Politicians shouldn’t put policy on the back burner

Elections are the most important part of any functioning democracy. Ideally, before heading to the ballot box, voters have a good understanding of what candidates stand for and how they would govern if elected. Using this information, voters can compare candidate stances on the issues they care about the most, then vote according to their interests. When politicians don’t take concrete, clear stances on pressing issues, the connection between voters and their representatives falls apart. More importantly, the void left behind tends to disenfranchise these same voters.

Such is the case in today’s political climate.

When Vice President Kamala Harris entered the presidential race in July, many pundits were unsure whether her campaign would differ from her predecessor. Some thought Harris would be more progressive than President Joe Biden on climate change and social programs; others thought she would be a more moderate, pro-business candidate. Two months later, Harris’ policy platform is still unclear. While the campaign finally launched a policy page on its website, its proposals — such as to create an “opportunity economy,” “cut red tape” and “tackle the climate crisis” — are vague and reliant on buzzwords.

In fairness, the Harris-Walz campaign did have a short period to get their campaign up and running following Biden’s unprecedented exit from the race. Initially, Harris’ lack of stated policy positions could be justified. It is not any longer.

It is not entirely surprising that Harris has instead opted for a vibes-based campaign — it may give her a better shot at winning. Despite their vastly different political views, the Harris-Walz campaign has been  endorsed by both Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Dick Cheney. The campaign has clearly decided that it is better off weathering critiques of vagueness than dividing its voter block on issues such as the ongoing Israel-Hamas war and environmental policy, topics unlikely to decide the election.

The campaign has capitalized on the fact that Harris is the first non-geriatric presidential candidate since 2012 to rein in a record donation haul since July. It is also reflected by the fact that, since July, Harris experienced a larger jump in net favorability than any politician since George W. Bush following the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. 

Of course, her opponent Donald Trump is even less able to form coherent policy stances on pressing political issues. When asked in September at the Economic Club of New York about what he would do to solve the child care crisis, he responded with a rambling monologue that meandered into a discussion of tariff revenue.

“Child care is child care. It’s — couldn’t — you know, it’s something — you have to have it. In this country, you have to have it,” Trump sputtered. “But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly — and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country.”

This is not surprising from a candidate who, when asked during the second presidential debate about his health care policy, said he has “concepts of a plan.” Such a gaffe would be disqualifying in most election years.

Trump’s response is unsurprising given that his policies are, broadly speaking, unpopular. The vast majority of Americans oppose his plans to end the Affordable Care Act, cut taxes on corporations and end autonomy for federal agencies. Instead, Trump has steered much of his rhetoric toward a vague portrayal of America as a decaying, dilapidated hellscape. “Our country is dying,” Trump proclaims — and only he can save it. This is patently false, but seemingly plays well among much of the U.S. population.

There is a distinction between political strategies that are good for the country and good for the campaign. Politicians have always had to balance supporting the policies that will help their constituents the most with the political maneuvering necessary to wield power (of course, you can’t get anything done if you don’t win office). Because of this, there might be genuinely good policies that are impractical to adopt because they are wildly unpopular. 

Likewise, politicians often adopt policies that will help them win an election, even if they are impractical and will never actually be enacted. For example, Trump and Harris both support making tips tax-exempt; this sounds good on the surface level (and polls well), but is actually a remarkably impractical and silly idea in terms of stabilizing wages.

But the adoption of popular yet unrealizable ideas has consequences, both political and practical. The actions of both campaigns in 2024 could cause other politicians to stop taking policy ideas seriously in the future (and to an extent, they already have). 

It is worth noting that there isn’t an equivalency between unclear stances and explicit stances that are outright crazy: Policies proven to be harmful are considerably more dangerous. There is no equivalence, for example, between Harris being vague on the specifics of her position on antitrust enforcement and Trump’s ridiculous interest in eroding Federal Reserve autonomy.

This trend extends to other countries; the United Kingdom faced a curiously similar situation during its July 4 election. The Labour Party capitalized off of the Conservative Party’s historic unpopularity by effectively positioning itself as the anti-Tory party. While the unveiling of party “manifestos” was still a crucial part of the election, Labour’s platform was criticized for being too light on issues concerning the National Health Service, among other topics. Labour leader Keir Starmer is rather unpopular himself (increasingly so, in fact), but became prime minister nonetheless due to the extreme unpopularity of his opponent. Labour gained a large majority in parliament and regained power for the first time since 2010. 

Many pundits have made similar arguments to mine, though they suffer from a bit of naivete. The average voter is not perfectly rational. They do not fully understand the intricacies of policymaking, especially on economic issues. The voters who will decide this election — a few hundred thousand in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia — do not necessarily think in the same way as the average Michigan Daily reader or University of Michigan public policy student.

Simply telling people to “focus on policy” and ignore “political circus” is likely to be ineffectual. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign against Trump faltered due to complacency; her clear advantage on policy and experience was belied by her historic unlikability. Clinton failed the famous “beer test” against Trump — polling showed that voters would rather share a drink with Trump than Clinton. (For the record, a recent poll showed Harris besting Trump in the same thought experiment.) 

While transparency on policy matters is crucial to a healthy democracy, we must also acknowledge that campaign strategy is often a balancing act between pragmatic politics and substantive governance. And though it’s futile to some extent, a push for greater focus on policy is, on a net basis, good. A failure to articulate clear policies will, over time, weaken the democratic process and erode voter trust.

The lack of clear, concrete stances from major political campaigns is a threat to the democratic process itself. When voters are asked to support candidates based on vibes or vague promises, it even further undermines their ability to make informed decisions on which candidate makes the country better off. It also creates a dangerous precedent, where campaigns are incentivized to focus on winning with broad coalitions without addressing the critical issues that matter most. While this strategy might succeed in the short term, it weakens the foundation of democracy by eliminating opportunities for meaningful policy debates.

Hayden Buckfire is an Opinion Analyst who writes about American politics and culture. He can be reached at haybuck@umich.edu.

Related articles