This is the constant pattern of the Western elite over the last generation. A form of aggressive groupthink takes hold among the best and brightest, ideology gets laundered into supposed expertise or consensus, and the result is post-9/11 debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya … or Davos-man naivete about the downsides of globalisation and the rise of China … or Eurocrat myopia about the wisdom of a common currency, the manageability of mass migration and the true cost of Russian energy … or the recent phase of progressive mania that closed schools, legalised hard drugs, wrecked educational standards and warped curricula, licensed dubious medical experiments in the name of transgender rights and turned the U.S. immigration system into a disaster area.

Loading

Then the bill comes due; the elites backpedal and obfuscate and conveniently forget (What do you mean, Kamala Harris endorsed publicly funded gender reassignment surgery for illegal aliens? Sounds like Fox News nonsense!); and the unhappy swing voter is informed that no real price can be exacted for any of this folly, because the populist alternative isn’t fit for power.

And, sure enough, the great leader of American populism is currently hanging out with far-right-influencer Laura Loomer, who’s so manifestly bigoted and conspiratorial that she gives other far-right influencers hives. He’s currently litigating the Biden-Harris immigration record via Facebook rumours and anti-Haitian animus. His smartest supporters premise their loyalty on the idea that he’s a huge BS artist who probably won’t actually follow through on all his promises, even as his most devout supporters stand ready to excuse excess, corruption and constitutional brinkmanship.

But this unfit man was already president for four years, and for three of them, his personal chaos coexisted with decent outcomes in arenas — foreign policy, inflation and immigration — where things have been much worse under the rule of the serious people, the good meritocrats, the smooth and respectable elites. And even when COVID overmastered his administration, his flailing was matched by progressivism’s period of mania, and his White House still managed to keep the middle class solvent and the stock market high, and delivered a COVID vaccine faster than almost anyone expected.

All of this is more than enough to explain why this election is close and why voters might not rubber-stamp the sudden transformation of Harris, apparatchik of progressivism, into Harris, steady hand and reasonable moderate.

To the undecided voter, this isn’t a simple choice between stability and peril. It’s a choice between two candidates and coalitions that for different reasons don’t merit public confidence. And in a democracy, if you keep offering voters two bad options, you shouldn’t be surprised that they will often choose the one you are sure is worse.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.