BY CHRISTIAN SARKAR and PHILIP KOTLER

Which candidate offers the best chance of actually working on the world’s most urgent problems?

Which candidate would make things worse?

Let’s give the US Presidential candidates the Wicked7 assessment – clarifying their positions on the seven most urgent problems facing us today.

Wait, what is the Wicked7 assessment? Essentially it’s matching up a candidate’s stated views with the jobs to be done for society – the most urgent ones: The Wicked7.

To this we add one more question:

Which candidate is a systems thinker, understands interdependence, and knows that these most urgent wicked problems are interconnected?

The Death of Nature:
✅ Harris ❌Trump

The Death of Nature: the interlinked global crisis of environmental impacts and weather-related events — heat waves, forest fires, flooding, hurricanes, ecosystem degradation and collapse, pollution, and species extinction.

Kamala Harris’ Position

Kamala Harris has been a vocal advocate for addressing climate change and environmental justice. As part of the Biden administration, she has championed policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting ecosystems, and promoting environmental equity.

• Climate Action and Clean Energy Transition: Harris supports a rapid transition to clean energy as part of addressing climate change. She has advocated for federal investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and electric vehicle infrastructure, with goals like achieving net-zero emissions. This includes expanding solar and wind energy production and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
  
• Legislation and the Green New Deal: While Harris has not fully endorsed the Green New Deal, she aligns with many of its principles and co-sponsored similar legislation in the Senate. Her climate policies would likely include aggressive emissions reductions targets and investments in green infrastructure.
  
• Environmental Justice: Harris emphasizes environmental justice, focusing on how pollution and climate change disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color. She supports policies that would hold polluters accountable and ensure that affected communities receive resources to mitigate pollution and adapt to climate change.
  
• Preservation and Biodiversity: Harris has advocated for protecting natural habitats, investing in conservation, and reducing biodiversity loss. Her policies could prioritize expanding protected areas, funding ecosystem restoration projects, and supporting biodiversity initiatives to combat species extinction and ecosystem collapse.
  
• Climate Resilience and Disaster Preparedness: Recognizing the increase in extreme weather events, Harris supports policies to improve climate resilience, particularly for communities vulnerable to hurricanes, wildfires, and floods. This would include federal funding for disaster preparedness, early warning systems, and infrastructure upgrades to withstand extreme weather.
  
• International Cooperation: Harris supports international cooperation on climate action, such as rejoining and strengthening the U.S. commitment to the Paris Climate Accord. Her administration would likely focus on restoring U.S. leadership in global climate policy, pushing for stronger commitments to limit global warming and protect biodiversity.

Donald Trump’s Position

Trump’s approach to environmental issues centers on economic growth, fossil fuel expansion, and deregulation. He has consistently argued that climate-focused policies hinder economic progress and limit U.S. energy independence. His position on this global crisis is a threat to life on Earth:

• Heavy Reliance on Fossil Fuels: Trump’s commitment to increasing fossil fuel production is a direct barrier to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Expanding coal, oil, and natural gas production contradicts global and scientific consensus on the need to cut fossil fuel dependency to avoid further climate-related disasters. His stance largely ignores the climate impacts of carbon emissions, instead favoring short-term economic gains for traditional energy sectors.
• Deregulation Risks: Trump’s policies favor deregulating industries to encourage economic growth, but this often weakens protections for air, water, and biodiversity. For example, his administration rolled back critical protections under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, which could worsen pollution and harm vulnerable ecosystems. The focus on deregulation could accelerate ecosystem degradation, putting species and biodiversity at risk.
• Limited Acknowledgment of Climate Change: Trump’s reluctance to engage with mainstream climate science or prioritize emissions reduction suggests a limited or dismissive view of climate change’s urgency. He has dismissed international agreements like the Paris Accord, preferring national policies that bypass coordinated global action. This isolationist stance may make the U.S. a less influential player in international climate efforts – and further diminish our leadership capability in the world.
• Minimal Focus on Adaptation or Resilience: Trump’s campaign offers few specifics on how he would prepare the U.S. for rising climate risks like wildfires, hurricanes, and floods. His focus on forest management to address wildfires ignores the broader, climate-related causes, offering only partial solutions that fall short of systemic change.

Donald Trump actually told a group of oil executives and lobbyists that they should donate $1 billion to his presidential campaign because he would roll back environmental regulations.

More details on the two candidates climate policies here >>

Inequality:
✅ Harris ❌Trump

Inequality: the various forms of inequality — economic, social, and workplace inequality is a way to measure social and gender inequality. The growing gap between the 1% and the rest of the population creates an unequal and unjust society.

