Many commentators have sought to explain Donald Trump’s 2024 election win through Americans’ concerns about inflation and the economy more broadly. Through her research which explores how Americans deploy the idea of ‘the economy’ to make political arguments, Jessica Eastland-Underwood writes that in the 2024 election, looking at who Americans picked to fix the economy, and at whose likely expense, can tell us a great deal about their beliefs and priorities. 

• This article is part of ‘The 2024 Elections’ series curated by Peter Finn (Kingston University). The series has explored the 2024 US elections at the state and national level. If you are interested in contributing to the series, contact Peter Finn (p.finn@kingston.ac.uk).

Political pundits have not been short in offering narratives about the 2024 US election. However, very simply, American voters who backed Trump told pollsters over and over and over again that ‘the economy’ was their top issue. This led CNN to publish a headline containing the most hackneyed mantra in American politics: ‘What just happened? It was the economy, stupid.’

The economy is not what you think it is

Despite the copious digital ink spilled on the subject, many commentators, journalists and even economists do not adequately acknowledge that ‘the economy’ is much more than a combination of GDP, the Consumer Price Index and other macroeconomic measures. In fact, ‘the economy’ is a relatively new concept that invokes values and meanings as much as more material objects, like jobs and money. As such, it can be used to appeal to people based on shared identity – and in the context of this election, a shared vision of Americanness that often excludes differently racialised people.

Just four weeks before the election, I submitted my PhD thesis looking at how everyday Americans deploy ‘the economy’ to make political arguments. I put ‘the economy’ here in inverted commas to draw attention to the term as a rhetorical device. One of my main findings was that people aligned with white identity politics were more like to use ‘the economy’ as an concept that represents their interests. Here, white identity politics represents political beliefs that racism is not a significant factor in society; in fact, proponents of this form of politics are more concerned that social justice activism is the greater danger.

Arguments about ‘the economy’ would often begin with jobs, prices, money, and other ‘normal’ factors of an economic system. However, closer reading and in-depth interviews would expose beliefs that China was sending agents to monopolise American goods, that the Rothschilds control the Federal Reserve, that Black Americans did not want to earn their place at university, and that movements like Black Lives Matter were harming ‘good white business owners’. That is, the ‘normal’ understandings of ‘the economy’ helps to mask some of the racialised beliefs under the surface.

“IMG_9193” (CC BY-NC 2.0) by VCU CNS

Is this ‘the economy’ that motivated American voters in 2024? Perhaps it is more plausible to understand ‘the economy’ for voters in 2024 as simply rising prices for basic goods. Readers are likely already familiar with the ‘incumbent graveyard’ theory, where Democrats were not immune from the global trend placing every incumbent government at an electoral disadvantage in 2024 due to inflation. That is, voters were acting on the very material experience of paying much more for groceries, gasoline and rent. If your choice is between Option A and Option B, and Option A has been in power during these years of inflation – well, choose Option B.

But Option B in the American election was not anyone. Trump has felony convictions related to election interference, has been held liable for sexual abuse, was impeached for inciting an insurrection, went on national television suggesting immigrants were eating Americans’ cats and dogs and so many more outrageous things that the New Republic has published 100 examples just since 2015.

Are concerns about ‘the economy’ really a front for racism?

As such, when voters cast their vote for ‘the economy’, it was not simply ‘my groceries are too expensive’, it was ‘my groceries were too expensive, and I am willing to do anything to make them cheaper.’ In one indicative set of interviews, many swing voters visibly wrinkled their nose, before stating: ‘Hey, look, I don’t necessarily want to support Donald Trump, but the economy’s not great right now and it was better when he was president.’

With this in mind, consider who has just been sold down the river for cheaper groceries. The groups likely to feel it the fastest are those who will be targeted under mass deportation policies. We only need to look at now President-elect Donald Trump’s election campaign speeches to know this is likely to include Black Haitian migrants, military-age men who look like they are Chinese, and Latinos living in the US. It is not difficult to see how differently racialised groups are going to bear the brunt of the consequences of the vision of ‘the Trump economy’ that excludes them.

Some may be hesitant to point to race as a motivating factor because early data from exit polls suggests Latino and Black men supported Trump at higher rates. However, this is a very superficial understanding of racism—it is not simply prejudicial belief, but the product of practices that inflict harm on group-differentiated people. One does not need to be a member of the racial majority to harbour racial animus towards other differently racialised communities.

An election outcome is the product of many different factors. However, if ‘the economy’ remains such a crucial issue in American politics, it is worth asking: When Americans tell us that they are voting for ‘the economy’, do we know what they mean? At the very least, we should not assume that they are communicating that inflation is more or less than two percent. But perhaps more importantly, it is worth considering whether ’the economy’ is providing a more legitimate front for racism.

• Subscribe to LSE USAPP’s email newsletter to receive a weekly article roundup.
• Please read our comments policy before commenting.
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics. 
• Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-exK