The recent selection of JD Vance as the Republican vice presidential nominee completes the gradual but nevertheless drastic transformation of the Republican Party from a pro-business, pro-free trade party to one that supports economic populism. And Republicans aren’t alone.

President Joe Biden joined in the populist pandering earlier this month, announcing a plan to implement a soft form of rent control nationwide.

We live in an era characterized by a bipartisan embrace of populist rhetoric and attitudes which has increasingly – and inevitably – led to surface-level policy initiatives that do not give our nation’s problems the serious attention they deserve.

The primary example of this devolution can be seen in the Republican Party platform. Once an extensive document with detailed policy positions, the 2024 platform is only 16 pages long. The 2016 and 2012 party platforms were 66 and 62 pages, respectively.

In terms of populism, former President Donald Trump has proposed a plan to enact a 10% universal tariff on all goods coming into the United States, with goods coming from China facing a 60% tariff. This proposal stems from his flawed approach and philosophy towards trade in his first term.

During his presidency, Trump enacted tariffs on nearly $380 billion worth of goods comprising thousands of products. President Biden, upon assuming office, retained Trump’s tariffs before expanding them further to include other products, most notably EVs.

Economists almost universally oppose tariffs, and for good reason. Tariffs effectively prop up selective domestic industries at the expense of American consumers. There are instances where such an approach may be necessary, primarily in the realm of national security – Biden’s semiconductor policy is one such example. However, tariffs by principle lead to less affordable, lower quality goods for American consumers.

Politicians will tell you tariffs are simply an added expense covered by foreign importers; this is not true. Study after study has shown that companies respond to tariffs by shifting the burden almost entirely to consumers. By artificially raising the prices of foreign competitors, tariffs allow domestic producers to raise their prices with impunity, knowing their opponents cannot out-compete them.

Following this same principle, there is far less incentive to ensure high quality products if the competition is inherently more expensive. Consumers, especially working class consumers, will have little choice but to buy the most affordable products.

Politicians claim tariffs protect American industries and harm foreign competition, but the real loser is the American consumer.

Rent control is much the same. On its surface, it sounds like a good idea. The reality is far less simple.

In the short term, much like tariffs, there are a select number of winners. If you find yourself in a rent-controlled apartment, there is no denying that initial financial benefit. On the flip side, rent control has been demonstrated to lower the supply of new housing, even if restrictions are not directly applied to new construction. If landlords are forced to charge below-market rent, they have no reason to effectively maintain their properties.

This is exactly what happened when Cambridge, Massachusetts, implemented strict rent control on landlords. The policy cost property owners $2 billion in home value while only providing $300 million in relief to renters.

In San Francisco, landlords circumvented rent control by turning their rental units into high-end, owner-occupied condos, thus contributing to gentrification, an outcome rent control was designed to prevent.

Ultimately, the long-term result is lower quality and more expensive housing due to a lack of maintenance and supply, even if a small handful of tenants temporarily benefit from the policy. Housing remains a critical issue, especially for younger Americans, but turning to rent control is not the answer.

This bipartisan embrace of economic populism has increasingly resulted in counterproductive policies in place of real, in-depth solutions to our nation’s problems. Mainers and Americans deserve better “solutions” than these superficial, misguided proposals.