Kamala Harris’ Position

Kamala Harris advocates policies aimed at directly addressing structural inequality through government intervention, social programs, and reforms to support marginalized groups. Her approach emphasizes fairness, workers’ rights, and social equity.

• Taxing the Rich: Harris has consistently supported progressive tax policies that make wealthiest Americans pay their fair share. She supports taxing capital gains at a similar rate to wages for high-income earners and imposing taxes on mega-corporations and the ultra-wealthy. This approach is designed to generate revenue for social programs and reduce wealth concentration at the top, though critics argue it may face resistance and could impact business investment. Harris’ economic plan has been rated “vastly superior” to Trump’s by experts.
• Workplace Equity and Labor Rights: Harris is a proponent of raising the minimum wage, mandating paid family and medical leave, and strengthening labor rights. Her policies would likely increase workplace protections for low-wage workers and improve job security, which could help close the income gap.
• Healthcare Expansion and Social Safety Nets: Harris supports expanding access to affordable healthcare, advocating for stronger protections under the Affordable Care Act and exploring public health options. She also supports expanding housing assistance and social safety nets like food assistance and child tax credits, which are aimed at reducing economic inequality.
• Educational Investment and Economic Mobility: Harris emphasizes improving educational access and quality, especially for low-income and minority students. She supports increasing funding for public schools, making community college tuition-free, and investing in historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). This approach seeks to reduce barriers to education, which can impact long-term economic mobility, but funding and bipartisan support remain potential obstacles.
• Educational Investment and Economic Mobility: Harris emphasizes improving educational access and quality, especially for low-income and minority students. She supports increasing funding for public schools, making community college tuition-free, and investing in historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). This approach seeks to reduce barriers to education, which can impact long-term economic mobility and reduce income inequality.
• Focus on Racial and Gender Equity: Harris has made racial and gender equity a core part of her agenda, advocating for policies that address discrimination and disparities in pay, healthcare access, and criminal justice. Her approach involves specific measures to close the racial wealth gap, such as providing down-payment assistance for first-time homebuyers from historically marginalized communities. Harris is a strong supporter of a woman’s right to choose.

Donald Trump’s Position

Trump’s stance on inequality largely revolves around deregulation, tax cuts, and policies aimed at advancing the interests of his billionaire donors and wealthy corporations.

• Tax Policy to Favor the Rich: Trump favors tax cuts for the super-wealthy as a way to stimulate economic growth, arguing that reducing taxes for corporations and the wealthy incentivizes investment and job creation. His 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act disproportionately benefited higher-income individuals and corporations, which widened the gap between the wealthy and middle- and lower-income Americans. Now he would do it again, further exacerbating the deficit. Project 2025 shifts the tax burden from the wealthy onto the middle class. Under the plan, the typical family of four would see a tax increase of $2,985 per year, while 45,000 households in America reporting more than $10 million in income would each see an average annual tax cut of $1.5 million.
• Cutting Social Security (and Medicare): Trump’s tax plan reduces Social Security by one-third. Elon Musk has suggested he would cut 2 trillion dollars in the first year – an economic chaos factory in the name of “balancing the budget.” Think Argentina.
• Labor and Workplace Regulation: Trump supports reducing workplace regulations, industry regulations, and arguing that it makes it easier for businesses to operate and grow. This comes at the expense of workers’ rights, benefits, and wage growth, especially for low- and middle-income workers. His policies prioritize employer flexibility over protections that might address workplace inequality, such as paid leave, minimum wage increases, and labor rights enforcement.
• Healthcare Access and Social Programs: Trump will cut existing social programs, such as healthcare and housing, that can reduce economic inequality. His administration attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would have disproportionately affected low-income individuals who rely on subsidized health insurance. Trump will make it harder for marginalized groups to access healthcare and other social services, thereby exacerbating social inequality. Trump’s administration took steps to ban abortion and overturn Roe v. Wade, putting women’s lives at risk. If Trump wins, Project 2025 calls for shifting the default Medicare enrollment option to a corporate insurance plan, under groups like Aetna and UnitedHealthcare. (If you’ve ever had to fight one of these companies to cover an important service, you know just how much of a problem this is going to be.)
• Education and Economic Mobility: Trump has not prioritized policies aimed at reducing the education and skills gap, which are often key to addressing long-term economic inequality. His emphasis on “school choice” and charter schools will not address disparities in education funding and quality that disadvantage low-income and minority students. College will get even more unaffordable – as the privatization of education stands to skyrocket.
• Focus on Economic Growth Over Redistribution: Trump’s approach to inequality is focused on boosting overall economic growth rather than directly addressing income inequality. He argues that a strong economy benefits all Americans, but critics say this “trickle-down” approach fails to address the structural factors that perpetuate inequality. On top of this, Trump is in favor of state laws and policies which help worsen economic inequality. States rights, anyone?

