Tariffs, Taxes, and Trust: Economic Policy and Public Opinion in the Upcoming Election

By Aidan Klarman, US Policy

The economy is one of, if not the most, salient points of presidential elections in the United States. A voter evaluates an incumbent president regarding his/her material circumstances to form opinions about the candidate. Similarly, candidates propose policies based on popular economic conceptions that are most likely to attract voters. In this sense, the relationship between candidate approval ratings and their economic plans is one of rational self-interest—the economic policies that candidates release form the basis for voters to engage with their ideas and decide which candidate is best for them. 

Still, it is not always so simple to determine the impact of economic plans on voting behavior, as externalities like framing, misinformation, social stratification, and selective bias in the presence of certain terminology or information may skew a voter’s perception of a candidate’s plan. Alternatively, some voters lack a fundamental understanding of government operations, overlooking candidates’ ability to tangibly affect the economic area they illustrate in their campaign. While the current election is politically polarizing, the economic woes Americans face every day don’t discriminate on partisan lines. It is important, therefore, to understand how candidate approval ratings reflect public perception of the economy, as this has significant implications for voting behavior. This article summarizes a handful of polls to assess public perception of Kamala Harris’ and Donald Trump’s economic and tax policies, the macroeconomic implications of each plan, and how they influence public opinion in terms of approval ratings.

The first question we must address is the “why:” Why do voters care about the economy? It may seem obvious, but there are myriad material and cultural cleavages that distinguish one voter’s rational self-interests from another. Industry of employment, age, ethnicity, and personal moral, religious, and political philosophies, influence the frameworks through which voters approach the question: which candidate is better for the economy? For billionaire CEOs, the candidate proposing tax cuts for capital gains and corporate revenues represents an obvious choice to pursue economic self-interest. Conversely, unionized workers, those on Medicare, Social Security, or some form of welfare program, are economically incentivized to oppose tax cuts because they reduce federal funds, consequently disrupting the provision of essential state services. For other voters, cultural and ideological cleavages can determine voter behavior and approval regardless of, or even despite, personal material conditions. Issues like immigration, crime, and religion, compel voters to favor one candidate over the other based on a perceived moral imperative. 

Emotions like fear are often employed to convince voters of an existential threat to their way of life and/or material success, imploring them to vote as a matter of necessity instead of rationality. Recently, the rhetoric used in the debate by former President Trump about Haitian immigrants in Springfield Ohio suggested that these immigrants are eating the pets of residents, a demonstrably false statement (Hutzler 2024). The functional objective of this kind of rhetoric is to stoke fear of immigrants committing violence. This fear is a rallying point that compels some to vote out of a perceived necessity. For others, fear is a foot in the door for the Trump campaign to frame a popular issue in a way that fits the solution they are offering, a border wall. This kind of rhetoric may be overlooked by loyal voters and popular with more radical voters. However, it can also scare away the moderate voters who, though concerned about immigration, find Trump’s statements to be too radical, or voters of migrant background or descent that are offended by these statements (Suter 2024). 

Religious faith can also produce a moral imperative in voters if a candidate professes favoritism for a particular religion or frames it as being under attack, or conversely, as a threat. Still, the rational self-interest model of voting behavior remains the largest indicator of candidate approval, especially in the absence of a particular moral impetus (such as a perceived threat to democracy). When applied to economic plans, rational self-interest is demonstrated by voter support for policies that reflect and address the daily struggles that individuals face such as wealth inequality, unemployment, food insecurity, housing affordability, and more. Thus, the economy is and will likely remain the defining characteristic of any candidate’s campaign.

The first study I reviewed was a blind survey by The Guardian which polled 2,124 likely voters on their thoughts about twelve economic policies, six proposed by each candidate. The poll asked respondents to rank the twelve economic policies from most favorable to least favorable. To control for confirmation bias, the poll didn’t associate any policies with the respective candidates. This increases the likelihood of impartial nonpartisan responses. 

A recurring result was that four of the five most favored policies on the list were the proposals from the Harris campaign while only one of the five was a Trump campaign proposal. The most popular proposal was a federal ban on price gouging for food and groceries, a proposal by the Harris campaign which 44% of respondents viewed favorably. This is not surprising for two reasons: food prices have surged in recent years due to inflation and deregulation, which has raised the cost of living and eroded public trust in large corporations, especially food producers, real estate firms, and the energy sector. This is especially salient for young people and those entering the workforce who are struggling with food and housing insecurity due to stagnant wages, high education costs, and a general lack of consumer protection. Another aspect of this poll to note is that the findings suggest voters may be more likely to favor particular economic policies when those proposals are not immediately associated with a particular candidate or party. In other words, removing social pressure and confirmation bias to tow the party line decreases the chances for personal biases to muddle answers.

The blind survey demonstrated that Harris’ policy plans such as tax breaks for small businesses, an expanded child tax credit, and raising the long-term capital gains tax enjoy a plurality of popular support amongst respondents. Policies originating from the Trump campaign such as universal import tariffs, a 60% tariff on Chinese imports, and lowering the corporate tax rate are significantly less popular. However, it should be noted that Trump’s proposal to eliminate the Social Security benefits tax ranked as one of the five most favored policies with a 42% support rate (Aratani 2024). This particular policy reflects the salience of social security benefits to America’s 68 million current recipients. Additionally, the popularity of this policy demonstrates the importance of capturing older voters, a historically active and reliable voter base. Finally, this policy along with Harris’ small-business tax cut proposal exemplifies how economic austerity measures can be popular when they are perceived to be beneficial. 

