Protecting democracy requires futuristic vision, not co-opting authoritarian ideas.
This was written for Zócalo Public Square. Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons
Sometimes I think Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Now I fear he’s already won the 2024 election, too.
To be clear, I don’t believe the lie that Trump won at the polls but had the election stolen from him. Joe Biden was rightfully elected president four years ago. And I’m hoping Kamala Harris will win the White House in November.
But Trumpism, with all its misinformation and stupidity, has prevailed, capturing public opinion and shaping the direction of the country’s governance.
Why? Because Biden and Harris have embraced—to a degree we too often ignore—Trumpian policies.
Biden’s failure to communicate his own record left a void that Trump filled with his constant rants and rallies. This rhetoric, in turn, pulled Biden toward Trump-style policies.
On many issues, Biden’s single term played out like a second term for Trump.
Immigration is the most obvious example. In the 2020 campaign, Biden vowed to reverse Trump’s ugly, bigoted management of immigration. But the president ultimately reinstituted most of Trump’s border policies, including building Trump’s border wall and blocking asylum seekers.
Biden also maintained Trump’s protectionist and damaging policies on trade—expanding tariffs on China and undermining Europe’s attempts to develop a green economy. And here in America, Biden kept Trump’s tax cuts for the rich in place, while continuing his predecessor’s reckless overspending, running up trillions in new deficits and debt.
Biden’s adoption of Trump policies is both bad policy and bad politics. Limiting immigration and trade, while adding to debt, are economic drags that increase prices and inflation, which have made Biden deeply unpopular.
Harris, thrust into the presidential campaign this summer, had an opportunity to course-correct and embrace the more open and liberal values of her native state. California has spent recent years righteously adding protections and services—from drivers’ licenses to health coverage—that try to give immigrants some parity with their neighbors. (This is a moral and practical imperative in a state where half of all children have at least one immigrant parent.) California has also led the way in forging international collaborations on trade, economic development, and the climate fight, including with provinces in China.
Instead, Harris doubled down on Biden’s strategy. While Harris is profoundly different than Trump in character, honesty, and respect for institutions, she has adopted much of Trump’s policy direction as her own.
Indeed, on immigration, she has cast herself as even tougher than Trump. The centerpiece of her platform is the most restrictionist American immigration legislation in decades. That legislation, which the vice president worked on in consultation with anti-immigrant conservatives, passed the Senate earlier this year before being blocked in the House at Trump’s direction. Harris uses Trump’s blockage to say that she is willing to get tough on migrants—while Trump is only willing to talk about anti-immigrant action.
That positioning may be a political strategy dictated by pollling. But embracing such legislation is monstrous, as California U.S. Senator Alex Padilla pointed out. The bill effectively shuts down asylum applications, criminalizes border crossings, and limits even legal paths for migrants, thus violating the human rights of millions. This shameful legislation does nothing to legalize the millions of unauthorized immigrants who have spent decades here in the U.S. as our valued neighbors and co-workers.
And Harris hasn’t stopped there. She abandoned her previous support for a path to citizenship for Dreamers, and is seeking to end the temporary protections that allow Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Cubans to remain here instead of returning home to face persecution.
Harris’ dangerous policies reinforce Trump and others who make false claims about immigrants (they are criminals! they eat pets!) to justify discrimination against them. In effect, Harris is ratifying a de facto system of American apartheid, which permanently limits the rights and prospects of our immigrant neighbors and their families merely because they are unable to navigate a cruel and dysfunctional immigration system. Is it any wonder that, according to a Scripps News/Ipsos survey, a majority of Americans now favor mass evacuations of unauthorized immigrants?
Immigration is most obvious example of how Harris has conceded the policy argument to Trump. But it’s hardly the only one. On trade, she opposes Trump’s new tariffs but proposes to retain most of Trump’s first-term tariffs, contributing to inflation and international conflict. On the environment, she has sought to match Trump’s enthusiasm for fracking to produce natural gas, despite the climate crisis.
Harris, like Trump, has pandered to wealthy tech investors by lavishly supporting cryptocurrency, despite its obvious risks to the economy. On taxes, Harris would maintain most of the cuts Trump signed during his first term, and add some new tax credits. But she, like Trump, doesn’t explain how she would pay for it. Both candidates would add trillions to the national debt, increasing fast-rising debt service costs that crowd out the new investments and infrastructure the country needs.
Of course, there are profound differences between the candidates on some important issues—especially abortion and on the war in Ukraine. But in so many other areas, Harris has moved close enough that Trump has correctly accused her of copying him. This is quite a victory: a man who has never won the popular vote has nevertheless made himself the center of gravity in American policy.
The justifications for adopting Trump-style policies is political and practical; Harris needs to win this election to save the country from the fate of an unhinged, anti-democratic, vengeful Trump.
But winning the election is not enough. In the long term, you can’t beat back Trumpian fanaticism and fascism by agreeing with most of it.
You beat Trumpism with a clear vision for the future of the country that is so compelling and detailed that it draws attention away from Trump. You beat Trumpism with new policies that get people talking and thinking.
If Harris has such a vision in her, she has yet to share it.