The tax proposals announced by Harris would, on average, lead to a tax cut for all income groups except the richest 1 percent of Americans, while the proposals announced by Trump would, on average, lead to a tax increase for all income groups except the richest 5 percent of Americans. 

Learn more >>  

Hate & Conflict:
✅ Harris ❌Trump

Hate & Conflict: the growing intolerance and hate fueled by racism, sexism, and extremism. Includes identity-based or ideological groups which create social unrest and commit acts of terror. Conflict includes militarism, the culture of war, armies, arms-profits, policies, plans, propaganda, prejudices, and rationalizations that lead to lethal group conflict.

Kamala Harris’ Position

• Racial Justice and Equality: Harris has consistently supported legislation and policies aimed at addressing racial and social injustices, such as advocating for police reform, expanding hate crime protections, and supporting restorative justice initiatives. She has argued that addressing systemic racism is essential to reducing hate and extremism within society.
• Addressing Domestic Extremism: Harris has prioritized addressing the threat of white nationalist violence, which she identifies as one of the leading forms of domestic extremism in the U.S. She has supported increased resources for monitoring hate groups and prosecuting hate crimes, particularly those involving racial, religious, or LGBTQ+ targets.
• Countering Misinformation and Hate Speech: Harris has expressed concern about the impact of social media on spreading hate speech, conspiracy theories, and misinformation. She has advocated for greater regulation of tech companies to limit hate-driven content, address misinformation, and cut-down avenues for online extremist recruitment.
• Defense Spending and Arms Control: Harris has supported defense budget allocations focused on modernization, but she has also indicated a desire to limit arms sales to authoritarian regimes. Her stance emphasizes balancing a strong defense with considerations of human rights and reducing weapons proliferation.
• Strengthening Alliances and Diplomacy: Harris emphasizes rebuilding alliances and working with international partners to address issues such as extremism, conflict resolution, and climate-related security threats. Her stance contrasts with Trump’s, as she supports a collaborative approach, particularly with NATO and other allies, to prevent global conflicts and manage hate-fueled extremism.
• Countering Global Extremism: Harris supports measures that address the root causes of extremism globally, such as poverty, political instability, and climate change, arguing that these factors contribute to both domestic and international extremism. Her approach includes supporting international aid and investing in development programs.

Donald Trump’s Position

• Rhetoric and Nationalism: Trump has frequently used strong nationalist rhetoric, emphasizing themes like “America First” and “patriotism.” He often frames social movements such as Black Lives Matter as instigators of violence, focusing instead on “law and order” and denouncing protests against systemic racism as threats to public safety. Trump’s reluctance to explicitly condemn groups like white supremacists (for instance, his comments about “very fine people on both sides” after Charlottesville) has drawn significant criticism, because it encourages radical extremism. His response to social justice protests and his portrayal of leftist groups as violent agitators stokes division rather than fostering unity. Trump’s deliberate use of inflammatory language has escalated division and fanned hate.
• Response to Domestic Extremism: Trump’s administration emphasized “antifa” and left-wing extremism as primary threats to national security, downplaying the rise of white nationalist and far-right violence. His administration attempted to focus law enforcement resources on targeting left-wing activists and protestors, often characterizing their actions as domestic terrorism. Reports suggest that far-right extremist violence outpaces violence from left-wing groups, yet Trump’s administration downplayed these statistics, which reflects a bias against acknowledging the danger of right-wing extremism and white nationalism.
• Military Spending and Arms Sales: Trump increased the military budget and emphasized a strong defense, but he sought to reduce the U.S. presence in overseas conflicts, advocating for “ending endless wars” in the Middle East. He supported large arms deals with countries like Saudi Arabia and endorsed increased arms sales, often prioritizing economic benefits over potential human rights concerns. While the Democrats and Republicans have both supported Israel’s “war” against Hamas, critics believe Trump would be far worse.

More on hate and conflict here >>

Power and Corruption:
✅ Harris ❌Trump

Power & Corruption: the abuse of power—individual and systemic. Dishonest conduct by those in power or those seeking to influence them. Includes fraud and bribery.  Corruption creates a system that governs not for the many, but for the few.