Returning to tariffs—a major issue for the Trump campaign as they are in line with his extremely popular “America first” rhetoric about making our international trading partners pay up and ‘taking a stand against China’—they are demonstrably proven to raise costs for American consumers as foreign firms simply raise their prices to recoup the profits lost to tariff fees (York 2024). Trump has framed his tariff policy as a long-term plan to stop American manufacturers from shipping jobs overseas while reducing the federal deficit through new import tax revenues, however, the supporting evidence is flimsy (York 2024). This framing places tariffs at the crossroads of economics and foreign policy, challenging voters to decide whether reducing the federal deficit and confronting China, a competitor and threat to American economic hegemony, is worth enduring the price hikes on consumer goods. 

The next study is a survey from Data For Progress which raises an important question on the issue of candidate trust and its advantage in approval ratings. This analysis surveyed 1,211 likely voters on who they trust more to properly manage or address important economic issues, with the basic question format being: “Who do you trust more to handle… .” The results indicate a massive trust advantage for Harris as respondents expressed more confidence in her ability to support small businesses, revive the middle class, increase wages, lower housing costs, handle labor union policy, improve infrastructure, create jobs, lower food costs, and protect manufacturing.

On the other hand, respondents trust Trump more when addressing inflation, lowering gas prices, and managing trade policy. Notably, Trump and Harris are trusted equally (44%) to reduce the national debt, possibly implying that voters lack trust in both candidates to handle the debt or that voters do not emphasize the national debt due to a misunderstanding of debt politics or just disinterest. And that distrust or disinterest is understandable considering that both candidate’s plans are expected to add between $3.5 trillion (Harris) and $7.5 trillion (Trump) to the national debt. Ultimately, this poll underpins the importance of trust in spanning the knowledge gap between policymakers and the average citizen (Aratani 2024).

Finally, voters in the Data for Progress survey ranked inflation as the most prominent issue in deciding who to vote for. This is interesting considering the president has little to no power over monetary policy outside of appointing a chairman of the Federal Reserve. This contradiction underscores an important aspect of public opinion regarding presidential elections, in that the issues on which voters base their decisions don’t require a linear rationale of cause and effect. In other words, the input (candidate choice) does not produce the output (lower inflation) but still affects the election and is represented by approval ratings. This shows how public perceptions of economic policy issues, and not the material reality of those issues, can influence public opinion and electoral success regardless of whether or not there exists a causal relationship between the input and output.

So what are the approval ratings? As of late, Harris enjoys an aggregate 50% approval rating with Trump not far behind at 44%, though their disapproval ratings show a different story.  39% of respondents view Kamala as very unfavorable while 9% see her as somewhat unfavorable, an aggregate 48% disapproval rating. 46% of respondents viewed Trump as very unfavorable, with an additional 10% seeing him as somewhat unfavorable, producing an aggregate disapproval rating of 56%, or in other words, a majority (Taylor 2024). 

Though exceptions exist, the rational self-interest model endures as the prevailing model for predicting voting behavior and explaining approval ratings even in situations of spurious correlation because ultimately, what matters isn’t the concrete reality of whether a policy does or will best represent a voter interest, such conclusions are hard to draw. After all, where there are winners, there are losers, and everyone cannot win realistically. What matters is whether or not a voter believes a policy will serve their best interests. That belief is based on many external and internal inputs, including financial circumstances, social status, ethnic or racial identity, religious doctrine, and more. While much of the political discourse surrounding this election reflects a deeply polarized and skeptical electorate, the blind survey and approval ratings show us that Americans generally agree on the common economic problems our country faces, and the policies needed to address them. 

References:

Aratani, Lauren. 2024. “Kamala Harris’s Economic Policy Slate More Popular than Trump’s – Poll.” The Guardian, September 30. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/30/harris-trump-economic-proposals-poll.

Edsall, Thomas B. 2022. “Why Aren’t You Voting in Your Financial Self-Interest?” The New York Times, September 14. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/opinion/elites-populists-political-beliefs.html.

“Harris Tax Plan vs. Trump Tax Plan.” 2023. Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/research/federal-tax/2024-tax-plans/.

Hutzler, Alexandra. 2024. “Fact-Checking JD Vance’s Claims about Haitian Migrants in Springfield, Ohio.” ABC News, September 19. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fact-checking-jd-vances-claims-haitian-migrants-springfield/story?id=113844705.

Springs, Abby. 2024. “Harris Leads Trump by 3, Improves Standing on Economic Issues.” Data For Progress, October 4. https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/10/4/harris-leads-trump-by-3-improves-standing-on-economic-issues.

Suter, Tara. 2024. “Most in Ohio Survey Say Baseless Trump Claim That Immigrants Are Eating Pets Is False.” The Hill, October 10. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4926432-ohio-survey-trump-claims-immigrants/.

Taylor, Kelley R. 2024. “Harris or Trump: Whose Tax Plans Are More Popular with Voters?” Kiplinger, October 5. https://www.kiplinger.com/taxes/harris-or-trump-whose-tax-policies-are-more-popular-with-voters.York, Erica. 2024. Trump Tariffs & Biden Tariffs: Economic Impact of the Trade War. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-biden-tariffs/.