-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
After the shellacking Republicans just took in the midterm elections, a common refrain among conservatives is that we should all be terrified of what comes next. Whether you get your commentary from X, Instagram or friends on Facebook, you may have heard fear that the Democrats will vastly expand the size and scope of government, usher in socialism or destroy Western civilization.
There is no doubt that a lot of bad, big-government policies are in store. But if the prospect of Democrats returning to power is so terrifying, why on earth did Republicans elect a president and vice president as controversial as Donald Trump and JD Vance? Why did they support so many policies in clear opposition to the promotion of a free and virtuous society? Did they think a majority of voters would enjoy the result?
You cannot spend years governing this way, adopting tariffs and other policies that raise the cost of living, defying a clear directive to lower prices from voters in the previous election, and then expect the fear of what Democrats might do to spare your party from accountability.
Start with the moment Trump’s 2024 voters began drifting away: April 2, 2025. On “Liberation Day,” the president displayed a chart in the White House Rose Garden featuring tariff rates calculated with laughably incompetent mathematics. He then proceeded to raise taxes on nearly everything we buy from abroad, including from allies and uninhabited islands.
It’s true that voters were told there would be tariffs. In fact, they were sold the theory that tariffs could solve every problem. What they got was a president who taxed importers at his whim based on how he felt on any given day. Americans quickly realized they were the ones footing the bill, not foreigners. Everything was more expensive, from steel to food to luxury products and basic necessities. When a conservative Supreme Court ruled last February that Trump’s tariffs were not authorized by the statute he relied on, the president quickly doubled down by turning to another faulty statute.
Meanwhile, the failed and chaotic tenure of the Department of Government Efficiency alongside a refusal to reform entitlement spending, additional war spending, damaging tax carve-outs for tips and overtime and fresh giveaways to seniors left us with a $2-trillion deficit. It also fed inflation that no amount of blame directed at Fed Chairman Jerome H. Powell could hide.
Immigration policy followed the same pattern. The administration did, in some respects, close the border, which many Americans supported. But after that, it decided the job wasn’t complete without raiding farms, meatpacking facilities, building sites and hotels. Beyond the negative effects for workers and employers, shocking images of draconian raids added to the political damage.
Farmers got the worst of it: In 2025, soybean exports to China fell 76%, beef by 69% and cotton by 85%. In December, the USDA announced a $12-billion bailout for farmers hurt by “unfair market disruptions.” It was indeed unfair, but that’s because farmers were repeatedly punched in the face by U.S. trade policies that destroyed their export markets. Now, the unfairness extends to everyday Americans taxed to compensate the farmers.
Then came the war in Iran. Gasoline went from $2.98 a gallon in February to $4.15 on election day. Diesel, which rides along in the price of everything trucks deliver, hit $6.28, 65% above its prewar level. Moody’s puts the Iran bill at roughly $2,000 per household once mortgage rates, airfares and heating oil are counted.
Farmers took a second hit because one-third of the world’s traded urea, a product heavily used in agriculture, moves through the Strait of Hormuz. The price of nitrogen fertilizer roughly doubled in a matter of weeks.
Not everyone suffered, of course. Lobbyists and cronies thrived. When a tax on their inputs can be raised or waived by one erratic man, firms slow hiring and investing and plead for exemptions. In 2025, the number of registered clients lobbying on tariffs rose by 218%. Tech companies that pledged big domestic investments were rewarded with exemptions. Unsurprisingly, the AI industry did well. The administration also took an equity stake in 41 companies, many of which have connections to members’ friends and family.
Vance now implies that the electoral drubbing happened only because of the war. That’s convenient. If the war explains everything, nobody has to ask about the failing populist promise that moving away from free-market policies will make America great again, or about how such a top-down system feeds corruption. Both are trademark policies of a MAGA movement that will presumably soon be led by Vance himself.
So yes, fear the Democrats. I certainly do. They’ll keep most of the tariffs, expand industrial policy, cheer the equity stakes and run even bigger budget deficits — or worse. That fear should have mattered before so many Republicans chose to tolerate intolerable MAGA policies and behaviors.
Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The column argues that Republicans cannot credibly warn of harmful Democratic policies while excusing their own record: voters had reason to hold the party accountable for policies that raised costs and contradicted promises to make life more affordable.
- It presents tariffs as a central example, contending that unpredictable import taxes burdened American buyers and businesses, disrupted export markets and encouraged companies to lobby for exemptions. Election polling found that many voters viewed the tariffs as harmful to the economy, reinforcing the column’s argument that the policy carried political costs.[3][4]
- The article also links deficits and inflation to the administration’s spending and tax choices, and argues that immigration enforcement went beyond border control into disruptive raids on workplaces. It further contends that the Iran war drove up fuel and other costs, while warning that government equity stakes and selective tariff exemptions benefited politically connected interests.
- More broadly, the column says the defeat reflects a failure of the MAGA promise that moving away from free-market policies would improve Americans’ lives. It warns that Democrats may retain or expand tariffs, industrial policy and deficit spending, but argues that fear of those possibilities should not excuse Republican voters’ earlier choices.
Different views on the topic
- President Trump and Vice President JD Vance have emphasized the Iran war as a major cause of the Republican defeat. Trump acknowledged that the conflict and higher fuel prices hurt the party while defending the decision to attack Iran; Vance called the war the reason for the loss.[2][3] That explanation differs from the column’s broader account, which also faults tariffs, fiscal choices and immigration enforcement.
- The administration has defended tariffs as a means of reviving domestic manufacturing, even as polling cited by CNBC found more voters believed the tariffs hurt their local economies than helped them.[4] Trade adviser Barbara Weisel has argued for a more targeted approach to tariffs rather than abandoning them altogether.[5]
- Trump has stood by his deportation policy, though he conceded that enforcement was “too tough” at times. At the same time, voters in the CNBC poll were more likely to say Republicans handled immigration better, despite widespread disapproval of how ICE performed and concerns that the administration had gone too far.[3][4]
- Other analysts caution against explaining the election solely through the war. A Council on Foreign Relations fellow cited by AFP said the losses reflected broader dissatisfaction with affordability and Trump’s agenda, while acknowledging that the conflict worsened fuel costs.[1]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
It started as a ploy to scare Texas out of redrawing its congressional map and ended with California voters approving a new map of their own, one that could hat could help alter the balance of power in Washington.
William Mulholland was the water boss who made L.A. possible. His reputation gave him unchecked authority as a dam builder. In 1928, that led to one of America’s deadliest disasters--and the question of whether it was a crime.