Kamala Harris’ Position

• Transparency and Anti-Corruption Initiatives: Harris has consistently advocated for transparency in government, including mandatory disclosure of tax returns for federal officeholders. She supports strengthening ethics laws to close loopholes that allow officials to act in their own financial interests. Harris has also backed measures to improve public access to government records and strengthen whistleblower protections.
• Campaign Finance Reform: Harris has voiced support for campaign finance reform, including overturning Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruling that removed limits on corporate spending in elections. She supports increased regulation to reduce the influence of corporate money and lobbyists in politics, and she has called for stronger controls on “dark money” donations to ensure elections are less influenced by wealthy interests.
• Ethics and Accountability in Government: Harris supports measures to increase accountability for public officials, advocating for strengthened conflict-of-interest laws and proposing restrictions on the revolving door between government positions and the private sector. She has also proposed limits on the lobbying industry to reduce the potential for corporations and special interests to shape public policy.
• Corporate Regulation and Wealth Disparity: Harris supports stricter regulation of corporations, particularly in areas where corporate misconduct harms the public, such as pharmaceutical pricing, environmental impact, and labor protections. She has been vocal about holding companies accountable for fraud, price-gouging, and monopolistic practices, arguing that unchecked corporate influence widens the wealth gap and consolidates power among the few.
• Judicial and Political Corruption: Harris has supported judicial reforms, including vetting processes to ensure judges have no conflicts of interest, and opposing court-packing that could undermine judicial independence. She also advocates for holding political figures accountable for corruption, with calls for thorough investigations into abuse of power cases among public officials.

Donald Trump’s Position

• “Drain the Swamp” Rhetoric and Deregulation: While “drain the swamp” resonated with 2016 voters who saw government overreach as inherently corrupt, Trump’s deregulatory approach often served corporate interests over the public interest. Reducing regulatory oversight created gaps in transparency and accountability that favored the wealthiest individuals and corporations at the expense of environmental, labor, and consumer protections.
• Conflicts of Interest and Transparency Issues: Trump’s business ties during his presidency raised ongoing concerns about conflicts of interest. Despite pledges to separate his businesses from his presidency, questions remained about his continued financial stake in the Trump Organization. His decision to keep certain financial records private and alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause (which prohibits profiting from foreign governments) led to lawsuits and claims of ethics violations. Trump’s refusal to release tax returns and disclose certain business dealings exemplified abuse of power for personal gain, undermining public trust in government transparency. 
• Billionaires backing Trump: At least 63 billionaires have now publicly endorsed Trump, hosted a fundraiser for him, or contributed to Trump campaign groups – why? Trump has promised them yet another tax cut, of course. And techbros like Elon Musk stand to win government contracts even as they cut public services.
• Quid Pro Quo: As we mentioned earlier, Donald Trump actually told a group of oil executives and lobbyists that they should donate $1 billion to his presidential campaign because he would roll back environmental regulations.
• Pardons and Legal Immunity: Trump used his pardon power extensively, often to grant clemency to close allies or individuals convicted of financial crimes. High-profile pardons, including those for campaign advisors and close associates who were convicted of corruption or fraud, were criticized as examples of selective justice. Additionally, Trump’s efforts to protect himself and his family from investigations—asserting presidential immunity and seeking legal protections—were seen as problematic by those advocating for strict legal accountability. Critics argue that Trump’s use of pardons for close allies demonstrates a problematic abuse of power that perpetuates selective justice and limits accountability. These actions are often viewed as setting a dangerous precedent, where personal loyalty and political alliances take precedence over legal consequences (welcome to the Dictatorship)!
• Political Influence and Corruption: Trump’s first administration faced multiple allegations of corruption, such as charges that his appointees misused government funds, engaged in pay-to-play schemes, and violated ethics laws. Many cabinet members and officials resigned amid allegations of unethical conduct, including misuse of taxpayer money and inappropriate relationships with lobbyists and corporate donors. By appointing individuals from industries they were tasked with regulating, the Trump administration facilitated corporate influence over public policy and allowed the interests of the few to govern for the many. Sad.

Is it mafia-time?

See “corruption unbound” for more >>

Work, Media, & Technology:
✅ Harris ❌Trump

Work, Media, & Technology: the future of work, information, news, data and surveillance. The growing digital divide, digital monopolies and exploitation. Includes the use of media to create false narratives for politics and profit. Robots and automation and the policies to govern the “intelligent” economy. Are humans obsolete? Who does AI work for?

