The Central Trump and Harris Dangers Are Monstrous

Both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris presidencies would engender political and policy outcomes monstrous in very different ways.

Donald Trump is a thoroughly despicable man, a narcissist, and abject liar devoid of dignity and incapable of consistent behavior worthy of the presidency. Even now when a George Costanza-type “opposite” suppression of his instincts would advance his political interests, Trump has opted not to focus on Harris’ policy absurdities and reversals, instead criticizing Harris’ crowd size estimates, ethnic background, and other personal attributes more appropriate for a junior high school lunchroom setting.  

A reelected Trump will make himself the center of attention at all times, issuing an endless stream of infantile insults and daily outbursts mindless and visceral in all-caps on social media. Why does this matter? Because this will alienate ever-more voters every day, and Trump will enjoy doing so.

The upshot will be a sizable defeat for the GOP in congressional and senate elections in 2026, and the loss of the presidency and both houses of Congress by 2028. It is no accident that Trump was the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose the presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives in one term, and it is certain that the past will prove the prologue. A second Trump term will lead over the next two election cycles to a political takeover by the hard left of the Democratic party. The implications of this for limitations on government power, for federalism, for the national security interests of the United States, and for a wide range of policy issues are, yes, monstrous: It will be the end of the United States as a constitutional republic.

That political dynamic is separate from the growing absurdity of Trump’s policy stances, from tariffs to favoritism among various income sources to a reversal on the SALT limitation on the federal tax deductibility of state and local taxes to price controls on credit cards. And who knows what tomorrow might bring? In the policy dimensions, is it really so obvious that he would be much better than a Kamala constrained by a Republican Senate?

Kamala Harris is a supreme lightweight who has never thought about policy issues in a serious way, who does not know how to do so, and whose instincts are profoundly misguided. Anyone who can believe that price controls will improve economic outcomes can believe anything. But in terms of domestic policies, as president she would prove profoundly ineffective, as the likelihood of a GOP takeover of the Senate this year is very high, and the major questions doctrine as decided by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v EPA will impose real limits on regulatory policy as a circumvention of Congress. Moreover, Harris would be a poor bet for reelection in 2028 precisely because of the silliness of her thinking, the perverse results of her policy preferences, and the incoherence of her rhetoric. The comedy potential of a future debate between, say, Senator Tom Cotton and Harris is a harbinger of her reelection prospects.

Instead, the central danger of a Harris presidency is national security policy generally and policy toward Israel in particular. Despite all that has happened over the last year — and, indeed, the last thirty years since the 1993 Oslo Accords — Harris actually believes that a “two-state solution” remains available, would prove stable, and justifies enormous pressure on Israel to achieve. Yes, she really is that vapid.

Harris’ current stance toward Israel is vacuous: “Israel has a right to defend itself.” Does that mean that Israel has a right to deliver a preemptive strike so as to prevent an attack? When responding to an attack, does Israel have the right only to defeat the initial hostilities, or does it have the right to expand operations so as to prevent a repetition? Harris clearly has never thought any of this through, but her instincts are clear: Israel’s foes can murder and rape Israelis — and Americans — and more generally violate international law with impunity, but it is the Israelis who must exercise restraint and pursue ceasefires. Harris is clueless that the “Israel has a right to defend itself” nostrum is a prescription for endless war.

Harris clearly would attempt to revive the Obama Iran policy, but with even fewer restraints on the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weaponry combined with massive dollar transfers and other subventions for the mullahs. An Iranian nuclear breakout is a virtual certainty. There would be renewed pressure on the Israelis about the “illegal” settlements in the west bank — there is nothing “illegal” about them because the territories are disputed rather than “occupied,” and Israel has as strong a legal claim there as any other party — and about the two-state solution. The Biden administration already has established the precedent of withholding weapons from the Israelis so as to force military concessions; can anyone believe that Harris would opt for a reduction in such pressures?

The longer-term outcome would be a process of nuclear proliferation across the Middle East, with the Saudis and others forced to move away from America in favor of strengthened relations with the Chinese and Russians. The near-term outcome in the face of an Iranian nuclear breakout is an Israeli preemptive strike — while receiving little attention, the Israeli fleet of diesel-electric submarines clearly represents the central component of its strategic deterrent — the upshot of which is a vastly broader, destructive, and deadly war in the Middle East.

The monstrous Trump outcome is full control of U.S. government policymaking by the hard left wing of Democratic party. The monstrous Harris outcome is a much higher likelihood of nuclear war in the Middle East, with dreadful consequences for Israel, and major adverse implications for proliferation around the world.  Pick your poison.