🔗 Share this article

Over a year following the vote that delivered Donald Trump a decisive return victory, the Democratic Party has still not issued its postmortem analysis. However, recently, an prominent progressive lobby group published its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its authors contended, did not resonate with core constituencies because it failed to concentrate enough on tackling basic economic anxieties. By prioritising the menace to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, liberals overlooked the kitchen-table concerns that were uppermost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for Europe

As the EU braces for a turbulent era of politics between now and 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 replicate Mr Trump’s success. Within Europe's core nations, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) lead the polls, backed by significant segments of blue-collar voters. But among establishment politicians and parties, it is hard to discern a response that is sufficient to troubling times.

Major Problems and Costly Solutions

The issues Europe faces are expensive and era-defining. They include the war in Ukraine, maintaining the momentum of the green transition, dealing with demographic change and building economies that are less vulnerable to pressure by Mr Trump and China. According to a Brussels-based research institute, the new age of geopolitical insecurity could require an additional €250bn in annual EU defence spending. A significant report last year on European economic competitiveness called for massive investment in public goods, to be financed in part by jointly held EU debt.

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

However, at both the EU-wide and national levels, there remains a deficit of courage when it comes to generating funds. The EU’s so-called “frugal” nations oppose the idea of collective borrowing, and EU spending plans for the next seven years are deeply unambitious. In France, the idea of a tax on the super-rich is widely supported with voters. Yet the embattled centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – will not consider such a move.

The Cost of Political Paralysis

The truth is that without such measures, the less well-off will bear the brunt of financial adjustment through austerity budgets and greater inequality. Bitter recent conflicts over retirement reforms in both France and Germany highlight a developing struggle over the future of the European welfare state – a phenomenon 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 target any benefit cuts at foreign residents.

Preventing a Political Gift for Populists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s promises to protect working-class interests were deeply disingenuous, as later Medicaid cuts and tax breaks for the wealthy underlined. But in the absence of a compelling progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they worked on the election circuit. Without a radical shift in fiscal policy, social contracts across the continent are in danger of being torn apart. Governments must avoid giving this electoral boon to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.