By Matt Underwood 
Photograph: Getty Images Oct 31st 2024 (published 5h ago) The US in brief’s team of editors will be giving The Economist ’s fastest analysis of the results, as they come in, on Tuesday November 5th. You can find that on our app and home page on election day.
Read the original article here
The endorsement of Kamala Harris by The Economist signals a pivotal moment in the current political landscape that merits deep reflection. As a publication recognized for its financial acumen and strong advocacy for capitalism, it does not take endorsements lightly, particularly when the stakes involve the future of democratic institutions and economic stability. The future of a nation rests heavily on its leadership, and aligning with a candidate who prioritizes stability over chaos is inherently a sound choice, especially for those who value the principles of capitalism and a thriving economy.
The rationale behind The Economist’s support for Harris lies in an acute awareness of the potential ramifications of a second Trump administration. Suggesting that Trump’s previous presidency undermined both the rule of law and international trust, it is evident they see the risks outweighing any perceived economic benefit he might present. Harris offers a commitment to reason, decorum, and respect for democratic processes—qualities that stand in stark contrast to Trump’s divisive and reckless approach to leadership. The publication’s audience, often comprised of business leaders and investors, inherently understands that political stability, effective governance, and respect for institutions contribute to a healthy economy. The fear is that a second Trump term would unleash a wave of unpredictability, characterized by erratic policy-making that threatens the foundational principles upon which a reliable market economy rests.
What resonates most profoundly is The Economist’s critique of Trump’s character and leadership style. The gloomy forecast for a potential second Trump administration reveals a stark reality: Trump would likely surround himself with sycophants and loyalists who prioritize allegiance to him over allegiance to the country. Such fundamental shifts in governance can only spell disaster for both domestic and foreign relations. Anyone who has witnessed the chaos stemming from Trump’s first term can appreciate the apprehension about what might ensue if the reins of power are handed back to him without the checks that previously existed. The prospect of policies driven solely by personal vendettas or whims is a threat many cannot afford to ignore.
The contrast in economic policies between Harris and Trump could not be more pronounced. The former vice president’s approach, focused on fiscal responsibility and inclusive growth, starkly opposes Trump’s reckless proposals—such as extreme tariffs that could devastate American jobs and drive up consumer prices. Those who understand economic fundamentals appreciate that sustainable growth is built on a foundation of stability, fair trade, and engagement with the global economy. Harris’s policies appear designed to encourage investment and ensure the foundations of economic recovery remain intact, unlike the destructive tendencies associated with Trump’s economic vision.
Moreover, to endorse a candidate like Kamala Harris is not merely an idealistic choice; it is a pragmatic one. Harris represents a forward-thinking approach to governance—one that aligns with the aspirations of a generation that values diversity, equity, and the rule of law. In stark contrast, the rhetoric and actions propagated by Trump’s camp evoke a fear of regression into a political arena where rights are disregarded and dissent is silenced. Harris, with her multidimensional approach to leadership and vision for the future, embodies a governance style aimed at uniting rather than dividing. The Economist recognizes that choosing stability over chaos is not just an ethical decision but an economic one, crucial for the sustainability of capitalistic structures.
The choice before us is clear. In an era filled with uncertainty and division, endorsing a candidate who advocates for nuanced, compassionate policies indicates an understanding of both human and economic intricacies. The implications of Trump’s return to power could reverberate throughout all facets of American life—not just for those immediately affected by such policies but for the global economy as a whole. This understanding underlines why The Economist’s endorsement of Kamala Harris is strategically significant. It acknowledges that voting for stability means voting for a candidate unlikely to engage in self-destructive behavior—critical when the future of both democracy and economic prosperity hangs in the balance.
In this moment, I find solace in the idea that there are still voices like The Economist standing against the tide of chaos. While the road ahead may be fraught with challenges, having the endorsement of a publication that holds publications accountable to sound economic practices and democratic principles is encouraging. Ultimately, allowing sheer self-interest and virulent ideology to dictate our political choices would be a profound miscalculation. So as we move forward, recognizing what is at stake and valuing stability over chaos could allow us to forge a better future for ourselves and generations to come.