November 1, 2024: I’m voting for Trump

As a legal immigrant to the US, now US citizen, I just voted in my first US Presidential election. I voted for Trump/Vance and predict that Trump will win by a bigger margin than many thought possible. I’m cautiously excited about the prospect of a Trump presidency especially with the support of Elon Musk and what it could do for our country. This result will hopefully encourage some desparately needed deep soul searching in the Democratic party whose lack of succession planning, continued contempt for the electorate, woke ideology, lack of clear policy and lackluster campaign stacked the cards against them. It is a much less predictable path, but I do hope that Trump along with his transition team will have a wildly successful term that unleashes a new era of American and global progress.

On paper, I’m not your typical Trump voter - highly educated with an MBA, MPH and a doctorate living in Berkeley, California. In political conversations around here, most assume that you are a staunch democrat who is allergic to anything Trump related. Like many voters who would have traditionally have considered themselves Democrats, I was ready to be won over by the Democratic ticket. This was despite experiencing increasing crime in our area of California, a rapidly rising cost of living and an excruciating lived experience of burecracy and taxes associated with running a small business and most recently, building a home addition.

I found the Harris/Walz campaign to be tone-deaf, preferring to run on vibes, celebrity endorsements and anti-Trump sentiment than any real substance. The few policies that were made clear did not talk to our middle-class family with an infant and a small loss-making startup business. The core issues of immigration and the economy were brushed over, cementing the perception that it would be more of the same and certainly nothing to be inspired by. Their failure to fully acknowledge and own the immigration issues over the last four years showed their level of contempt for much of the American public; if they want to run on an open borders policy then I would much rather they were transparent about it rather than a backdoor policy that will have lasting implications for decades in to the future. Let me be clear that I am pro-Immigration and believe that we should make it easier for people to legally come to the US and contribute to the country, a policy that Trump seems to endorse, but this chaotic Hunger Games of border crossing serves no one, least not the migrants themselves.

Instead, I found was that I was won over by the Trump campaign. My impression of Trump’s 2017-2021 term when I was less invested in US politics as a visa holder was that it was nowhere near as bad as it was expected to be. This time, my impressions of Trump were initially formed through what I read in the mainstream media and were generally unfavorable. However after watching a few long-form interviews with him I found him to be straight talking, commonsensical and more nuanced in his thinking than most gave him credit for. Certainly compared to Harris, he was unscripted and was able to tackle any question that came at him. While he can be hyperbolic, my impression is that he uses this to hammer home a point. As I compared my notes from these interviews to what I read and heard in the mainstream media, I began to see the overwhelming negative bias in the mainstream media toward Trump to the extent there was a significant loss of credibility.

Trump has credibility on the border based on over a decade of consistent messaging and past action. His plan to tackle inflation has a chance of working by reducing gas costs (which have a pass through impact on everything), by doing away with unnecessary regulation and controlling immigration. Tarrifs do have the potential to be inflationary but Harris’ “20% sales tax” argument overly simplifies the issue. He has not been explicit in what tarrifs he would actually impose, but it is clear to me that this is a negotiation tactic and also a tool to re-shore much of the lost American manufacturing that COVID showed us is critical to national security interests.

Let me also mention a few areas where the Democrats primed the pump for desertion.

• Elon Musk: As an entrepreneur, I have a great deal of respect for Elon Musk. He’s possibly the greatest entrepreneur of all time and is almost singlehandedly responsible for America’s worldwide leadership in EVs, space exploration and satellite communication. Love him or hate him, he’s trying to move humanity forward by tackling some of the biggest technology challenges we face. The Biden/Harris administration didn’t invite him to their EV Summit and refused to even say Tesla’s name. This was the start of a long series of snubs that seemed not only petty but un-American.
• Union Pandering: Potentially linked to Tesla, was Biden’s at-all-costs support for unions. I’m all for safe working conditions and fair pay but there is a balance to be struck and as a small business owner and the vast majority of workers, unions are not relevant.
• Gaza: I know this is a thorny issue with a long history with suffering on both sides and a barbaric attack by Hamas on October 7th but the Biden/Harris/Blinken administration is almost certainly complicit in the human rights violations that are happening on a daily basis in Gaza. The power asymmetry in this conflict is clear to see and that the US (and the UK) have served widen this gap rather than encourage constraint is very disappointing.
• Energy Policy: Informed through my own personal experience of building an ADU here in California. Regulations required me to build the new 600sqft unit without natural gas, using an expensive and noisy electric heat pump water heater that runs throughout the day, having to hire expensive energy consultants to draw up energy efficiency plans, check materials for conformance and perform tests. We live in a very temperate climate where these regulations are almost certainly overkill and add tens of thousands of dollars in additional cost and weeks in additional time. Because it was a garage conversion I was saved from the solar panel requirements, but that would have added another $10-20k in cost. I’m all for greener living and energy efficiency but not as a trade-off for eye-watering building costs and passing the burden on to families simply trying to improve their own situation. This anecdote is almost certainly a reflection of the regulations we face at scale that have led to our housing and affordability crisis.

Finally, let me address a few areas where I do not necessarily agree with Trump’s agenda or am cautious on his emerging approach:

• Abortion: This is a contentious issue as demonstrated by the fact that the public are almost equally split between defining themselves as pro-choice and pro-life, whatever those definitions mean. Kicking this decision back to the states is one way of addressing the situation but I do worry about the women who will find themselves caught inbetween and unable to find the care they want in more conservative states. I believe that the major exceptions and the right to choose up to fetal viability should be a baseline federally.
• Legal Immigration: Trump has often talked about boosting legal immigration and making paths to residency easier for those studying in the US for example. I hope that he follows through on this as we need to encourage and retain the best from around the world, but undoubtedly a secure border is the first priority here.
• Environmental Protections: I do worry that too many environmental protections will go out the window that might have lasting consequences.
• Healthcare: Healthcare has been largely absent on the campaign trail. I think there’s recognition that it’s a complex beast with no clear policy win across the board but that isn’t to say there is much that could be improved. When we talk about inefficiency and waste, healthcare is pretty high up there. One idea I’d like to see the light of day would be a strengthened border and immigration system coupled with Medicare-for-all but that might be a bridge too far.
• *Foreign Policy: Trump has talked a lot about getting back to peace and avoiding nuclear war which is good. The US did largely avoid conflict during Trump’s first term, but whether that was a result of diplomacy or pure luck is hard to tell. I do see merit in the way Trump keeps his cards close to his chest and for example has not talked about Russia “losing” as I think he realizes both sides in the Ukraine confclit need to have a “win”. Like many others, I am disappointed with the Democrats’ handling of the Gaza conflict and hope that Trump will do better, but it remains unclear what his stance will be.
• Cryptocurrency: Many people who I respect are bullish on cryptocurrency and bitcoin. With that said, I’m still quite skeptical of cryptocurrency as an asset class but am bullish on the underlying technology. With a pro-crypto government there is a chance we go back to the heady days of shitcoins and ICOs that I worry will end in a lot of pain for consumers.
• Conflicts of Interest: Politics seems to be littered with conflicts of interest from insider stock trading to political donor influence and the revolving door between government and industry. I suspect that Trump will push the boundaries here to bring people in from the highest levels of business who will likely bring a much needed practical understanding of problems and executive mentality to the job but with a high potential for corruption.