🔗 Share this article

Over a twelve months following the vote that delivered Donald Trump a clear-cut comeback victory, the Democratic party has still not issued its election autopsy. But, recently, an prominent progressive lobby group published its own. The Harris campaign, its authors contended, failed to connect with key voter blocs because it failed to concentrate enough on tackling everyday financial worries. In focusing on the threat to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, liberals overlooked the bread-and-butter issues that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for European Capitals

As the EU braces for a turbulent era of politics from now until the end of the decade, that is a message that needs to be fully absorbed in Brussels, Paris and Berlin. The White House, as its newly released national security strategy indicates, is optimistic that “nationalist movements in Europe will soon mirror Mr Trump’s success. Within Europe's core nations, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) top the polls, backed by significant segments of working-class voters. But among establishment politicians and parties, it is hard to discern a strategy that is sufficient to challenging times.

Era-Defining Challenges and Expensive Solutions

The issues Europe faces are expensive and historic. They include the war in Ukraine, sustaining the momentum of the green transition, addressing demographic change and developing economies that are more resilient to pressure by Mr Trump and China. According to a European research institute, the new age of geopolitical insecurity could necessitate an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A major study last year on European economic competitiveness called for substantial investment in shared infrastructure, to be financed in part by collective EU debt.

Such a economic transformation would stimulate growth figures that have stagnated for years.

But, at both the EU-wide and national levels, there continues to be a lack of boldness when it comes to generating funds. The EU’s so-called “frugal” nations resist the idea of collective borrowing, and EU spending plans for the next seven years are profoundly unambitious. In France, the idea of a tax on the super-rich is overwhelmingly popular with voters. Yet the embattled centrist government – while desperate to cut its budget deficit – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Cost of Political Paralysis

The truth is that in the absence of such measures, the less affluent will bear the brunt of fiscal tightening through spending cuts and greater inequality. Bitter recent disputes over retirement reforms in both France and Germany testify to a growing battle over the future of the European social model – a trend that the RN and the AfD have happily exploited to promote a politics of nativist social policy. Ms Le Pen’s party, for example, has resisted moves to raise the retirement age and has said that it would focus any benefit cuts at non-French nationals.

Avoiding a Strategic Advantage for Populists

In the US, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect blue‑collar interests were deeply disingenuous, as subsequent Medicaid cuts and tax breaks for the wealthy demonstrated. Yet in the absence of a compelling progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they worked on the election circuit. Absent a radical shift in economic approach, social contracts across the continent are in danger of being ripped up. Policymakers must steer clear of handing this electoral boon to the Trumpian forces already on the rise in Europe.