Of all the outrages and betrayals that Donald Trump has had perpetrated against him—by ungrateful subordinates, by obstreperous prosecutors, by treacherous journalists—perhaps his saddest falling-out is with a simple word. “Starting on day one, we will defeat inflation quickly, and we will make America affordable again,” he declared in an ad during his 2024 presidential campaign. A year later, Trump confessed to still having some affinity for the word. Speaking at a summit hosted by McDonald’s, the president promised imminent prosperity: “That begins with making America, we have to do—the word is affordable—and affordable should be our word, not theirs.” These days, the word itself is, like all of Trump’s enemies, the frequent target of invective. The president describes the concept of affordability as, variously, a Democratic “con job,” as “a new word—nobody ever heard the word,” and, most damningly of all, as “fake.”
The reasons for this lexical animosity are clear. The word that the president once wielded with great effect against Democrats in 2024 is now being used against him with seemingly equal effect by his opponents. Affordability is the Democrats’ unifying theme, which, despite them lacking coherence on almost every other issue, may be enough to carry them to victory in the November midterm elections. (Nate Silver estimates that in the generic congressional ballot, Democrats are leading by a crushing 7.5 percentage points.) And no wonder. Inflation remains high; gas prices, which Trump promised in 2024 would settle below $2 a gallon, are now above $4 thanks to the president’s war with Iran; mortgage rates, which Trump said would drop to 2 percent, are instead near 7 percent.
[Marc Novicoff: Gas prices could cost Republicans the midterms]
But Democrats shouldn’t expect to hang on to their advantage here; far more likely, the inversion will recur. You can imagine America settling into a persistent politics of affordability, in which the arguments are always the same but the positions of accuser and accused are swapped depending on who holds power. Democrats are, for example, pledging that if they win the midterm elections, they will crusade for lower costs “of groceries, of housing, of childcare and elder care.” Perhaps such competition would be salutary; more likely, it would be Sisyphean—an unending cycle of accusation, disappointment, and recrimination.
There are three reasons for pessimism. The first is that affordability politics are a breeding ground for economically illiterate policy ideas. Popular anger over inflation is usually directed at cumulative price increases over the course of years. But literally decreasing prices is exceptionally hard to accomplish, even if that is what voters want. In this heady environment, discredited ideas such as price controls and even the direct provision of goods—as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is attempting with government-run grocery stores—make their resurgence. Affordability politics also encourages unvarnished attempts at bribing voters, as Trump attempted with his pledge to give $5,000 to every American adult should Republicans keep control of Congress. (This is both a subpar reason to add another $1.3 trillion to America’s $40 trillion in national debt and a very good way to exacerbate inflation.)
[From the August 2026 issue: The ‘consumer socialism’ trap]
The second problem of affordability politics is what these proposed solutions do to what little remains of voter trust in government. Every election cycle, politicians make promises for widespread price relief, package them into neat advertisements, and relay these to voters a mind-numbing number of times, only for these promises to go undelivered—because they were unworkable from the start. This may not inspire apathy among voters so much as anger and irritability. It also encourages anti-incumbency of the kind that explains why Americans have, in every presidential election since 2016, opted for the challenging party’s candidate.
The third problem is the cumulative cost of short-termist affordability politics. Neither party in this election cycle is making much reference to the national debt, even though the United States has surpassed, for the first time ever, $1 trillion in interest costs this year. Deficit spending shows no sign of slowing down, even though the American economy is not in recession and the country is only mildly at war. But there is no political incentive to suggest that such spending cannot persist. Instead, Democrats traditionally propose new social expenditures and subsidies, whereas Republicans propose general tax cuts. The new approach, favored by populists, is to offer both: Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for the Senate race in Michigan, has pitched “a cost-of-living exemption on federal taxes up to $50,000” while also establishing Medicare for All and universal child care—to be paid for by the rich. Ashley Hinson, the Republican nominee for the Senate race in Iowa, is pitching more government support for house purchases, child care, and rural hospitals while cutting taxes.
Why begrudge the entire enterprise of affordability politicking? Isn’t the job of elected officials ostensibly to improve the lives of their constituents? Yes, indeed. And it is of course still possible to durably decrease prices with good governmental policy: You can, for example, slowly reduce the cost of housing by reducing restrictions on building, or reduce health costs by expanding the supply of doctors. This requires some forbearance and sophistication on the part of the politician—and, unfortunately, both qualities are negatively selected against in the current political-attention economy. It is better to make headlines with snappier pledges to freeze the rent or nationalize the health system. You can safely assume that at the conclusion of the midterms, the 2028 presidential election will begin in earnest and affordability will be one of its bywords. You can also dread the litany of bad ideas it will spawn.
Leave a Reply