WWJD: What Would Thomas Jefferson Do with Trump and Harris?

As a proud UVA alum, I often find myself wondering, "What would Jefferson do?" We tossed around "WWJD" on grounds (it is not a campus per Mr. Jefferson) like it was part of our Constitution (well, it almost was). But now, as we face a new era of presidential candidates, the question feels more relevant than ever. Imagine Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, third president of the United States, and father of our university, strolling through today’s political scene. Would he be horrified, amused, or secretly impressed by the people vying for the highest office in the land?

Let’s dive in and imagine how Jefferson might assess the pros and cons of these two key players.

Jefferson's Political Philosophy: A Refresher

Before we dive into today’s politics, it’s essential to recall a few things about Jefferson. He was a complex man—both a champion of democracy and an advocate for limited government, yet he wrestled with contradictions (slavery, cough, cough). He believed in the power of the people but was also wary of unchecked government authority. Jefferson once said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.” He would probably view today’s candidates through this lens of liberty versus centralized control. Now, let’s put them to the test. So, with that in mind, let's see how Trump and Harris stack up through Jefferson’s eyes.

Donald Trump: The Populist Businessman

Pro: Champion of the People

Jefferson would likely appreciate some aspects of Trump’s populist rhetoric. After all, Jefferson himself was an advocate for the "common man"—particularly the farmers and small landowners who made up the backbone of the early American republic. Jefferson believed in government serving the interests of the people, not the elite, and Trump’s appeal to a base of working-class Americans might resonate with that vision. Jefferson famously said, “I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple,” and Trump's campaign promises to "drain the swamp" and cut through bureaucratic red tape would have likely piqued Jefferson's interest.

Con: Demagoguery and Power Play

However, Jefferson would also be cautious about Trump's style. Jefferson had a deep mistrust of charismatic leaders who riled up the masses with divisive rhetoric. His fear of demagoguery and overreliance on emotional appeal would likely be a red flag. He once said, “An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic,” which suggests that Trump’s often combative and sensational approach to politics might raise concerns. Jefferson would want more substance and less showmanship, urging voters to focus on facts, not fanfare.

Pro: Business Acumen and Free Markets

Jefferson, who respected the self-made man, might be intrigued by Trump’s business background. He appreciated individuals who rose through merit and skill, and Trump’s success as a businessman could align with Jefferson’s admiration for entrepreneurs and innovation. As Jefferson once said, “I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.” Trump’s calls for deregulation and reducing the role of government in business would resonate with Jefferson’s preference for limited government intervention.

Con: Corporatism and Elitism

But Jefferson would likely draw the line if Trump’s policies seemed to favor corporate interests over public welfare. Jefferson despised monopolies and privileged elites, fearing that unchecked wealth and power could corrupt the republic. He might see Trump’s close ties to big business and some of his policies as a step toward the very crony capitalism Jefferson wanted to avoid. Jefferson was wary of anything that concentrated too much power—whether in government or in the hands of a few wealthy individuals. He once warned, “Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

Kamala Harris: The Progressive Visionary

Pro: Advocate for Equality and Social Justice

Jefferson might find some of Harris’s progressive policies appealing, particularly those focused on social justice and civil rights. Though Jefferson himself was far from perfect on these issues (to say the least), his statement that “all men are created equal” could extend, in modern times, to support movements aimed at expanding equality for all citizens. Jefferson believed in progress, and Harris’s focus on addressing systemic inequality might strike a chord with his more egalitarian instincts.

Con: Expanding Federal Power

However, Jefferson was also a staunch believer in limited government. Harris’s support for expanding federal programs—whether in healthcare, education, or criminal justice reform—might make him uneasy. He feared that a strong, centralized government could infringe on individual liberties. He once said, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” While Jefferson would likely applaud Harris’s goals of promoting equality, he would be wary of the method, especially if it meant giving more power to Washington, D.C.

Pro: Legal Expertise and Civic Duty

Harris’s background as a lawyer and former attorney general might earn some respect from Jefferson, who valued experience and knowledge in public servants. Jefferson once said, “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” He might appreciate that Harris has spent years working within the legal system and that her candidacy is built on a foundation of civic duty.

Con: Political Establishment and Careerism

However, Jefferson would also be suspicious of any candidate who seemed too entrenched in the political establishment. He believed in refreshing the political system regularly and was critical of career politicians. Jefferson’s fear of entrenched power might lead him to question whether Harris’s long career in public office represents the kind of necessary political change he envisioned for the republic. He once famously said, “Every generation needs a new revolution,” and he might wonder whether Harris’s tenure in government aligns with that belief.

So, What Would Jefferson Do?

In truth, Thomas Jefferson would likely struggle to fully endorse either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. Each candidate reflects different elements of Jefferson's ideals—Trump’s anti-establishment populism and business acumen versus Harris’s commitment to equality and justice. But both candidates also represent ideas that would make Jefferson uneasy, particularly their tendencies toward centralizing power, albeit in different forms.

Jefferson might admire Trump’s calls for deregulation and shrinking the federal government, but he’d also caution against his style of leadership, fearing it could lead to unchecked power and division. With Harris, Jefferson would support her vision of a more equitable America but would remain skeptical of her willingness to expand federal programs, seeing it as a potential threat to individual liberty.

Ultimately, Jefferson would probably grab his quill and pen a flurry of letters, reminding us to keep our wits about us when choosing leaders and to always put liberty first. He’d want us to hold Trump and Harris accountable, asking if their policies truly live up to the values that built this country.

Honestly, after weighing the pros and cons, I might just write in Thomas Jefferson as my candidate. And why not? I mean, let’s not forget that John Ashcroft once lost a Senate race to a guy who was literally dead. So, voting for Jefferson—despite his 200+ year hiatus—doesn’t seem all that far-fetched! Besides, with Monticello still standing, he’s got a better infrastructure record than most of the living candidates today!