Kamala Harris’ Position

• Retraining and Workforce Development: Harris supports expanding access to retraining programs for workers impacted by automation, with a focus on community colleges, apprenticeships, and technical training. She has proposed creating partnerships between tech companies and educational institutions to provide skill-based training that aligns with the demands of an evolving job market.
• Support for Tech-Driven Job Growth: Harris is an advocate for growing tech sectors such as renewable energy and AI, seeing them as essential for creating high-skill jobs. She supports investment in green technologies and sees technological innovation as an opportunity for economic growth and job creation in emerging industries.
• Antitrust Action Against Big Tech: Harris supports breaking up tech monopolies and increasing antitrust enforcement to foster competition. She has voiced support for limiting the power of companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Google, which she believes wield too much control over the economy and public discourse.
• Data Privacy and Consumer Protections: Harris has advocated for federal data privacy standards, arguing that current protections are inadequate. She supports implementing more robust privacy protections, including opt-in consent for data collection, limits on data retention, and stronger user rights over personal data. Harris also backs legislation to prevent discriminatory use of data in areas like housing, credit, and employment.
• Regulating Social Media and Misinformation: Harris supports increased regulation of social media platforms to limit the spread of false information, especially during elections. She has called for transparency in online political advertising, preventing foreign interference, and holding platforms accountable for hate speech and misinformation.
• Countering Digital Misinformation with Media Literacy: Harris has advocated for media literacy education, especially for young people, to help citizens critically assess information and recognize misinformation. She believes that empowering people with critical thinking skills is essential for reducing the influence of false narratives.

Donald Trump’s Position

• Criticisms of Big Tech: Trump repeatedly criticized social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, accusing them of bias against conservatives. While vocal against Big Tech’s perceived biases, his administration didn’t take substantial regulatory steps to limit the power of major tech firms, making this approach appear more politically driven than a genuine attempt to address tech monopolies or protect user privacy.
• Data Privacy and Surveillance: Trump’s administration didn’t introduce major legislation on data privacy, leaving data protection largely up to individual states. His stance on surveillance was mixed; while supporting law enforcement’s use of technology for public safety, he often criticized surveillance on himself and his allies, especially regarding the Russia investigation. Trump’s focus on surveillance related to his own administration’s controversies rather than broader public concerns about digital privacy undermined the push for comprehensive privacy protections.
• Social Media – Lies and Misinformation: Trump has used social media to communicate directly with his base, sharing or retweeting inflammatory and false content that has been criticized for promoting divisive narratives. His social media presence was used to discredit opposition groups or individuals, which exacerbates social divisions. Trump’s propensity for lying and his use of fake news and alternative facts deliberately mislead the American people. Trump’s strategy involved discrediting mainstream media outlets and promoting alternative sources that aligned with his ideology. He argued that mainstream media propagated false narratives that misled the public, often calling out specific networks by name. By using social media to amplify alternative facts, he contributed to a fractured media landscape where objective news was harder to distinguish from politically motivated narratives.
• Truth Social: Trump’s own social media channel has been a challenge to say the least. His pal, Elon Musk seems to have broken Twitter as well.

Health and Livelihood:
✅ Harris ❌Trump

Health and Livelihood: the worldwide challenge of public wellbeing – economic and physical health. Includes the economy, employment, education, and the new skills and capabilities required to “make a living.”

Kamala Harris’ Position

• Reducing Income Inequality and Increasing Wages: Harris supports policies like raising the minimum wage, expanding the earned income tax credit, and implementing higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans to reduce income inequality. She has advocated for progressive tax reforms, including proposals for increasing the capital gains tax for high-income earners.
• Investing in Green and Tech Jobs: Harris has emphasized the importance of investing in renewable energy and technology to create high-quality jobs, supporting federal funding for green infrastructure and clean energy projects. Her policies also encourage the development of technology and research sectors to position the U.S. as a global leader in innovation.
• Worker Protections and Union Support: Harris has advocated for stronger protections for workers’ rights, including support for unions, collective bargaining, and paid family leave. She supports expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act and providing affordable childcare, recognizing these as essential for worker welfare and economic stability.
• Public Option for Healthcare: Harris advocates for a public option, which would allow individuals to purchase government-administered health insurance as an alternative to private insurance. This proposal aims to expand access to affordable healthcare while maintaining the private insurance market. Harris initially supported Medicare for All but later shifted to support a more incremental approach.
• Lowering Drug Prices and Medicare Expansion: Harris supports allowing Medicare to negotiate directly with drug companies to lower prescription costs, and she has proposed expanding Medicare to cover more preventive services. She is also in favor of capping out-of-pocket costs for patients and supports expanding Medicaid in states that have resisted doing so.
• Free Community College and Loan Forgiveness: Harris supports making community college tuition-free and expanding financial aid to reduce student loan debt. She advocates for broad student debt forgiveness, especially for those who attended public institutions or faced predatory lending practices.
• Investment in STEM and Technical Training: Harris has proposed investing in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education as well as technical training programs. She emphasizes partnerships between schools and industries to ensure that students are prepared for high-demand jobs in tech, healthcare, and green industries.

