Economic education and its influence in the election

Story by Morgan Sun
Feature Editor

Illustration by Sunny (Sunhye) Choi
Staff Illustrator

Following the 2024 election, public interest in economic terms such as “tariffs” surged, suggesting that many voters are not aware of the policies behind their decisions. 

“The economy” as a concept is inextricably broad, made up of the Fed, stocks, bonds, and the evidently newly discovered word: tariffs. The public views the economy through the lens of expectation and change. Pre-pandemic, prices were low and the economy was strong. But despite the economy under former President Joe Biden having a remarkably strong recovery in most measurable factors, the voters in the 2024 election had the economy as their highest priority. 

In a 2023 Federal Reserve report, over half the people surveyed said their largest financial challenge was inflation or basic living expenses, a stark contrast to 2016 when over half reported facing no financial challenges. Despite the fact that unemployment is significantly down from post-pandemic levels, wages are rising, and the U.S. economy is recovering faster than any other country, citizens are still dissatisfied with the aptly named cost of living crisis. However, prices are unfortunately the only discernible method for citizens to measure the economy, leading to a blinded approach in voting for economic policies. The public assumes knowledge to that which they are not educated on, and the country suffers for it.

Inflation, often misunderstood, refers to the rate of change of price increases rather than the absolute cost of goods and services. While inflation rates have declined and are now closer to the Federal Reserve’s target of 2 percent, the elevated prices of essential goods and services remain a significant burden. In addition, high interest rates have compounded the financial strain on households, making major expenditures such as healthcare, education, housing, and child/elder care increasingly unaffordable and unattainable.

One major cry in President Donald Trump’s campaign was that the economy was strong and prices were low in his first term. But there is a fundamental gap in the way economic conditions are viewed by the public. The economy is “inherited” by the incoming president — it tends to persist across presidential terms, with policies from one administration carrying over into the next. For instance, the expanding economy of 2016 after the recession from former President Barack Obama’s previous two terms benefited Trump, while the economic downturn caused by the pandemic in 2020 posed challenges for Biden.

Trump’s first term key economic policy still in effect is the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which provided significant tax reductions for corporations and the wealthy, alongside more modest cuts for the general population.

If Trump were to make the 2017 tax cuts permanent, coupled with his additional fiscal policies without corresponding revenue streams, the national debt could increase by an estimated $8 trillion over the next decade. This would likely contribute to further inflationary pressures and higher interest rates. In contrast, former Vice President Harris’ economic plans were projected to add nearly $4 trillion to the national debt by 2035.

And the public seems to follow a reactive rather than proactive approach to economic literacy. Public interest in economic terms such as “tariffs” surged following the 2024 election, suggesting that many voters are not aware of the policies behind their decision.

This is not solely a local, or even national issue. Globally, there has been a significant shift against incumbent parties since the pandemic. In 40 out of 54 elections held in Western democracies, incumbents have been voted out of office. Inflation after the pandemic has played a major role in this wave of anti-incumbent sentiment, though political science researchers are also aware other broader factors could be at play.

This trend of voting out incumbents can discourage efforts to implement long-term improvements in governance, creating a cycle of dissatisfaction and short-term thinking. The public’s perception of the economy as both unpredictable and all-encompassing often results in a lack of understanding of the government’s available tools to address economic challenges. Addressing high prices, for instance, requires installing long-term solutions and infrastructure that may initially exacerbate inflation before yielding positive results.
Discussions around economic policy frequently devolve into oversimplified soundbites, leaving voters without a critical understanding of its factors or impacts. But all of this starts simple: with an economics class. So in the future, Americans can go into the booth, armed with the knowledge to vote with their wallet and their head.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Archives