Is Trump's policy enough to make up for his personality

This was undeniably a generational Republican ballot. With Doug Burgum, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Ron DeSantis all present, it felt like the only person missing was a Bush. Every angle of right-wing philosophy was represented on that stage: neoconservatives, libertarians, America First proponents, foreign policy enthusiasts, governors, and newcomers.

Yet, despite this variety, the party continued to rally around Donald Trump. Game theory likely offers an explanation about non-optimal outcomes based on perceptions of electability versus genuine preference, but that is beyond the scope of this article and does not do anything to address the current reality: Trump is the Republican nominee.

Among "lifelong" Republicans like Mike Pence and Mitt Romney, there’s a recurring theme—they can't support Trump in good conscience, for a number of reasons but primarily because they know him. They find him dishonest, rude, or just an unsuitable person for the presidency after his election denial actions. This raises a question for every American: Is a president's personality more important than their policies? Or for Republicans, are Trump’s policies enough to overlook his character?

Republicans grappling with Trump’s policy must consider past key achievements versus what looks to be coming down the pipe.

His past achievements are strong. The two biggest being the overturning of Chevron deference and Roe v. Wade—once-in-a-generation victories which are the direct benefit of having a Republican presidency nominate candidates to the Supreme Court. Together these cases appeal to large portions of the republican party because they align with neither economic (Chevron) or social conservative(Roe).

His future looks less promising, his proposals for a 200% tariff on foreign goods and his isolationist “America First” stance—policies are hard to reconcile as a net good for the country.

As for Vice President Kamala Harris, one might expect her to move toward the center by focusing on independents or addressing single-issue voters. And to her credit, she has recently addressed the AI and cryptocurrency industries, arguably the two largest groups of undecided voters in the country.

During a Wall Street fundraiser, she said she would "encourage innovative technologies like AI and digital assets while protecting consumers and investors." This initially pleased insiders from both industries, but it seems more like political signaling than substance.

AI accelerationist might feel more confident in her message since Democrats, including Harris, have shown support for subsidizing environmental energy programs, a key primitive for more AI funding.

AI deccelerationist have room for hope for a different reason, most notably the party's tendencies toward economic authoritarianism. Which is speculated to be a fail-safe in case AI goes wrong. Evidence of this can be seen in the recent AI-related legislation talks in California being led by Governor Gavin Newsom.

Cryptocurrency supporters on the other and have more reasons to be concerned. The Biden administration has been hostile toward the industry, and Harris has brought several Biden officials back into her cabinet. More fundamentally, cryptocurrency's principles—sovereignty, privacy, free markets, rule of law, and censorship resistance—conflict with the Democratic Party's ideology, and Harris is unlikely to back it fully. At best, Democrats might lean on legacy banks, which see the potential of blockchain technology for their operations. However, this approach would likely benefit the banks more than the broader cryptocurrency mission, and could even lead them to challenge decentralized protocols that overlap with their market interests, like lending and order book platforms.

In the end, the question is: Will independents take a gamble on a candidate whose personality and policies have only become more polarizing despite a strong first term, or will they choose the seemingly moderate candidate, promising once again a return to normalcy for America?

Only time will tell.

T - 35 days

Atlas Aristotle