Donald Trump’s Position

• Tax Cuts and Deregulation: Trump’s administration implemented the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and lowering individual tax rates across various brackets. Like a broken record, he wants to reward his billionaire friends again – with yet another tax cut to increase the deficit. These new tax cuts have been described as debt bombs. By weakening US tax revenues, the floodgates open for cutting public spending – Social Security, Medicare, Affordable Healthcare (Obamacare), the Department of Education, etc. (in short, everything that serves the public good).
• Job Creation in Traditional Industries: Trump’s economic agenda included strong support for fossil fuels and other traditional industries. He has promoted the use of tariffs to “protect” American jobs, proposing a 60% tariff on goods from China — and a tariff of up to 20% on everything else the United States imports. Mark Cuban mocked Trump for suggesting that China would pay the tariffs.
• Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Health Coverage: Trump attempted to repeal and replace the ACA (Obamacare), arguing it was costly and ineffective. While a full repeal did not pass, Trump’s administration succeeded in removing the ACA’s individual mandate, which required individuals to have health insurance or pay a penalty. He advocated for short-term health plans as lower-cost alternatives but did not present a comprehensive healthcare replacement plan. Critics argue that Trump’s efforts to dismantle the ACA risked reducing healthcare coverage, especially for individuals with pre-existing conditions. While the removal of the individual mandate provided flexibility, it also led to fewer people enrolling in health plans, which critics say increases costs for the remaining insured population.
• School Choice and Vouchers: Trump promoted school choice, supporting voucher programs that allow public funding to follow students to private schools, charter schools, or other education options. Critics argue that school vouchers and choice programs divert funds away from public schools, which serve the majority of American students, and may exacerbate inequality by benefiting students from families with greater resources. They also worry that voucher programs lack adequate oversight and could reduce funding for low-income and minority students. Yet another way Trump proposes to destroy the Common Good!
• Reduced Federal Role in Education: Trump’s administration sought to reduce the federal role in K-12 and higher education, promoting local and state control instead. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos pushed to streamline or eliminate federal education programs that, in Trump’s view, imposed unnecessary burdens on schools and colleges. Critics argue that reducing the federal role in education may lead to disparities in education quality and funding across states, impacting disadvantaged communities. Federal oversight, they argue, is essential for ensuring equal access to quality education and for addressing nationwide challenges like student loan debt and school funding.

The net result of a second Trump presidency may well be a further decline in the quality of life in the US, with a reduction in life expectancy for children, women, and retired citizens. And yes, chaos.

Population & Migration:
✅ Harris ❌Trump

Population & Migration: the domestic and global population growth leads to increased conflicts over water, energy, food, open space, transportation, and schooling.  Carrying capacity, the number of people, other living organisms, or crops that a region can support without environmental degradation – becomes a key metric for local and national wellbeing.   Also includes the growing problem of climate refugees and asylum seekers, mainly from the “Global South.”

Kamala Harris’ Position

• Pathway to Citizenship and DACA Protection: Harris supports creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and granting permanent protections to individuals covered under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), commonly known as “Dreamers.” Harris views immigration as essential to economic vitality and is committed to humane policies that protect immigrant families and promote their integration into American society.
• Increased Refugee Admissions and Asylum Protections: Harris has pledged to raise the annual cap on refugees admitted to the U.S., aiming to restore the U.S.’s commitment to humanitarian protection and support for displaced populations. She also advocates for reworking the asylum process to make it more efficient and fair, with an emphasis on humane treatment for those seeking refuge.
• Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development: Harris strongly supports policies that address climate change and reduce environmental degradation. She emphasizes the need for sustainable resource management, particularly in response to climate impacts on food, water, and energy. Harris has supported legislation for clean energy investments and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with the aim of mitigating the environmental impact of population growth.
• Climate Policy and Migration Planning: Harris has proposed policies that anticipate climate migration and prepare communities to absorb populations displaced by climate impacts, such as rising sea levels and extreme weather events. She supports coordinating with international organizations to create policies that respond to climate migration. Her report on root causes of migration recommends realistic and lasting solutions to the problem.
• Investment in Infrastructure and Community Resources: Harris supports significant investments in infrastructure—such as water, public transportation, and education systems—to support growing populations and address local carrying capacity concerns. Her approach includes building more affordable housing, improving healthcare access, and supporting local food production to help communities meet increased demand.
• Foreign Aid and Climate-Related Migration: Harris supports addressing the root causes of migration, including providing foreign aid to countries facing poverty, violence, and climate crises. By addressing these issues at their source, Harris believes the U.S. can reduce forced migration pressures. She has advocated for aid packages aimed at stabilizing the economies and security of countries in Central America, which are significant sources of migration to the U.S.

