Brooks and Capehart on Harris' economic policy proposals

New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart join Geoff Bennett to discuss the week in politics, including Vice President Kamala Harris’ economic policy proposals, former President Trump’s comments about Medal of Honor recipients and which campaign has the momentum heading into the final months of the race.

Read the Full Transcript

Geoff Bennett: Just days before she formally accepts her party’s nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Vice President Kamala Harris is unveiling key policy proposals.

For that and more, we turn to the analysis tonight of Brooks and Capehart. That’s New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post. It’s great to see you both.

So, Jonathan, Kamala Harris, as we mentioned, she’s hoping to sharpen her economic message with a focus on cutting costs. Your paper, The Washington Post, referred to it as an aggressively populist economic agenda. She’s talking about eliminating medical debt for millions of Americans, a cap on prescription drug costs, a $25,000 subsidy for first-time homebuyers.

Give us some of your top takeaways from the speech and her policy rollout.

Jonathan Capehart: Well, clearly, as we know from the polls, that the economy is either issue number one, two, or three for the American people.

So it makes sense that she would use her first policy speech to focus on not just economics, and just a piece of economics, because she did say at the top of her remarks that there are a bunch of other things that she’s going to roll out later, but she wanted to focus on this very narrow issue, which are issues that the American people say is top of mind for them, cost of living, and everything that relates to that, whether it’s drug prices or rents or grocery prices.

And so whether she will be able to fulfill a lot of these promises, that remains to be seen. A lot of it also has to do with the makeup of the next Congress. But the thing that is top of mind for me is that not only is she using prices and consumer prices and what the American voters are thinking of, where the economy hits them hardest in the pocketbook.

This comes after The Financial Times/University of Michigan Ross School of Business put out a poll, I think it was on Saturday or Sunday, just over the weekend, that showed that the vice president is one point higher, 42 percent to 41 percent for Donald Trump, in terms of how the people surveyed who they trust to guide the economy.

And that’s no matter who they wanted to vote for. And so the momentum that we have seen the vice president have at her back since taking over the top of the ticket is now — she’s got the momentum at her back when it comes to policy issues and on the economy in particular.

Geoff Bennett: And, David, on this matter of economic policy, the vice president is also proposing the first ever ban on price gouging for groceries. This is something I know you took particular issue with.

It polls well with swing voters, but economists say the underlying reasons why prices are higher, it’s a more complicated argument.

David Brooks: Yes, I mean, she has some good policies in this package. I think the child tax credit is a good thing. She wants to deregulate housing, so we can get more homes.

But the price gouging is just — well, Catherine Rampell, The Washington Post columnist and a “News Hour” contributor, said it’s impossible to exaggerate how bad this policy is. And I agree with that. And Catherine had a good line that if your opponent is calling you a communist, maybe don’t lead with price controls.

And so price controls just create shortages. They create black markets. We have seen it happen in Venezuela. We have seen it happen in the Soviet Union. Price controls just don’t work.

What’s worse about that, first, it’s trying to address a problem that does not exist. Price — grocery prices, inflation has been less than 1 percent for the past year. It’s over. We had a surge, but it’s over. The problem does not exist.

But the real core problem is it expresses a level of economic illiteracy which is kind of surprising in a responsible Democratic candidate. The idea behind greedflation is that we had all these years of low inflation under Obama and under Bushes. And I guess people weren’t greedy then.

And then Biden gets in, and suddenly, magically, they all get greedy and start price gouging. And they do it at Kroger’s, Harris Teeter, at H-E-B. Suddenly, there’s this mass of price gouging. And she thinks she can prosecute it.

That’s not why inflation surged. Inflation surged because we had a pandemic which screwed up supply chains and productivity. Then the Biden administration overstimulated the economy, too many dollars chasing too few goods. Obama administration official Larry Summers and Jason Furman said at the time, this is going to cause inflation.

Lo and behold, it did. The Fed has to clamp down on growth, raising everybody’s interest payments. That’s what caused inflation. That’s solid, basic economics. Her greedflation plan is somewhere off — outside of normal economics.

