By Nicholas Nehamas and Andrew Duehren
When Vice President Kamala Harris visited a local brewery in New Hampshire to discuss support for small enterprises — a significant aspect of her economic agenda — she ensured to include one demographic: millionaires looking to retain a larger share of their earnings from stock and property sales.
“Under my plan, if you earn a million dollars or more annually, the tax rate on your long-term capital gains will be 28%,” Harris stated in her campaign speech this fall. “We understand that government encouragement of investment fosters widespread economic development.”
This moment was notable. In comments her campaign positioned as a pivotal address to the middle class, Harris made an eye-catching concession regarding tax rates for the wealthy — a gesture aimed at portraying herself as more pro-business than President Joe Biden, who had advocated for a higher rate.
Her address highlighted how heavily the input of her Wall Street and Silicon Valley allies — along with her ongoing belief in practical, incremental advancements over radical ideological shifts — influenced her economic messaging.
A significant factor in Harris’ decision-making was her brother-in-law, Tony West, who took a leave from his role as chief legal counsel at Uber to guide her campaign. Harris often inquired of her team, “Has Tony reviewed this?” before going over her economic speeches or talking points, according to two individuals familiar with these discussions.
West, who was a senior Justice Department official during the Obama administration but lacks expertise in economic policy, also pointed out social media messages from her campaign and official accounts he felt deviated from Harris’ economic narrative, as noted by one source. He and Brian Nelson, a long-time advisor to Harris, maintained regular communication with business leaders and Wall Street backers throughout the campaign.
The outcome was a Democratic candidate who fluctuated between conflicting approaches to the economic issues that voters consistently identified as their foremost concern. Harris neither entirely rejected nor wholeheartedly embraced essential liberal aims to challenge corporate dominance and hike taxes on the wealthy. Instead, she made slight pro-business adjustments to the existing framework, which both her corporate and progressive allies acknowledged never formed a cohesive economic argument.
Ultimately, voters favored Donald Trump’s broad yet vague promises to lower taxes and reform the global trading framework. As global discontent with high inflation has triggered losses for ruling parties worldwide, some Democrats harbor doubts that Harris could have triumphed, even with a more robust economic narrative.
The Harris campaign and West chose not to provide comments for this article.
Democrats from various factions of the party criticized the economic plan Harris’ campaign hastily assembled in the weeks following Biden’s withdrawal. Instead of the “opportunity economy” Harris envisioned, several Democrats felt Americans were yearning for a more ambitious systemic reform.
“When you’re too conflicted between the interests of corporate America and everyday working folks, this is the result,” remarked Jimmy Williams, president of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. “A message that fails to resonate.”
Neglecting to confront the ‘big, bad wolf’
An early illustration of Harris’ dilemma emerged during her initial economic policy speech in North Carolina in August. Members of her communications team had recommended she concentrate on addressing corporate price gouging as a strategy to tackle escalating costs, as relayed by two individuals who were briefed on the discussions; however, her speech ultimately focused solely on price gouging in the grocery sector.
Nevertheless, the backlash from Republicans and Harris’s backers on Wall Street was quick and fierce. They criticized the initiative as price controls that would hinder economic advancement.
The backlash caught Harris’ team off guard, prompting campaign officials to further narrow her plan’s focus. Although she frequently referenced the idea in her speeches and television campaigns, some Democrats felt her approach remained too nebulous.
“You can claim there’s a big, bad wolf blowing houses down, but you must confront those individuals and identify them,” stated Dwan Walker, the Democratic mayor of Aliquippa, a small city formerly centered on industry near Pittsburgh. “It’s effective because when you target someone, you highlight the issue and demonstrate what it entails.”
As the campaign progressed, it became apparent that Harris would downplay Biden’s criticisms of large corporations in favor of a more conciliatory stance that she hoped would resonate with moderate voters. She sought the support of corporate leaders while attempting to shake off the progressive reputation she acquired during the 2020 presidential primary and counter Trump’s claims that she was a “communist.”
“We’re a center-right nation,” remarked Charles Myers, a fundraiser for Harris as well as the chair and founder of Signum Global Advisors. “One of the few things universally acknowledged by Americans is the American dream, and a significant part of that dream is wealth accumulation.”
Trump’s straightforward rationale
On the campaign trail, Harris sometimes projected ambiguous messages concerning her economic policy.
Her campaign was deliberately vague about her support for Biden’s ambitious proposal to increase taxes on the ultra-wealthy. She neither openly supported nor criticized financial regulators from the Biden administration. She avoided discussing a minimum wage increase until the fortnight preceding Election Day and often pointed out that Goldman Sachs analysts preferred her economic strategy over Trump’s.
On Election Day, voters decisively chose Trump, who promised broad tariffs and mass deportations of immigrants. These policies would transform the economic fabric of the United States — and many economists on both sides agree that they would significantly elevate prices.
“People want clarity about their circumstances. Trump provided them with one,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, remarked in an interview. “He linked all our issues to undocumented immigrants. What’s the Democratic narrative explaining the widening gap between the rich and the poor and why working-class people are struggling? You tell me.”
The results demonstrated that Democrats lost support with voters across the board compared to 2020, including in working-class regions and among people of color. Although Harris campaigned vigorously in suburban areas, marketing herself as a centrist to attract moderate Republicans and independents, her appeal there also fell short.
Nationally, enthusiasm within the Democratic ranks waned. While Trump secured approximately the same number of votes he had in 2020 — when he lost — Harris appears to have underperformed compared to Biden’s tally from four years earlier.
‘You can’t out-Republican Republicans’
As Democrats faced defeat, progressive populist economic policies fared well on the ballots.
In Missouri, a traditionally conservative state, voters approved a measure to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by a significant margin, even as they overwhelmingly opposed Harris. In Alaska, they were also inclined to do the same, with vote counts still being finalized. Approximately 75% of voters in conservative Nebraska supported a proposal for paid sick leave.
Harris did not prioritize either initiative in her campaign.
Now, the potential misjudgments made by the Harris campaign regarding economic issues could influence how the Democratic Party progresses as it enters a new phase of rebuilding and reflection.
Progressives argue that a distinct message is necessary moving forward.
“There’s a tendency in any general election to shift towards the center to attract moderate Republicans,” stated Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “You can’t out-Republican Republicans.”
