advancement flowed to those with college degrees in urban areas such as Boston, New York and Atlanta. These workers enjoyed globalization and the cheaper goods and new markets for business but they didn’t suffer the cost born by those in rural America who only had a high school diploma, if that. While earnings for college graduates skyrocketed, other economic opportunities disappeared as factories shuttered.
Male workers are less likely to enroll in college and those men who do not face grim job prospects. Men are more likely to suffer deaths of despair and become addicted to opioids. It’s little wonder that race became less of a dividing line in this election cycle while the gap between the genders and the educated class increased.
In Lin-Manuel Miranda’s musical “Hamilton,” George Washington curtly reminds his young protégé Alexander Hamilton that “winning is easy, young man, governing’s harder.” These struggling voters have now switched their party allegiance three times in as many election cycles on the slimmest of margins. Any candidate or party claiming a mandate will find their support quickly dissipate if they overreach.
Voters overwhelmingly said in exit polls that inflation and economic growth were their primary concerns. However, across-the-board tariffs against vital trade partners like Canada, Mexico and the European Union will cause an aggregate supply shock that will boost inflation while increasing unemployment. Mass deportation will cause housing costs to skyrocket, and appeasing dictators will create a world of conflict. Meanwhile, divesting from higher education will reduce economic opportunity.
Voters want change, but they also want a world of stability. Newly elected officials will continue the awkward tight rope balance over a Grand Canyon chasm of public opinion. Let’s hope that wisdom and moderation will guide their steps.