Geoff Bennett: What about that, Jonathan, that the Harris policy, parts of it at least, speak to an economic illiteracy?

Jonathan Capehart: Well, I mean, I’d take issue with the use of the word illiteracy. But we will just have to agree to disagree on our word choices, David.

But Catherine Rampell raises a very good point. And her column, I found to be rather persuasive. And so now it’s incumbent upon the vice president and her team to flesh this out a little bit — a little bit more.

But if we’re going to talk about economic illiteracy, can we talk about Donald Trump in his proposal that he talked about at his press conference, I believe it was last night, talking about a tariff on all imports? And we don’t talk enough about what that tariff on all imports would mean to the American consumer.

And that would mean higher prices. But the former president doesn’t talk about that. So I think whether you’re talking about the vice president’s plan on price gouging and whether she’d be able to get that done, or we talk about the former president’s plan for tariffs on all imports, let’s have this robust conversation, which I think we will have, because the vice president still has to flesh out other pieces of her economic agenda.

Geoff Bennett: Well, let’s keep our focus on Donald Trump for a moment, because he is facing backlash over his comments about veterans.

Here’s what he said at an event at his Bedminster estate over the weekend.

Donald Trump, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: I watched Sheldon sitting so proud in the White House when we gave Miriam the Presidential Medal of Freedom. That’s the highest award you can get as a civilian.

It’s the equivalent of the congressional Medal of Honor, but civilian version. It’s actually much better because everyone gets the Congressional Medal of Honor. That’s soldiers. They’re either in very bad shape because they have been hit so many times by bullets or they’re dead.

She gets it, and she’s a healthy, beautiful woman. It’s like…

(Cheering)

(Applause)

Donald Trump: And they’re rated equal.

Geoff Bennett: What should we make of these comments from last night?

David Brooks: You know, when I covered the McCain campaign, he had a whole group of Medal of Honor winners. And they were not bullet-ridden. They were great guys. I loved — I was in awe to be around those guys. People who win the Medal of Honor, they have done something really awesome and something amazing.

And — but throughout his career, Donald Trump has had trouble with military valor. He attacked McCain on it. He’s attacked the people who were in the cemeteries in France. He’s attacked them here because that’s what real manhood looks like. And it bugs him.

And so this is just a piece of that emotional weakness in Donald Trump’s care.

Geoff Bennett: And, Jonathan, there are Republicans who’ve pointed out that, at a time when you have the Republican campaign targeting Walz’s military record, this gives the Harris campaign fodder for a counterattack now aimed at Donald Trump.

Jonathan Capehart: Absolutely.

I mean, what did Mrs. Adelson do that was in service to something other than herself? I mean, the people who get these medals, particularly the members of the military who the former president disparaged, gave something. Either they gave their lives or they gave their limbs or they gave their mental health.

They gave a lot for this — in service of this country. It is — like, these are the biggest patriots there are. And I agree with David. This is — I wouldn’t say he’s got some little defect. I think the president — I think Donald Trump is broken. He is broken when it comes to anything related to, I don’t know, human feelings, something where someone does something for someone other than themselves.

And I don’t know. Well, it’s too late for him to fix it. But it’s not too late for the American people to ensure that he’s never put in a position to give another Presidential medal of Freedom again.

Geoff Bennett: And again, from a political standpoint, is there a risk that voters grow tired of what is now a very familiar act? I raise the question because Megyn Kelly, the former FOX personality who now has a podcast, I think, still influential in conservative circles, said that Trump’s rambling, that’s the word that she used, rambling is boring. And she says it’s probably age-related.

David Brooks: Yes, I wonder about that.

I mean, Trump has been saying stupid stuff for a long time. And, frankly, for all of Kamala Harris’ rise, which is real — like, it’s been fantastic the rise she’s had from her perspective — but Trump is still doing better than he was then in 2020 or 2016.

