Election Day is almost here. For many, the stakes feel incredibly high for the presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and Former President Donald Trump.
We asked five UChicago scholars for their thoughts on numbers of key issues at the top of voters’ minds in the 2024 election, including the spread of misinformation, immigration, reproductive rights, the economy and international relations.
Assoc. Prof. Marshini Chetty on misinformation and cybersecurity
Misinformation about the candidates is only going to increase as we head towards Election Day. Even for experts, it is really hard to separate fact from fiction. My advice: Do your due diligence with what you are reading or seeing or hearing about the election. Does something sound off or untrue? Check your sources and, if you can, consult multiple trusted institutions and sources to form a more accurate picture of what is happening. Similarly, be on the lookout for scammers trying to cash in, such as asking for donations under the guise of real candidates.
Misinformation and security threats can hamper voters’ abilities to be informed and cast their votes. This next election really can determine what the next era of American life will look like and so the stakes are high all around to make sure voters get accurate information and avoid security compromises.
—Marshini Chetty, associate professor in the Department of Computer Science
Asst. Prof. Angela Garcia on immigration and the U.S.-Mexico border
Polls indicate that undocumented immigration is a top issue for voters going into the 2024 election. But the first and last legalization program within a comprehensive immigration reform was enacted in 1986, the same year that Madonna’s “Papa Don’t Preach” topped the charts. Of the six presidential administrations that have followed, none has overseen a successful congressional overhaul of immigration policy, despite widespread agreement that the current system is broken.
Instead, subsequent legislation has militarized the U.S.-Mexico border, maintained narrow viable channels for visas and legal entry, increased interior enforcement, taken adjustment of status while living in the U.S. off the table, and excluded undocumented immigrants from access to Social Security, Medicare, and the federal health care Marketplaces. As a result, the typical undocumented immigrant has lived in the U.S. for an estimated 16 years under the threat of deportation and without access to the social safety net, despite their contributions to those systems. It is critical to evaluate candidates’ immigration policy proposals in light of this congressional inaction on comprehensive immigration reform.
The underlying questions raised by human mobility at the U.S.-Mexico border or across the interior of the United States are not new, even though some aspects of the current situation are unprecedented. At stake is the opportunity to shift away from congressional paralysis and towards a more flexible immigration system that can respond to modern demands and counter lurid anti-immigrant propaganda with alternative visions.
—Angela Garcia, assistant professor in the Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice
Prof. Geoffrey R. Stone on reproductive rights
If Republicans control all three branches of the federal government, the risk of serious federal restrictions on abortion rights is quite real. Right now, different states are able to set their own rules with respect to abortion, but with a Republican-controlled federal government there is a real possibility that the federal government will substantially limit those rights nationally and that the current Supreme Court will uphold such legislation. Similar national legislation might limit a range of rights for gay and transgender people. In short, the stakes are very high.
—Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law
Prof. Steven Durlauf on the U.S. economy
The most important differences between Harris and Trump transcend the standard economic policy disagreements between liberals and conservatives.
Some proposed policies have outcomes that have consequences for Americans and other countries. For example, Trump’s proposed higher tariffs on China and the rest of the world would lead to price increases and impact the standard of living for Americans. The second-order effect of such increases will be retaliatory actions by China and the rest of the world.
Similarly, when it comes to mass deportations, it is a myth that undocumented workers are causing serious employment losses for native-born or legal immigrants. Might there be some relief in housing/rental prices in some locations? Sure. But the bottom line is that the consensus on the economic effects of the undocumented workers is that they augment the economy.
The effects of this election on the economy will transcend either candidate’s economic policies. Economies are deeply affected by beliefs about the future, and chaos is conducive to economic decline.
—Steven Durlauf, Frank P. Hixon Distinguished Service Professor and the Director of the Stone Center for Research on Wealth Inequality and Mobility at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy
Assoc. Prof. Paul Poast on foreign policy and global conflicts
For most voters, foreign policy won’t factor at all into their vote. The one exception is that some voters, out of a general disillusionment with U.S. policy towards the War in Gaza, may choose to stay home and not vote at all.
Both Trump and Harris see the United States as the “indispensable nation,” but both have different interpretations of what that exactly means. Harris’ view of the U.S. role in the world falls in line with the more traditional notion of the United States having the power to shape global events, even events that may not directly involve the United States. For Trump, it’s more personalized: as president of the United States, he will negotiate to resolve global conflicts and he will use the leverage of tariffs and sanctions to cut better deals for the U.S. It’s the difference between a view of the United States as the leading country, versus the United States as the country of the leader.
—Paul Poast, associate professor in the Department of Political Science
This post was originally published on here
