Consequences and Contradictions
Terry H. Schwadron
Nov. 29, 2024
Americans said they were voting for Donald Trump because prices are too high. This week, Trump did what he said he would do, threatening tariffs of 25% on goods from Mexico and Canada, America’s leading trading partners and 10% on Chinese goods.
Consumer prices will go up as a result, of course, despite what Trump still insists about foreigners paying for the tariffs. But Trump supporters voted thinking that their personal economics would improve, immediately. The practicalities say the opposite.
We’re hearing early echoes of similar dissonance between real results and promised results in many other areas — immigration and deportation, education, health policy and access, veterans affairs, among others where Team Trump want to cut vast numbers of federal dollars and employees. Each effort will prompt predictable political and legal challenges as well as debates about the power politics needed to bring Big Change to fruition.
Naturally, the question arises about whether these instances reflect what Trump voters really had in mind.
A Washington Post article about a new Scripps News/Ipsos poll explored voter attitudes about the many contradictions arising in the emerging Trump agenda. The poll was a little different from most that seek to tally general “for” or “against” positions. Instead, it asked follow-up questions that paired the original answer with the practical effects of selected policies.
Asking about Deportation
As previous polling has shown, this new poll says that Trump’s promise of mass deportations for undocumented immigrants wins support broadly, 52 percent to 43 percent. But those results went down consistently as they were tied with likely and presumable consequences of such a policy.
If deportations mean that fewer people will be paying into Medicare and Social Security, the margin of support dropped to two points (48%-46%). If deportations have a negative impact on available labor, the same voters split 47%-47%. If deportations raise prices by eliminating agricultural workers, for example, opposition outpaced support by nine points (43 percent support to 52 percent opposition).
If deportations mean families being separated, only 38% were supportive and 57 against. If Trump looks to deploy the U.S. military to the migrant roundups, Americans opposed it, 60%-40%.
All those things indeed will follow implementation of any widespread plan to round up undocumented migrants. Trump says so, Tom Homan, his immigration czar, Stephen Miller, his chief domestic adviser says so, Gov. Kristi Noem, Secretary-designate of Homeland Security says so. Project 2025, the outline for a second Trump administration, says so too. Trump confirmed last week that he will indeed use the military. And it’s not even clear how such an operation could be run without doing so, given the scale of the roundup.
As many as 4 in 10 farmworkers lack documents, the Agriculture Department says, As many as 4.4 million Americans under 18 have lived with at least one undocumented parent as of 2022, according to a Pew study this year. The total number of undocumented immigrants is estimated at 11 million, more than the population of Ohio.
So, that nasty question again: When people say they support deportation, what did they think would happen?
Earlier this year, a Marquette University Law School poll showed support for deporting undocumented immigrants dropping by 16 points when it mentioned how it could deport people who “have lived here for a number of years, have jobs, and no criminal record” — a description that applies to a large number of would-be deportees, The Post noted. There is another such contradiction in polling from CBS News and YouGov, showing similar support for generalized deportation, but opposition for using the military to carry it out.
Inconsistency on Tariffs
The CBS poll showed Americans also have inconsistent feelings about Trump plans for large tariffs on imports.
Meanwhile, it remains unclear just how much of Trump’s threats to Mexico and Canada are bluster and how much is real. Trump has talked with both leaders, and insisted that they agree with his views about setting tariffs if the two countries don’t act to dry up migration — something they say they do now. The accounts are messy and differ from the other leaders.
Lowering the costs of goods and services was seen as a priority about 79 of respondents, more than want, say, tax cuts. According to this poll, Americans think tariffs, which basically pass on to consumers as higher cost, will indeed raise prices (58%-18%). Still, poll results say tariffs are favored by 52%-48%.
In the Scripps/Ipsos polling, just 14 percent of Americans “strongly” supported new tariffs. Twice as many supported them only “somewhat.” Maybe they feel that tariffs will help re-shore U.S. jobs that have gone overseas. We don’t know, because that question was not asked.
The bigger conclusions are that people voted about a rather hazy image without thinking through the likeliest practical details. You might extend this to the contradictory statements we are hearing from Team Trump about health care or education or foreign policy choices.
Indeed, what marked this election was the marked attempt to use misinformation to win votes. It worked. More of us than not accepted the slogans and advertising without checking under the hood or even wanting to do so. I’d call it a form of self-delusion, of wanting to believe rather than doing the more rigorous work, perhaps out of loyalty or fealty to an icon like Trump.
Yes, elections have consequences. But we should know what we’re buying.
##