Donald Trump’s Position

• Restrictionist Immigration Policies: Trump’s administration implemented policies aimed at reducing both legal and illegal immigration. These included lowering refugee admission caps, increasing the scrutiny of visa applications, and attempting to end family-based migration pathways. The “public charge” rule, for example, made it more difficult for immigrants who might need public benefits to gain legal status.
• The Border Wall and “Remain in Mexico” Policy: Trump’s administration made building a physical border wall a central symbol of his immigration policy, aimed at deterring unauthorized crossings. Mexico, however, did not pay for the wall – as promised by Trump.He also implemented the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their U.S. immigration cases were processed, rather than entering the U.S. while awaiting hearings.
• Reduced Refugee Admissions and Limits on Asylum: Trump’s administration reduced the annual cap on refugees admitted to the U.S. to record lows, citing resource constraints and national security concerns. Trump’s policies also sought to limit grounds for asylum, focusing on “credible fear” screenings to expedite deportations for those without a direct threat of persecution.
• Emphasis on Local Resources and “America First”: Trump frequently argues that prioritizing American citizens helps avoid overstretching local resources such as healthcare, education, and social services. His administration linked immigration with resource strain and promoted a narrative that reducing immigration would help alleviate local pressures on these systems.
• Environmental Impact of Population Growth: Trump’s administration prioritized deregulation over environmental conservation, with a focus on reducing restrictions on industries that drive economic growth, including fossil fuels and mining. His policies focused less on addressing the carrying capacity of regions and more on expanding resource production domestically.

Trump’s remarks on “immigrants poisoning the blood of our country” are echoing Hitler’s rabid xenophobia. Trump has also suggested that Democrats are purposefully allowing migrants into the country to grow their political support. This is a key element of the far-right “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory, which asserts that leftist and Jewish elites are engineering the ethnic and cultural replacement of white populations with immigrants of color that will lead to a “white genocide.”

Let’s Ask AI

We asked two AI engines – ChatGPT and ClimateGPT the following question – Between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, which candidate is the best for the US if we want a positive future, where we address climate change, injustice, corruption, and inequality?

ChatGPT

ChatGPT’s answer was clear:

If the goal is a positive future that prioritizes addressing climate change, social injustice, corruption, and inequality, Kamala Harris would generally align more with that vision. Here’s a breakdown of why:

1. Climate Change: Harris, as part of the Biden administration, has supported ambitious climate initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions, investing in renewable energy, and promoting green jobs. The administration rejoined the Paris Agreement and pursued policies consistent with the scientific community’s climate goals, including commitments to significant carbon reductions by 2030. Trump, on the other hand, has taken a stance that favors the fossil fuel industry and, during his time in office, rolled back environmental protections, prioritizing short-term economic growth over long-term climate action.
2. Social Injustice: Harris has a track record of supporting criminal justice reform, voting rights protections, and addressing systemic racism, all of which are crucial for advancing social justice. Her positions and actions have focused on policies to protect marginalized communities and work toward equity. Trump has a “law and order” approach that appeals to some, but his policies generally lean toward traditional policing rather than systemic reform aimed at reducing racial disparities.
3. Corruption: Harris generally supports reforms to increase transparency, limit corporate influence in politics, and reduce the impact of big money in political campaigns. Trump’s administration was marked by some high-profile ethical concerns and questions of transparency, including his personal business interests while in office, which some viewed as conflicts of interest.
4. Economic Inequality: Harris’s platform supports raising the minimum wage, improving access to healthcare, and expanding affordable education—policies that seek to directly address income inequality. Trump’s approach to economic policy largely focused on reducing corporate taxes with the aim of boosting overall economic growth and job creation. While his approach saw some economic gains, critics argue it favored higher-income earners and corporations.

