When Democrats Run Against Democrats, Democrats Always Win

Too bad Kamala Harris didn’t beat Donald Trump in 2024. Except Republicans will protest that Harris would have been much worse than Trump. Impossible.

If you’re doubtful, just imagine the Republican reaction if Harris, upon inauguration as the U.S.’s 47 th president, proceeded to acquire “golden shares” in U.S. corporations, demand stakes in others, and demand portions of global sales from still others.

Imagine if Harris then - in total disregard for constitutional limits - began mindlessly imposing tariffs on the nations of the world. Then imagine Harris proceeding to promise Americans unconstitutional tax rebates in return for her unconstitutional tariffs.

Imagine Harris then began sending armed agents of the federal government into private businesses to arrest and deport workers not chosen by the federal government. Yes, armed government substituting itself for the marketplace. Don’t worry, there’s more.

Recall’s Robert Dole’s lament in the 1976 vice presidential debates about “Democrat wars.” Ok, so imagine if Harris had done as Democrats had done throughout the 20 th century, and entered the U.S. into a war with a nation so militarily weak that, by the description of the war’s foremost cheerleaders, the perceived threat no longer had much of a military mere weeks after bombing commenced.

Is it any wonder that Republican voters sat Tuesday out? Donald Trump’s monstrously inept track record since retaking office has almost certainly been worse than even the worst-case scenarios bruited by GOP partisans about Harris ahead of the 2024 vote.

Why didn’t the electorate go Republican on Tuesday? It’s the wrong question, and it presumes that there were Republicans running. It’s better to ask why vote for individuals prone to governing not like Democrats, but much worse than any Democratic occupant of the White House in modern times.

Crucial about Trump’s ineptitude is that a President Harris not only wouldn’t have governed similarlly, but that Republicans in opposition rightly clutching their pocket Constitutions would never have allowed it. Which is a silver lining, but for ongoing denial from the Republican-leaning commentariat.

Still trying to explain away the wars that it keeps recommending Republicans enter into, the Wall Street Journal editorial page’s election post mortem gaslighted readers with commentary telling them they don’t really hate the war in Iran, that the real problem “is that Mr. Trump has never explained his strategy or been consistent in his war aims.” As though better rhetoric would boost voter support for what Journal editorial columnist Gerard Baker (an editorial board member who believes governmental incompetence doesn’t stop at the border) has described as “a major war without explanation, justification or a plan.” While the Journal’s editorial page was highly critical of Trump before its gaslighting (Iran is “global warming” to conservatives), the members of the editorial board still won't say what's true: someone so unfit for the White House is most certainly unfit to enter the U.S. into battle.

As for the economic growth the editorialists talk about from Trump’s first term, and that apparently justified Trump, please stop. While policy surely matters, people matter more. And the American people have been powering economic growth for much of American history, regardless of the person in office. Evidence supporting the previous claim can be found in the impressive growth of recent vintage, and that’s come despite the present White House occupant.

Back to the silver lining, Republicans are at their best when they’re out of power. Always. Here’s a chance for Republicans to act like Republicans again. They can learn yet again why voters formerly preferred them. If not, expect Democrats to remain in control. See this opinion piece’s title for an explanation why.

Originally published on Real Clear Markets.