The Economist has weighed in on the presidential race, warning that a second Trump presidency carries “an unacceptable risk to America and the world.”
“By making Mr Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace,” the weekly newspaper said in an editorial published Thursday that endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president. “If The Economist had a vote, we would cast it for Ms Harris.”
The outlet acknowledged that some may disregard its warning of Trump as “alarmist,” noting that economically, “our worst fears” about Trump’s first term “did not come to pass” and the economy grew during his four years in the White House.
“Even when Mr Trump behaved abominably by fomenting an attack on the Capitol to try to stop the transfer of power on January 6th 2021, America’s institutions held firm,” the paper said.
But his second presidency would likely be very different, the outlet warned.
“Mr Trump’s policies are worse, the world is more perilous and many of the sober, responsible people who reined in his worst instincts during his first term have been replaced by true believers, toadies and chancers,” the outlet said.
In comparison, “next to Mr Trump, Kamala Harris stands for stability.”
Harris was admittedly described by the paper as an “underwhelming” second choice. She “seems indecisive and unsure” and “she has struggled to tell voters what she wants to do with power.” But she has “ordinary shortcomings, none of them disqualifying,” and has not followed Democrats’ “most left-wing ideas.”
“Mr Trump’s policies are worse, the world is more perilous and many of the sober, responsible people who reined in his worst instincts during his first term have been replaced by true believers, toadies and chancers.”
- The Economist
“It is hard to imagine Ms Harris being a stellar president, though people can surprise you. But you cannot imagine her bringing about a catastrophe,” the paper said.
The Economist’s Editor in Chief Zanny Beddoes echoed some of these points in an interview Thursday with CNBC’s Squawk Box.
“His policies are a lot more radical than they were in 2016,” she said of Trump.
Beddoes specifically ticked off three “big areas” in Trump’s proposed policies as red flags. His plans to raise tariffs as much as 200% “would be really dangerous” for the world economy, she said.
For a free trade magazine, it’s “frankly disqualifying in itself,” she said of his agenda.
His proposal to deport huge numbers of undocumented migrants would also be a shock to the U.S. economy based on the number of jobs that would be lost. He’s also promising too many tax cuts, with new ones announced “every day,” she said.
“Put that together, the economic risk is really big,” she said.
Beddoes said it would be “weird” for the paper to not to weigh in on the election, considering “we have editorials every week advising politicians around the world on what to do.”
Your Support Has Never Been More Critical
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.
The Economist’s U.S. editor John Prideaux also defended the paper’s endorsement in an interview with Semafor published Wednesday. His defense follows backlash The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times received for refusing to endorse a candidate.
“We don’t think being independent and being opinionated are in conflict with each other. Reporters have strong views on the subjects they cover because they’re experts. It’s odd to pretend they don’t,” he said. “It would be odd for us to have an expressed strong opinion about Harris’ tax plan or Trump’s tariffs and offer no view on who would be the better president.”