Throughout the annals of American history, business leaders have traditionally operated under the assumption that the occupant of the White House—regardless of party affiliation—would uphold the rule of law, safeguard property rights, and respect the autonomy of the judiciary. This assumption rests on a foundational belief that the American ethos enables businesses and the broader economy to flourish irrespective of electoral outcomes. Such an environment allows entrepreneurs and corporations to keep a measured distance from the often tumultuous world of political campaigns, fostering confidence in their long-term strategies and investments based on the political stability of the nation.
However, as we approach the upcoming election, American business leaders find themselves at a crossroads where passivity and silence are no longer viable options.
Both Donald Trump and his Democratic challenger, Vice President Kamala Harris, have outlined their parties’ conventional stances on critical issues such as taxation, trade, and regulation—positions that typically fall within the expected bounds of political discourse. Yet, this election transcends mere policy debates; the very stability of American democracy hangs in the balance.
Mr. Trump has openly challenged the legitimacy of elections, flouted constitutional limitations on presidential authority, and boasted of intentions to retaliate against his adversaries. His actions pose a direct threat not only to the democratic fabric of the nation but also to the foundational elements that underlie American prosperity. To focus solely on narrow policy considerations in this election would reflect a dangerously shortsighted perspective regarding the interests of the American business community.
Some notable corporate figures—including Tesla founder Elon Musk, investors David Sacks and Bill Ackman, and financier Stephen Schwarzman—have shown support for Mr. Trump’s candidacy. This trend, beyond mere opportunism, raises significant questions about the motivations behind such endorsements. It is challenging to comprehend the rationale, given the stakes involved.
Of course, business leaders may harbor skepticism about Ms. Harris’s policies, feeling uncertain about her governance style or concerned that she may not be receptive to their perspectives—a frequent critique of the current Biden administration. Additionally, they might hesitate to alienate employees, customers, or suppliers who hold divergent political views. Perhaps most critically, they may fear incurring the wrath of Mr. Trump, who has demonstrated a willingness to wield political influence to reward loyalty.
Nevertheless, business leaders should be far more concerned about the ramifications if Mr. Trump succeeds in his bid for re-election.
This week, Mr. Trump issued a chilling reminder that this election carries unprecedented implications. In statements that should alarm any American committed to preserving our democratic system, the Republican nominee once again declined to pledge his acceptance of the 2024 election results. This follows previous assertions where he labeled his political rivals as an “enemy from within” and suggested he might resort to military force against them simply for opposing his candidacy. Such rhetoric implies that engaging in the democratic process could be equated with treason, signaling a stark warning that if he were to secure a second term, Mr. Trump would likely seek to wield governmental power in alarming and potentially hazardous ways.
