The Inflation Paradox: Why Voters Chose Donald Trump Despite His Plans to Raise Prices and Taxes
Voters who appeared to be the most upset about “inflation” voted for a man who is about to impose one of the largest sales taxes if not price hikes in American history
Inflation is a relentless burden, gnawing at household budgets and sowing frustration among normal people. This happens in every place it occurs. Perhaps the most infamous example (yet far from the only one) happened in Germany in the 1930’s. Things were so bad that it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread.
Adolf Hitler used this to his advantage.
In the 2024 election, this frustration became a pivotal issue in the United States. Yet, in a surprising twist, many Americans voted for Donald Trump—a candidate whose proposed policies, including a global trade war and mass deportations, are poised to intensify the very economic pressures they sought relief from. How to unravel the complex interplay of voter psychology, political messaging, and economic realities?
The Inflation Backlash
Certainly since Covid, but actually since the turn of the century, inflation of various kinds has been a specter haunting American households. House prices are certainly a culprit. However of course, there is more than this. From skyrocketing grocery bills to unaffordable rents and energy costs, the average family has faced an unrelenting squeeze. In 2024, inflation became more than a statistic; it became the defining issue of the election. Many voters, desperate for change, gravitated toward the candidate who promised a radical break from the status quo.
Trump's campaign capitalized on this anger, portraying inflation as a result of elite incompetence and globalist agendas. While President Biden pointed to falling inflation rates and economic recovery, many Americans felt the benefits hadn’t reached their wallets. This disconnect created fertile ground for Trump’s fiery rhetoric.
Trump’s Campaign Messaging
Throughout his campaign, Trump painted himself as the antidote to economic woes. He pointed to "broken supply chains," alleged overreach from the Federal Reserve, and trade imbalances as culprits for inflation. His solution? A return to "America First" policies, including tariffs and immigration crackdowns.
While he offered little in terms of concrete plans to tackle inflation directly, Trump leaned heavily on symbolism. He spoke to the emotional core of voters, promising to bring back manufacturing jobs, punish perceived economic adversaries like China, and end what he called "open-border policies." For voters fed up with inaction, his promises felt like a fight worth supporting—even if the math didn’t add up. And even if they say they understand that tariffs will also raise prices.
The Reality of Trade Wars
One of Trump’s cornerstone policies is his plan to impose tariffs on imports from key trading partners, including China, Mexico, and Canada. While the rhetoric of protecting American industries resonates with many, the practical implications of trade wars are far from beneficial for consumers.
History offers a cautionary tale: during Trump’s first term, tariffs on Chinese goods led to higher prices for everyday items like electronics, clothing, and furniture. Farmers, reliant on export markets, faced plummeting revenues, and taxpayers ultimately footed the bill for bailouts to the agricultural sector. For all the calls to build such tech in the US, which is supposed to the other part of this policy, this never materialized.
Fast forward to 2024, and Trump’s renewed commitment to trade wars promises a similar outcome. Tariffs function like taxes on imports, driving up costs for businesses and consumers alike. In the end, the very voters hoping for relief from inflation may find themselves paying more for the goods they need either for personal use or running a business.
The Economic Impact of Mass Deportations
Another pillar of Trump’s platform is his plan for mass deportations. While framed as a measure to restore "law and order," the economic consequences of such a policy are profound. Undocumented immigrants play a critical role in sectors like agriculture, construction, and hospitality. Removing this workforce would create labor shortages, disrupt supply chains, and increase costs for businesses.
Take agriculture as an example: the removal of farmworkers would lead to decreased crop yields and higher food prices for domestically produced products. Similarly, construction projects would face delays and cost overruns due to a lack of skilled labor. Far from solving economic issues, mass deportations would exacerbate them, adding to inflationary pressures.
The Paradox: Why Voters Overlooked These Risks
Why would voters, deeply concerned about inflation, support policies that will likely worsen it? The answer lies in the psychology of economic despair. During times of crisis, emotions often override rational policy considerations. Many voters see Trump not just as a policymaker, but as a symbolic figure—a disruptor who promises to shake up a system they believe has failed them.
This dynamic also reflects a broader disillusionment with traditional politics. For many, Trump’s unapologetic rhetoric and defiance of elite norms signal a commitment to change, even if the specifics are murky. Additionally, misinformation and simplified narratives about inflation and its causes have made it easier for voters to accept Trump’s explanations, even when they don’t align with economic realities.
The Role of Misinformation and Media
Misinformation has played a significant role in shaping perceptions of inflation and economic solutions. Social media platforms and partisan news outlets have amplified misleading claims, blaming inflation on immigration, environmental regulations, or foreign trade agreements.
Trump’s mastery of media manipulation has further muddied the waters. By dominating headlines and framing himself as the only candidate willing to take bold action, he has successfully deflected scrutiny of his own policies. Meanwhile, nuanced discussions about the root causes of inflation—such as supply chain disruptions and corporate profit-seeking—struggle to break through the noise. Not to mention attempts, however feeble, to jump start domestic manufacturing again (see the CHIPs Act).
Long-Term Consequences
The implications of Trump’s policies are far-reaching. A global trade war would strain international relations and destabilize markets, while mass deportations would disrupt key industries and communities. Together, these policies are likely to drive up costs for American consumers, exacerbate economic inequality, and deepen societal divisions.
In the short term, Trump’s rhetoric may continue to galvanize his base. However, as the tangible effects of his policies take hold, public sentiment could shift. Rising prices and economic instability may lead to backlash, forcing his administration to confront the consequences of its actions.
Lessons for the Future
The 2024 election underscores the need for a deeper understanding of economic issues among voters and further shows clearly the divide caused when there is this lack of awareness. Inflation is a complex phenomenon influenced by global factors, and simplistic solutions often do more harm than good. Policymakers and the media must do a better job of communicating these realities, countering misinformation, and offering actionable solutions.
Moreover, the election highlights the power of emotional appeals in politics. Addressing economic frustration requires not only sound policies but also empathetic leadership that connects with voters on a human level.
Will We Ever Learn?
The paradox of the 2024 election is a stark reminder of the challenges facing American democracy. Voters, fed up with inflation, turned to a candidate whose policies are poised to exacerbate their economic woes. This disconnect reflects broader issues of trust, misinformation, and the interplay of emotion and logic in decision-making.
As the nation braces for the impact of Trump’s trade wars and deportation agenda, the true cost of this paradox will become clear. For now, it serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of aligning political promises with economic realities, the need for a more informed and engaged electorate, and mainstream parties, on both sides of the aisle, who start remembering why they are there in the first place. Not for personal power or enrichment, but rather to serve all of the American people. Not just the richest, the male ones, the white ones, or the Christian ones.