The upcoming 2024 U.S. presidential election is shaping up to be not just another electoral event; it’s turning out to be a battleground of ideas, strategies, and narratives, especially when it concerns economic policies, immigration, and disinformation. With Vice President Kamala Harris representing the Democratic Party and former President Donald Trump vying for the Republican nomination, the stakes are high. Both candidates, though widely apart on many issues, appear to recognize the growing concerns of voters around economic stability and the high cost of living.
Polls show U.S. voters are predominantly troubled by inflation, with many stating their financial struggles have become increasingly severe since the pandemic. Over the past year, prices for everyday goods, especially food, have soared, pushing many families to the brink. According to recent surveys, approximately 70% of Americans believe their financial situation has worsened since 2020, highlighting the urgent need for effective economic solutions.
At campaign stops, both Harris and Trump have promised to combat these rising costs, but they propose starkly different solutions. Trump has taken the stage to rally voters with slogans focused on lowering taxes, deregulating industries, and reducing inflation. For example, during a rally on September 19, Trump asserted, "Together, we will deliver low taxes, low regulations, low energy costs, low interest rates and low inflation so everyone can afford groceries, cars, and homes." His plan largely leans on proposed corporate tax cuts, tariffs on imports, and direct interventions to start manufacturing jobs back on U.S. soil.
One of Trump’s major proposals includes imposing tariffs of up to 20% on imported goods. This measure aims to discourage reliance on foreign imports, pushing U.S. companies to boost production domestically. Trump argues this increase will reshape the job market favorably for American workers but critics are concerned this could have the opposite effect by inflaming inflation instead of quelling it.
Harris, on the other hand, has taken aim at perceived corporate greed, citing concerns over grocery prices and food monopolies. Reports suggest American consumers feel grocery companies are exploiting them, with food prices increasing nearly 25% compared to pre-pandemic levels. Harris has pledged to drive regulatory changes to break down the oligopolies dominating the food market. "I will tackle the high costs of food which matter most to Americans," Harris stated during her campaign, aiming to also implement anti-price gouging measures and potentially restructure food industry regulations.
The two candidates have also highlighted housing as another pressing concern. Tackling housing woes, Trump has promised deportations to significantly decrease demand for housing, claiming it would lead to lowered costs. This extreme approach elicits mixed reactions, igniting debates over the ethical ramifications of such policies. Conversely, Harris has put forth the ambitious goal of constructing 3 million housing units within her first four years, proposing incentives for first-time homebuyers. Her plan emphasizes building as the path to making housing affordable.
Compounding these issues are the pervasive conditions of political disinformation existing within the campaigning arena. Trump's narratives around immigration—including portraying record migration as dangerous—have significantly influenced public perception, often distorted by exaggerated claims and often factually inaccurate rhetoric. His repeated assertions of the need for mass deportations have polarized discussions on immigration, which should ideally focus on comprehensive reform.
Trump's immigration policy echoes decades of complex U.S. immigration politics, marked by fears of demographic change and economic insecurity. It touches core national identity issues and poses significant challenges to bipartisan consensus on immigration reform. Meanwhile, Harris’s approach includes advocating for pathways to citizenship and maintaining protections for those fleeing violence. Yet, reactions from the Republican side portray her as promoting 'open borders' rhetoric, which taps deeply seeded fears and misconceptions among voters.
Despite differing solutions to these pervasive challenges, both candidates seem to understand the importance of voter experience and perception. For decades, immigration has been portrayed as solely a security concern rather than recognizing migrants' contributions to the economy. Harris’ opponents often dredge up her prior record as California’s Attorney General, questioning her commitment to justice as they highlight her past stance on drug-related offenses.
Political analysts point out the contradiction wherein the voices of voters—especially marginalized groups—often go unreported. Harris has emphasized the necessity to decriminalize cannabis, attempting to distance herself from her past criticisms for promoting strict drug policies. She argues for rectifying injustices tied to drug enforcement, especially those impacting communities of color. This political pivot intends to reshape her narrative as more progressive than her historical record may suggest.
On the flip side, Trump has seized this moment to signal support for cannabis reform, stating he intends to work with Congress to legally reschedule cannabis aiming for its new classification under Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. Though this shift marks progress for many advocates, how this would concretely manifest is still largely uncertain and speculative.
Neither candidate’s full suite of proposals, until now, have provided clear paths for funding the extravagant pledges they have made. Harris claims she will not raise taxes for individuals earning under $400,000 but targets increased taxes on wealthy corporations to front her plans. Trump's proposals, meanwhile, lack clarity on how he would finance tax cuts and spending commitments.
Political oppositions have methodically criticized both candidates for their proposed policies, asserting empty promises lacking foundational plans. Harris recently faced scrutiny from Senator Joni Ernst, who released findings indicating small businesses continue to struggle under Harris’ term—a claim Harris refutes by showcasing the federal government’s increasing financial allocation to small enterprises.
The continuing discourse indicates deep divisions on the speed and direction of immigration reforms proposed by Trump as well as the pathway to providing economic relief for working-class families illustrated by Harris. With both candidates gearing up toward November 2024 elections, their contrasting visions for America highlight the significant work required to address America’s most pressing issues, acknowledge the challenges faced, and truly listen to those most impacted by the outcomes of these policies.
Expectations are high as the clock ticks down to election date, with voters seeking answers and tangible resolutions rather than empty rhetoric. Candidly, both candidates have much to prove as America braces for what promises to be one of the most contentious elections since the tumultuous year of 2020.
