Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, in their original bids for presidency, painted contrasting images of American policy on the campaign trail, particularly in New Hampshire. Fast forward to 2024, and their stances reveal telling shifts. Harris, notably, has held a dogged commitment to widening healthcare access, a stance she believes positions healthcare as a ‘right’ and not a luxury for the wealthy – a perspective that seems broadly out of touch with the realities of economic prudence.
Interestingly, Trump placed a determined emphasis on bolstering Social Security and Medicare during his 2016 presidential campaign, setting him at odds with his own party members. In contrast to Harris’ excessive free-handed approach, Trump has repeatedly affirmed his intention to avoid slashing budgets for Social Security or Medicare – quite a cautious approach to ensure these essential services remain solvent for future generations.
Harris, opposed to Trump’s prudent stance, has brazenly claimed that he intends to ‘cut’ from both programs – a bold assertion with little substantiation.
One of the top priorities Harris mentioned in her 2019 campaign for presidency, as a then U.S. Senator from California, was campaign finance reform. This seems more like a political maneuver meant to appeal to public sentiments on campaign funding, rather than a meaningful policy commitment meant to spur significant change.
Analysing Trump’s views on executive powers paints a unique picture. While lobbying for the presidency in 2015, he advocated for limiting the president’s executive powers. He later issued 220 executive orders during his tenure, asserting judicious use of this authority, unlike his successor Joe Biden who seemed to have issued orders rather frivolously.
As of July 1, Biden’s executive order count stood at an astounding 139, a stark contrast to Trump’s stance at the same time in his presidency. The numbers soared to a staggering 143 by October 31, showcasing an unchecked and continuous flow of executive authority.
One common thread in Harris’ presidential campaigns in both 2019 and 2024 has been an insistent promise to expand child tax credit. She has once again made this a key economic policy in her latest campaign, neglecting to address the nuances and potential long-term economic consequences of such a move.
Turning our attention to the climate crisis, Trump has consistently expressed skepticism about the urgent warnings surrounding global warming. In 2015, he expressed to a New Hampshire gathering that while he believes climate does change, it is more a result of natural occurrence than man-made factors. This perspective led to his subsequent decision to pull the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, deeming it unsuitable for American interests.
Gun control reforms took the limelight during Harris’ 2019 campaign for presidency. She emphasized the need for harsher regulations on gun dealers and advocated a ban on importing what she termed ‘assault weapons’ from foreign countries. Yet, her disregard for Second Amendment rights paints a disturbing picture – especially considering her call for an ‘assault weapons ban’ and universal background checks during the 2024 campaign cycle.
Immigration and border security have been at the forefront of Trump’s political agenda since his initial emergence as a presidential contender. He highlighted the necessity of a ‘secure, strong, and powerful’ southern border, while also expressing admiration for the Mexican people. This nuanced approach contrasts with Harris’ divisive stances, demonstrating Trump’s thoughtfulness surrounding sensitive immigration policy.
In an unfortunate shift away from his previous benevolent stance, Trump is currently advocating for a ‘closed’ border. In addition to this, he is also endorsing the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. While these policies may seem harsh, they underscore the necessary steps required for a secure and functioning immigration system.
Harris, as expected, offers no substantial counterproposal to these solutions, instead playing on populist sentiments while disregarding both American interests and the well-being of immigrants.