A majority has spoken. A disappointed minority may not admire the judgment rendered, but it must respect the right of a majority to express it. Else, to paraphrase the poet, what’s a democratic republic for?
The election was clearly one in which voters’ perceived interests outweighed their professed values. Surely, not all of those supporting Donald Trump were applauding his character and the amoral values he represents. Given the complex factors that shape voting behavior, it is reasonable to conclude that the Trump majority was seeking an escape from the pain and disappointment and fears prompted by recent economic turmoil.
Close analysis of the promised Trump program suggests that his voters may soon have second thoughts. Any new administration’s plans are subject to change, but if the next president is supported by the Republican-controlled Congress in executing the proposals set forth in the campaign, the hoped-for escape will lead to greater distress on several fronts.
To begin with, the multiple pledges of tax relief — on overtime, on tips, on Social Security income — plus proffers of further tax cuts for wealthy investors carry predictable consequences for national debt.
Other than historically unachievable rates of increased productivity and economic growth, no one has identified a way to reconcile those pledges with stable fiscal progress. Massive slashes in the federal work force ($2 trillion worth), touted by Trump’s bro-pal billionaire Elon Musk, would entail drastic curtailments in public services. Politics breeds countless temptations, not all of them prudent.
The tax cuts-for-prosperity theme is compounded by the incoming president’s pronounced affection for tariffs. To treat increased tariffs as direct sales taxes on all American consumers may be an oversimplification, but levying those import fees across-the-board is bound to have numerous adverse results.
Americans’ fondness for inexpensive goods is in tension with the evident anger that so many of those goods are produced in China and elsewhere. Blocking those imports in the hope that comparable goods will be produced cost-effectively in the U.S. is a risky proposition. The likelihood is that similar products made in America, even if superior in quality, will be more expensive, feeding the inflationary pressures that have generated anxiety and resentment throughout America.
The daunting proposal to deport millions of immigrants carries similar implications. The impact of such deportations on a labor force already struggling to bear the increasing burdens of an aging population appears to be straightforward. The resulting paucity of workers for jobs often disdained by American citizens may well shrink supplies of farm products and other goods. Such supply shortages will add to the other inflationary strains against which the Federal Reserve has warned so diligently for years now.
In conjunction with the tariffs contemplated in the campaign, worker shortages leading to supply shortfalls will increase demand for costly imports, perhaps generating feedback loops of unintended consequences.
Those probable trends suggest that elements of the Trump majority will soon have cause for second thoughts. If the Trump administration pursues and achieves all the policies outlined in the campaign, it is difficult to see how the benefits will outweigh the costs. The resulting pain is likely to be felt throughout American society. The fiscal overload and distortions will point toward stringent monetary policy — perhaps even higher interest rates than the ones that put housing and other capital expenditures beyond the reach of so many.
Will that pain have political repercussions for the 2026 election cycle? In contrast with this year’s election, Republicans will have more Senate seats to defend (20 of 33), but some Democratic incumbents won by narrow margins and will face close, higher-risk contests. Any calculus of the probable outcome in House races must await the electorate’s reaction to the ways and degrees to which House members serve as allies to the president.
Second thoughts are the norm in politics. Campaigns breed unrealistic promises and expectations. Incumbents often spend more time explaining why they failed to achieve lofty goals then in proclaiming their success in doing so. Since Trump is ineligible to run again, it will fall to his associates to defend the record that will unfold on his watch.
The dynamics of the 2024 election, needless to say, invite diverse interpretations. One notable irony concerns the measurable movement of Hispanic voters toward support for Trump, despite his sometimes harsh stance toward immigrants.
Some Hispanic commentators have viewed that movement as an importation of the frequent Latino gravitation toward a leader in chief, a “caudillo” on the model of Juan Peron or Fidel Castro or Anastasio Somoza. Never mind that such caudillos have brought great grief to their peoples. Donald Trump has come to embody what one may call American machismo. The durability of that quality’s appeal will now be tested.
Alton Frye was staff director for Sen. Edward Brooke (R-Mass.) and a longtime associate of Senate Republican Leader Howard Baker (Tenn.).