The ChatGPT Verdict

If the goal is a future that prioritizes fair climate policy, social justice, economic equality, and reduced corruption, Kamala Harris would likely be more aligned with that vision. Her positions and the Biden administration’s policies are more in line with tackling these long-term goals, even though both candidates offer vastly different approaches to leadership and governance.

ClimateGPT

We then asked ClimateGPT – an AI engine dedicated to solving wicked problems – the same question.

Here’s the answer – again, loud and clear:

Based on the provided context, I will analyze the two candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, to determine which one is better suited to address climate change, injustice, corruption, and inequality in the US.

Step 1: Climate Change

• Donald Trump has been a vocal climate change skeptic and has rolled back several environmental regulations, including the Clean Power Plan and the Paris Agreement.
• Kamala Harris, on the other hand, has a strong commitment to environmental justice and has proposed a climate plan that prioritizes equity and community-led solutions.

Step 2: Injustice

• Donald Trump has been criticized for his handling of racial and social justice issues, including his response to police brutality and his support for policies that disproportionately affect marginalized communities.
• Kamala Harris, as a former district attorney and attorney general, has a record of advocating for justice and equity, particularly in her work on environmental justice.

Step 3: Corruption

• Donald Trump has been embroiled in several corruption scandals, including his dealings with Ukraine and his use of the presidency for personal gain.
• Kamala Harris has proposed several reforms to address corruption, including strengthening campaign finance laws and increasing transparency in government.

Step 4: Inequality

• Donald Trump has been accused of exacerbating income inequality through his tax policies and his support for policies that benefit the wealthy.
• Kamala Harris has proposed several policies to address income inequality, including increasing the minimum wage and implementing a wealth tax.

The ClimateGPT Verdict

Based on the analysis, Kamala Harris is the better candidate for addressing climate change, injustice, corruption, and inequality in the US. Her commitment to environmental justice, her record on advocating for justice and equity, and her proposals to address corruption and inequality make her a stronger candidate for these issues. While she may not be a “climate activist’s dream,” her proximity to rising temperatures and her experience in California, where climate change is a pressing issue, suggest that she will take climate change seriously as vice president.

In contrast, Donald Trump’s record on climate change, injustice, corruption, and inequality is concerning, and his policies and actions have exacerbated these issues. Therefore, Kamala Harris is the better choice for those who want a fair world, where we address climate change, injustice, corruption, and inequality.

The AI vote goes to Kamala.

Final Considerations

Here are a few more points to ponder:

• Mental health experts have issued an ‘imminent catastrophic public danger‘ warning on a Trump presidency – which should at the least gives us pause.
• The Economist states: “A second Trump term comes with unacceptable risks. If The Economist had a vote, we would cast it for Kamala Harris”
• The Washington Post has declined to endorse anyone for President – an abdication of editorial responsibility (which happens when billionaires own the media).

Companies like ExxonMobil, Koch, and Fox News should ask themselves: “Would my company hire Trump to be the CEO to lead it into the future?” No? Then why are they supporting him for Presidency?

We think the a second Presidency for Donald Trump will be a critical setback to the US, and existential threat to Democracy and the “rule of law.” At a time when we need to unite and work together to solve the world’s wicked problems, Trump’s message of hate and division will accelerate social and economic collapse in the USA.

If we want to solve these wicked problems, we need a systems thinker like Kamala Harris in charge, not a transactional thinker like Donald Trump. VOTE – as if your life depends on it, because it does.

—

Christian Sarkar is an author, artist, and activist consultant. He is a co-founder of the Regenerative Marketing Institute along with Philip Kotler and Enrico Foglia. In 2021, Christian was named to the Thinkers50 Radar of global management thinkers primarily for his work on brand activism. 

Philip Kotler is known around the world as the “father of modern marketing.” For over 50 years he has taught at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. Kotler’s book Marketing Management is the most widely used textbook in marketing around the world. Most recently he co-founded the Regenerative Marketing Institute along with Christian Sarkar and Enrico Foglia. 

Along with Sarkar, Kotler co-founded The Marketing Journal, an online publication with insights on next practices in marketing, and The Regeneration Journal, an online resource for the regeneration of the Common Good.

Together, Sarkar and Kotler are the co-authors of Regenerative Marketing: The Future of Community (2022) with Enrico Foglia; the co-authors of Brand Activism: From Purpose to Action (2018); and their latest book is Wicked Problems: What can we do in this Time of Collapse? (2024).

Sarkar and Kotler are also involved in numerous common good projects, including The Wicked7 Project, ActivistBrands.com, and FIXCapitalism.com.