So he’s still a very viable candidate. And all the stupid comments, which now run into the zillions, don’t seem to have hurt him because people basically think he gets them. And you can tell a lot of lies, but if people think they get you and they recognize the story you tell about America, they will support you nonetheless.

So, he may be getting old. I certainly — watching the rallies, I think he’s less funny than he was. Certainly, just as an entertainer, he’s less of an entertainer. So I think Megyn Kelly is definitely onto something, but so far I don’t see big political deficits for him on that front.

Geoff Bennett: Jonathan, what about that? Because earlier you mentioned Kamala Harris’ momentum. Does the energy and enthusiasm on the Democratic side, does it mask the fact that this is still a competitive race?

I think The Cook Political Report has her up by less than one point right now heading into the convention.

Jonathan Capehart: Right. Yes, I mean, this race has always been statistically tied. But you can’t deny that you would rather be the Democratic ticket right now with momentum and enthusiasm at your side and pushing you into your convention and hopefully pushing you out of your convention, even if you’re statistically tied.

But Donald Trump, this is probably the one and only time I will agree with Megyn Kelly. His shtick, it is not funny. It is boring. It’s tiresome.

And even if there are people who support the former president, even those who are in the periphery which are — those of the folks he’s got to worry about, those Republicans or those folks who might think that, you know what, I don’t know if I want to vote for this guy again. I don’t know if I want to go through another four years of vengeance and name-calling and tearing this country down.

I have watched just about every rally and speech and press conference he’s done since the change at the top of the Democratic ticket. And it’s like watching an old cover band just play the same old, what they view as their hits over and over again.

At a certain point, Donald Trump is going to have to give not just his supporters, his die-hard followers something. He’s going to give — he’s got to give other people a reason to vote for him. And so far, maybe I’m biased, but I don’t see it.

Geoff Bennett: Well, next week, it’ll be Democrats’ turn to cheerlead their presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, and her new running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.

What will you be watching for, Jonathan? What do you want to hear?

Jonathan Capehart: Well, I — well, a few things. One, I will be watching to see how the Democratic Party treats President Biden on his big night on Monday.

The other thing I will be looking for is whether the protests related to Gaza, whether they make their way inside the hall and if they make their way inside the hall, how big they will be, how disruptive they will be and what the reaction will be.

And then the vice president’s speech — I’m sorry, the vice presidential nominee’s speech, and then the presidential nominee speech and what they say, how they say it and how they rock it or don’t rock it out of Chicago.

Geoff Bennett: It is a little confusing when you have a vice president who’s the presidential nominee and a vice presidential candidate all in the same party.

(Laughter)

Geoff Bennett: What are you going to be watching for?

David Brooks: Yes, well, this is the first year where I have gone to two happy conventions in my life, because, usually, one party knows they’re down. But when the Republicans had theirs, they thought, we’re winning. And now the Democrats are in a fantastic mood.

I will be watching for the Biden speech, all the — my big names, the Obamas. But, mostly, I’m looking for whether the country is ready for an emotional change of tone, from anger and pessimism, which has been the tone of American politics, to something exuberant and joyful, which is what Kamala Harris has been offering.

Geoff Bennett: Yes. Her approach and her use of the word joy and Tim Walz’s approach too, why do you think that might be effective in this cycle?

David Brooks: Yes, I watched the Montana rally that Trump did this week, and she was out in Nevada. And I just turned off the volume on YouTube and just looked at her face.

She was talking about prosecuting people, but she’s exuberant. She’s just sending out waves of positive emotion. And Trump, even when he’s talking about how much people love him, he looks scowling and resentful and angry.

And we have been in a very pessimistic mode. And maybe the country’s still there. That’s still a possibility. I was just out in the Rocky Mountain region. I met a lot of people who are in a very pessimistic mood about this country. But maybe there’s been a shift toward a more — a politics of joy, if you want to call it that.

Geoff Bennett: All right, David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, we will see you both in Chicago.

David Brooks: Good to see you.

Jonathan Capehart: Thanks, Geoff.