Janet Yellen, the pragmatic voice of economic orthodoxy, is sounding the alarm. In an op-ed penned for The Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Secretary warns voters that "veering off course" in the upcoming 2024 election could inflict significant damage on the nation’s economic trajectory. Although couched in careful language, her tacit endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris signals a larger debate about the direction of the U.S. economy—one that will inevitably shape this year's presidential election.
Yellen, ever the sober economist, points to the economy’s signs of life under the Biden-Harris administration, noting how wages have risen faster than prices, thereby improving the purchasing power of the typical American. Yet, this claim of economic vitality must be scrutinized with a clear eye. For beneath the surface of Yellen's optimism lies a gnawing truth: voters remain deeply skeptical of the current administration’s stewardship of the economy. Yellen’s warnings, while perhaps well-intentioned, confront the reality of polling data that suggests otherwise.
Consider the latest NBC News poll, which places former President Donald Trump well ahead of Harris on both inflation and the economy. On the issue of inflation, 48 percent of respondents trust Trump, compared to just 40 percent for Harris. On the broader question of economic competence, Trump again holds the edge—50 percent to Harris’s 41 percent. These figures reflect a fundamental discontent that, despite Yellen’s reassurances, the average American does not feel the alleged economic recovery as keenly as the administration believes.
And here lies the paradox. Yellen asserts that the Biden-Harris administration inherited an economy on the brink of collapse—a narrative that the current president and vice president have repeated ad nauseam. According to Yellen, it was this administration's bold fiscal policies, from pandemic relief to infrastructure spending, that stabilized the economy. But this narrative runs counter to the lived experience of many Americans who continue to grapple with the lingering effects of inflation, elevated grocery prices, and housing affordability crises.
Yellen’s plea for voters to stay the course is anchored in her belief that the Democratic economic platform is one of stability, long-term investment, and equity. She lauds the administration's policies as intentional, targeted, and crucial for America’s economic future. Investments in green energy, Yellen notes, are not only about addressing climate change but are vital to economic growth. Indeed, clean energy may be where Harris and the Democrats seek their comparative advantage—positioning themselves as the vanguard of a future economy that is both environmentally conscious and prosperous.
But here is the rub: economic theory is not always intuitive to voters. As the polls suggest, Americans tend to prioritize the economy of the here and now. Trump’s messaging—often simplistic, but effective—centers on immediate pocketbook issues. He frames his tax cuts as the tonic to spur growth and mocks Harris’s evolving stance on energy issues, particularly fracking. Trump’s blunt appeal to the anxieties of voters resonates more deeply than Yellen’s nuanced arguments for long-term economic strategy. And in Pennsylvania, a state crucial to both the electoral map and energy politics, Trump’s critique of Harris’s flip-flopping on fracking could prove a decisive issue.
Harris’s defense of her position on energy, articulated in a recent CNN interview, may satisfy her ideological base, but it does little to reassure blue-collar workers in energy-rich states. “My values have not changed,” Harris insists, suggesting that the progress toward green energy obviates the need for a fracking ban. This argument might play well among urban progressives, but it’s unlikely to allay concerns in regions that rely heavily on traditional energy sectors for jobs and economic stability. Trump's ability to tap into that anxiety, while painting Democrats as erratic on energy, positions him as the candidate more aligned with voters’ economic insecurities.
Yellen, to her credit, is correct in asserting that economic policy does not occur in a vacuum. The Biden-Harris administration has navigated the choppy waters of post-pandemic recovery, rising inflation, and global economic shocks with measures that were at times prudent. And the retail sales data, which showed a modest increase of 0.1 percent in August, gives Democrats reason to argue that consumer spending remains resilient. But incremental gains in retail sales will not be enough to sway a voter who feels the pinch of higher living costs. It’s not the raw economic data that will shape this election—it’s the perception of economic well-being, or the lack thereof, that will drive votes.
Yellen’s final salvo—warning against “nontargeted, nonstrategic international economic policies” and tax cuts for the wealthy—is a thinly veiled critique of Trump’s economic playbook. Yet, Trump’s populist rhetoric continues to resonate precisely because he eschews the technocratic language of Yellen and Harris. He presents himself as the antidote to what many perceive as Washington’s detached elite, who promise prosperity while the grocery bills continue to rise. Yellen can invoke economic theory, but Trump—ever the political animal—can invoke emotional clarity.
So, what is at stake in this election? Yellen believes that a Trump victory would spell fiscal irresponsibility, exploding the deficit and undermining American investments in its future. She sees Harris as the guardian of a more equitable, sustainable economy. But the challenge for the Harris campaign—and for Yellen as its economic mouthpiece—is to convince voters that the future economy they envision is worth the economic pain of the present.
Ultimately, Yellen’s warning of “veering off course” may be a sage one. But in politics, the question is not just which course to take—it is who voters trust to steer the ship. And in 2024, many Americans still believe that Donald Trump, not Kamala Harris, is the captain better suited to navigate their economic anxieties.
Senate Ballot Box Scores
Comments