One of the strangest aspects of this election is that supporters of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have argued that you should vote for them not because they would adopt the specific policies they proposed, but because they wouldn’t.

Trump, for example, has repeatedly called for a 20 percent tariff on goods entering the United States. You’d think this would worry some Trump supporters in the business world, as tariffs make supply chains more expensive and more fragile, and generally drive up the cost of goods and services. But at least some of Trump’s most prominent economic backers argued that it didn’t matter because Trump wouldn’t enforce them.

Some Trump supporters have rejected this idea on the grounds that Trump often brags, displays unrealistic or unworkable policy ideas, and generally should not be taken seriously. But that amounts to saying that Trump is just a crook or a liar. This is not a good reason to vote for him.

A better version of this argument, which is still not very good, is that it’s just a smart negotiating tactic: Trump doesn’t really want across-the-board, economy-crushing tariffs. Instead, as Trump supporter Howard Lutnick said arguedhis call for huge import fees is just a “negotiating tool” that would be used as leverage against other countries in trade negotiations. From this perspective, Trump’s call for high tariffs is actually a secret ploy to reduce international trade barriers. It’s a remarkable rhetorical trick that turns Trump’s craziest anti-trade proposal into a secret way to boost international trade.

It’s true that Trump has sometimes said he prefers to negotiate by starting with a ridiculously large demand and then agreeing to something less. But turning Trump’s giant tariff proposal into a clever negotiating ploy ignores the Republican nominee’s long history of supporting damaging trade restrictions. Trump isn’t exactly known for the depth or consistency of his policies, but his support for tariffs in particular and more mercantilist trade policy in general is probably his clearest and most consistent policy vision. He might try to impose extensive tariffs, if he had the chance.

Or maybe not. It’s fair to say we don’t know, because while Trump has a long history of imposing tariffs, he also has a long history of exaggeration, bluffing, brain farts, reversals and outright lies and simple on problems big and small. But it’s a reason to distrust Trump. If he can’t be trusted to accurately describe his own political agenda, then he can’t be trusted.

There’s something similar at work with Kamala Harris’ proposal ban on “abusive prices”, although this is less of a trick on the part of his supporters and more of a motte and bailey trick of his campaign. When the idea of ​​raising prices first circulated behind the scenes, the details shared by the campaign suggested that it looked an awful lot like a extensive federal price control systemwhich would have devastating effects on the economy.

After an initial wave of criticism, Harris’ camp slowly backpedaled, insisting that his plan was only a modest federal expansion of existing state price gouging laws. Like these laws, it would be used rarely, if at all, and only in extreme circumstances. These cannot be price controls. And what’s more, Democratic agents notelaws against price gouging meet with good results among voters. This is essentially an effective messaging strategy, not a substantive policy proposal.

“Don’t worry, my policies are wrong” isn’t exactly a reassuring message from a presidential campaign or its surrogates, especially when there are actual legislative proposals from progressives like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-M. -Mass.) which would act a lot. it looks more like federal price controls, and Harris herself has proposed policies that look a lot like price controls in other areas of the economy, such as housing.

Harris, meanwhile, has continued to tout her ban on price gouging as a way to reduce food prices, which is difficult to reconcile with the idea that it would only be used rarely, in extreme circumstances. If it’s almost never used, it’s hard to see what effect it could have. If it is used aggressively to manage food prices, it is probably fair to call it a price control system.

As with Trump’s tariffs, it’s unclear what policy would look like if Harris won the election. Details are vague, Harris has given few interviews, and Harris’ campaign has left many questions about her platform unanswered. But either his idea of ​​raising prices is an economically destructive policy or it is false advertising, nothing more than a meaningless marketing campaign to win over voters. Either way, it’s a reason to distrust and dislike Harris.

The fundamental problem is that none of these candidates are really serious about economic policy. Trump is a lifelong liar, plagued by terrible and flawed ideas about trade. Harris is an empty vessel who has repeatedly flirted with blatantly horrible and unworkable progressive policies.

Meanwhile, a real economic reckoning is looming: America’s major welfare programs are heading toward insolvency. There will be a fiscal cliff next year that received little attention on the campaign trail. And even though debt and deficits have reached historically unprecedented levels outside of major emergencies, both candidates are proposing a series of policies that would significantly increase the nation’s long-term budget gap — Trump’s policy mix increasing deficits much more than Harris’s, at least if you believe they will actually implement their plans.

It’s a shame and an embarrassment. America needs sober leaders with consistent, coherent ideas about governance. Instead, we have two candidates who can’t even be trusted to explain their own ideas. Whatever the purpose of this election, political seriousness is not there.