So what if Donald Trump admires Nazis? That’s old news, the former president’s allies retort. Besides, voters only care about their pocketbooks anyway.

Even if that’s true — that voters prioritize their narrow financial interests over democracy — Trump is still the wrong choice this election. His policies will make Americans not only less free, but also poorer.

It’s been hard to avoid the conclusion that Trump is, if not fascist, at least fascist-adjacent. His former chief of staff John F. Kelly says so, as have other Trump administration alumni. (Notably, half of Trump’s former Cabinet members have either declined to endorse him or have outright opposed him.) If you find their testimonials unconvincing, listen to Trump’s public comments: He’s pledged to suspend the Constitution, throw journalists in jail and sic the U.S. military on Americans he considers “the enemy from within,” among other highlights.

Vice President Kamala Harris has made the preservation of democracy central to her closing arguments this election. But Trump’s allies have batted away the criticism, saying voters don’t particularly care about his authoritarian leanings.

Asked about reporting that Trump had expressed admiration for the loyalty of Hitler’s generals, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) replied that he still supports Trump, and that such “extreme things” Trump says are “par for the course.”

Swing voters, he added, will cast ballots based on which candidate will reduce the “cost of living.”

“Shark Tank” celebrity Kevin O’Leary made similar remarks on a recent CNN panel (on which I appeared). “This rhetoric from people saying Trump is a Nazi and a fascist [have been] in the market forever,” he said. “You’re trying to tell somebody you should care more about Nazi Trump than the cost of gasoline, your rent and the protein you buy for your family.”

Personally, I think sympathizing with Nazis remains pretty relevant. But even if you prioritize affordability concerns, Trump is still an abysmal candidate.

To be clear: Whatever their promises, neither candidate can do much to substantially reduce inflation. There are, however, a few things they could do to make inflation much worse — and Trump has promised all of them.

The core of his economic agenda: 10% or 20% universal tariffs (including on the groceries Americans buy); mass deportations (including millions of workers who harvest crops and build homes); and politicizing the Federal Reserve, which controls the money supply.

Each policy would worsen inflation, tank the economy and widen budget deficits.

Dozens of independent analysts — from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Goldman Sachs, Pantheon Macroeconomics, the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, Morgan Stanley, Penn Wharton Budget Model, the Yale Budget Lab and UBS, among others — have assessed the economic fallout of Trump’s plans. While they differ on scope of the potential damage, virtually all predict it would be significant.

GasBuddy’s Patrick De Haan, for example, focuses on fuel prices and estimates that tariffs would raise gasoline prices by 60 to 80 cents per gallon in the Midwest (where most refined products come from Canada). The Peterson Institute estimates that Trump’s larger tariff proposals would cost the median U.S. household $2,600 a year.

Some Americans, especially the richest among us, might believe they would be insulated from any pain. For them, the value of Trump’s corporate tax cuts outweighs the likely spike in gasoline or avocado prices. This might be why dozens of Wall Street executives and industry executives, including some with business before the federal government, have softened toward Trump.

But as I’ve written before, those who would trade democracy for financial gain are likely to get neither. Tax cuts aren’t the only thing that matters for personal or nationwide prosperity; rule of law is critical, too. Rule of law matters for having a stable investment environment, for enforcing business contracts and for not having assets expropriated by the state without cause, among other things.

And just because Trump appears as though he’s aligned with the rich and well-connected now doesn’t mean he won’t shake them down later. Consider how he tried to govern last time around: He weaponized state power to launch antitrust probes into auto companies that didn’t go along with one of his regulatory changes.

Last time, Trump had people to hold him back. Next time, he won’t.