Following a proud centrist tradition, Kamala Harris’s campaign promised to build an “opportunity economy” that would grant success to the deserving. The meritocratic pitch was emblematic of Democrats’ long march away from working-class voters.
Kamala Harris’s decision to campaign on “the opportunity economy” was not the only reason that she failed to win support from working-class voters and lost the 2024 election. But it definitely didn’t help. Leading up to the election, most voters, especially working-class voters, cited deep dissatisfaction with the state of the economy as their number-one concern. Harris knew she needed to distance her agenda from that of the Biden administration and develop her own brand, which was what she and her campaign team hoped the idea of the opportunity economy could do.
During the campaign, many criticized “opportunity economy” as an empty phrase and suggested that part of why it failed to land was that many voters didn’t understand what it meant. But the problem wasn’t that “opportunity” was too vague. Rather, the issue is what it did stand for.
It was perhaps best defined by Harvard economist Raj Chetty in a New York Times op-ed this fall. “An opportunity economy prioritizes equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcomes,” Chetty explained. “In such an economy, we all have the chance to achieve our potential, even if some people ultimately end up earning more than others.” It is thus an idea that upholds rather than challenges the basic principles of free-market capitalism and the ways it creates clear winners and losers.
Harris herself said as much when she first unveiled the term during her speech at the Democratic National Convention. “We will create what I call an…
Auteur: Lily Geismer
