As we reflect on the recent election, it’s hard to ignore the signals that former President Obama gave, albeit subtly, after President Biden dropped out of the race. In Obama’s statement, he notably withheld his endorsement of Kamala Harris, even as other Democratic leaders lined up behind her. Obama called for “a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges” — a process that sadly didn’t materialize. The Democratic Party’s failure to cultivate a stronger candidate against Trump was a significant missed opportunity.
As a voter who desires strong choices on both sides, I often find myself wishing for more inspiring nominees. In fact, in the run-up to Christmas before every recent election year, I’ve been sharing an eCard that says, “I’m asking Santa for better presidential candidates.”
This year, like many others, I believed that if either party had nominated someone different, victory would have been almost assured. Instead, we were presented with two flawed candidates, leaving Americans with a difficult choice between more Biden/Harris policies and a return to Trump. When Harris was asked on The View if there was anything she’d do differently than Biden, she responded, “There is not a thing that comes to mind,” underscoring the continuity of an unpopular administration.
Ultimately, voters don’t get to select their ideal candidates in the general election; they choose from those on the ballot. For many, their choice came down to who they preferred to tackle our broken immigration system or improve the economy. Majorities strongly favored Trump on these two key issues.
In analyzing this choice, I found resonance in Andy McCarthy’s recent piece in National Review, which provides a clear-eyed look at the state of executive power in modern American politics. McCarthy points out that Democrats, particularly under the Obama and Biden/Harris administrations, have leaned heavily on executive power to bypass Congress and achieve their policy goals. From student loan forgiveness to the Iran nuclear deal, Democrats have often used executive orders to implement policies that, under America’s constitutional order, belong with the legislature. This approach has shifted the balance of power, effectively weakening the institutional checks that are meant to keep any administration — regardless of party — within certain bounds.
McCarthy’s analysis highlights a critical issue: while the system’s checks and balances remain robust in constraining Republicans, they appear less effective under a progressive Democratic administration. This has led to a sense among voters that Republicans often operate “within the white lines” of executive power, whereas Democrats are more willing to find workarounds. For many people, especially those who understand that America’s institutions and norms are critical to its continued success and the safeguarding of their freedoms, this issue was central. They worried about the precedent such actions could set for the future, especially when Harris has backed norm-breaking moves such as packing the Supreme Court and eliminating the filibuster. This resulted in many conservatives who had previously been repelled by Trump casting their votes for him for the first time.
Another critical factor in Trump’s victory was the influence of prominent business leaders who lent their voices to his cause, notably Elon Musk, hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, and Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary. Colin Wright’s now-famous illustration (see below) captures how dramatically the Democratic Party has shifted to the left, pushing many former centrist Democrats, like Musk and Ackman, to feel more aligned with the Republican Party. For them, supporting Trump wasn’t about partisanship but about finding policies that aligned more closely with their values. By publicly backing Trump, they helped make his ideas more mainstream, shifting the Overton window and making his policies more acceptable — even popular — for others.
The Overton window, a concept that Musk himself has referenced on X, describes the range of policies that the public considers acceptable or mainstream at a given time. As Musk and Ackman shared their views on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), appeared in interviews, or rallied in support of Trump, they effectively shifted this window for Trump’s policies, making them appear more credible and desirable. This illustrates how public opinion can shift when influential voices step forward, expanding what is seen as politically viable.
Harris had a handful of business leaders supporting her, including Shark Tank’s Mark Cuban. U.S. business leaders stepping into the fray of policy debates is a welcome development. It’s something I’ve been calling on for years, as it was critical to the success of New Zealand’s reform era in the 1980s and 1990s. During that period, New Zealand’s business leaders, including Sir Ron Trotter and Sir Douglas Myers, spearheaded the push for free-market reforms on behalf of the New Zealand Business Roundtable. Trotter and Myers delivered dozens of speeches advocating for policies that weren’t initially popular but were necessary to revive economic growth. The arguments of these business leaders helped open the Overton window in favor of reform, ultimately leading to transformative changes.
Their efforts are a powerful example of how business leaders, by taking principled stands, can influence public opinion and give governments the political cover needed to implement significant reforms. Musk’s advocacy for Trump has a similar potential impact in today’s America, pushing conversations that might otherwise be sidelined or dismissed.
New Zealand’s richest man at the time, Myers spoke out for reform not because it made him popular, as one obituary noted, but because he deeply loved his country. Musk, the world’s richest, has made it clear that his involvement in American politics stems from a similar place. Despite the criticism he faces, Musk has chosen to stand up for what he believes in because he cares about the direction of his adopted country. His willingness to engage, despite potential backlash, signals a deep commitment to the values he believes America should uphold.
In the end, this election may have left many of us feeling frustrated with our choices, but it has also highlighted the importance of institutional guardrails and the need for voices willing to challenge the status quo by engaging in debate. As we move forward, perhaps we can hope that more business leaders and citizens alike will feel empowered to speak out — not for popularity, but out of a love for this country and a desire to help it reach its full potential.
Addendum
<I shared this related comment on Facebook on 11/8/2024>
Many interesting data points emerging to help unpack the election results. One that at first glance is surprising, but isn’t so shocking after a moment’s reflection: 73% of voters believe that democracy is “threatened”; a majority (51%) of them voted FOR Donald Trump.
Given the relentless messaging from Biden, Harris and the media that “democracy is on the ballot”, how could this be? I think it relates to some of the points I made in my blog post two days ago. While voters, myself included, were appalled by the events of January 6 and much of Trump’s regular bluster, many are even more concerned by the actions and policy proposals of the current administration and Democrat leaders in the Senate.
They were concerned with Harris’s support for packing the Supreme Court and eliminating the filibuster. Democratic Party leaders had just forced out the winner of their primary process and replaced him without letting members of their party vote for a new nominee, something even Obama had said they should do. Entering the final stages of the race, there were renewed discussions to get rid of the Electoral College. During the current term, the president bypassed congress on all manner of things such as student loan forgiveness and immigration policy, and the Democrat majority in the Senate was just fine with that.
Given this background, it’s much easier to see why a majority of voters concerned about democracy voted against Harris. As post-mortems and self-reflection take place, I hope the right lessons are learned and both parties back away from policies that threaten our Constitution and institutional norms.
Related posts:
Unleashing New Zealand’s Potential and Suppressing Washington State’s—Lessons for Texas
How business leaders helped save New Zealand from socialism—Lessons for Washington State
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.