The ever-sharp Reihan Salam, President of the Manhattan Institute, told us that Tuesday’s election was about “quality of life” first, driven by cost of living and related issues, and “competence” second, folding in issues like DEI vs. merit, distrust of “experts” and “elites,” and related ideas. 

The two issues clearly are related. As quality of life suffers, we would expect Americans’ views of the people in charge to sour. So let’s focus on the first issue. We think he’s on to something. 

Fundamentally, the pro-Trump case in this election was always based on voters comparing their experiences under Trump and Biden-Harris and concluding they were better off with the former. The “A/B test” had already taken place in real life; voters could judge the results for themselves.

The issue that loomed largest in any such mental comparison was bound to be cost of living, which is almost synonymous with quality of life. Prices were stable and wages grew under President Trump. By contrast, prices spiked, outpacing wage growth, for much of the Biden-Harris administration. Prices are roughly 20 percent higher today than they were at the start of Biden’s term. Harris’s offers to put price controls on groceries and subsidize down payments on first homes were desperate attempts to address this weakness, but voters simply did not find her record or solutions credible. Inflation leaves a mental scar that voters remember in the polling booth. 

Exit poll data certainly indicate cost of living was top of mind for voters. Two-thirds of voters rated the economy “not so good” or “poor,” and nearly 70 percent of those respondents voted for Trump; more than 90 percent of voters who thought the economy was “excellent” or “good” voted for Harris. The Washington Post framed voters’ negativity about the economy as “baffling,” given “low unemployment and robust growth,” but is it really? Few who have been to a grocery or hardware store in the past few years would find it that mysterious.

But other issues play into “quality of life,” as well. The spike in crime and disorder no doubt contributed to major shifts toward Republicans in urban areas like New York City. The effects of mass immigration on small towns likewise drove voters to Republicans.

The incoming administration will need to consider how to address the “quality of life” crisis—and will have to tread lightly to avoid making matters worse. 

That means massive spending initiatives are likely off the table, though few thought Republicans would attempt to recreate the Democrats’ pandemic-vintage spending spree. More realistically, it means Republicans will need to be careful how they approach tax and trade next year. They may want to prioritize the child tax credit and other tax breaks that can provide immediate relief to normal voters. They will also need to consider the effect that tariffs, including the universal tariffs Trump has proposed, would have on consumer prices in the short term, though there is significant evidence that when foreign manufacturers are hit with tariffs, they usually prefer to eat the lower profit margin rather than lose marketshare. 

On crime and immigration, the incoming administration is well positioned to reverse the dovish policies of his predecessor this time around. But they will need to prioritize these issues, since the business lobby and traditionally minded Republicans will want to make the first 100 days about their priorities, namely corporate tax breaks and financial deregulation.

If Trump has “quality of life” to thank for his return to the White House, then he needs to deliver a “quality of life” renaissance. Republican policymakers need to think now about the levers they can pull in the short term to make life better for the majority that just voted them into office.

A “quality of life” agenda might look something like this: generous child subsidies and a raft of pro-family policies; immigration enforcement focusing on criminal aliens; a revitalized COPS program with the goal of hiring 100,000 new cops; moderate reform to zoning laws (perhaps through some sort of “race to the top”-type initiative via HUD) to increase the supply of housing without destroying housing wealth; regulatory reform to hasten the adoption of self-driving cars… And many, many more ideas. 

The point is this: the to-do list is very long, and there’s very little time. The “quality of life” lens is a way for the Administration to prioritize.

Policy News You Need To Know

#Immigration — Alan Tonelson, veteran skeptic of globalization, makes an interesting point about how central immigration was to this election: two Democrats who are “Trumpy” on trade but soft on immigration, Sherrod Brown and Bob Casey, went down to defeat after long and venerable careers. Their outspoken trade hawkery couldn’t save them. For voters in the Rust Belt, immigration and trade go together. 

#Antitrust — Matt Stoller discusses the prospects for antitrust in Trump II, noting that Wall Street and Big Tech, at least, think the next few years will be a boomtown for M&A. Will it be? Many of Trump’s allies in Silicon Valley and Wall Street have their knives out for Lina Khan and other Biden regulators… but Trump’s running mate has said positive things, and Trump himself is hardly orthodox on economic matters. We will see which faction wins out as the administration assembles its antitrust team and goes to work.

#Chyna — China’s exports and trade surplus soared in October, per the FT, rising nearly 13 percent year on year, exceeding the predicted 5 percent. This export surge speaks to the continuing softness in China’s domestic market, as well as the remarkable output of its heavily subsidized industrial companies. As Trump enters office and Europeans fret about their cratering industry, expect more protection to be on the table.

#Drugs — In City Journal, the excellent Charles Fain Lehman examines why ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana in Florida, North Dakota, and South Dakota crashed and burned. The initiatives were widely expected to pass. Trump endorsed the Florida measure. What’s more, the companies that stood to gain outspent opponents five-to-one. Despite this, Lehman concludes that voters reacted against problems caused by legalization in other states . “It is no longer possible to dupe voters into believing that legal weed has no downsides,” he writes. In a different article, Lehman also examines failed ballot initiatives to legalize psychedelics. Both worth reading.

#Housing — A study by Joshua Coven, a PhD student at NYU, examines the effects of institutional investors in the rental housing market. His model finds that the entry of institutional investors reduces homeownership in the affected areas, but also lowers rents since large investors benefit from economies of scale. 

#Energy — Chris Edwards at Cato urges the incoming administration to reconsider the Biden administration’s plans to open 31 million acres of public lands for solar-energy installations. While solar is billed as “clean” energy, its installation requires bulldozing and covering vast swathes of land, which has led to environmental tragedies like the destruction of hundreds of Joshua trees in California to make way for solar farms. Whatever one thinks about deploying clean energy, clearly there are trade-offs that should be considered.

#Science — Another interesting study, with implications for the “replication crisis” in academia. It is generally assumed that scientists don’t have much incentive to attempt to replicate findings in the first place. The study shows that replication attempts are in fact taking place, often performed by overworked PhD students hunched over in the lab. Many of these attempts never see the light of day, however, because the students assume they’ve done something wrong when they fail to replicate a study’s results—instead of concluding there is something wrong with the study itself. 

#DEI #Health — During the height of racial mania in 2020, a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences threw fuel on the fire by showing that black babies were more likely to die when treated by white doctors. The clear implication was that white doctors were neglectful of black babies and allowed them to die. Robert VerBruggen and George Borjas recently reexamined the data and found a less incendiary explanation: black babies with very low birth weight, a key predictor of mortality, are more likely to be treated by white doctors, likely pediatric specialists who deal with the sickest babies. Borjas and VerBruggen conclude: “Everyday consumers of scientific findings should maintain a healthy skepticism” of scientists findings that fit the narrative of the day.

#Economics — Over at National Review, Jon Hartley examines the theories of Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson, who recently won the Nobel Prize in Economics for their work on development. In a nutshell, the trio argue that economic development is the result of strong institutions and rule and law. Hartley contends that now researchers’ must focus on which institutions matter.