🔗 Share this article

Over a year after the election that delivered Donald Trump a clear-cut comeback victory, the Democratic Party has yet to released its election autopsy. However, recently, an prominent progressive lobby group released its own. The Harris campaign, its writers argued, did not resonate with key voter blocs because it did not focus enough on addressing everyday financial worries. By prioritising the threat to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, liberals overlooked the kitchen-table concerns that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for Europe

As the EU braces for a tumultuous period of politics between now and the end of the decade, that is a message that needs to be fully understood in European capitals. The White House, as its recently published national security strategy indicates, is hopeful that “patriotic” parties in Europe will soon replicate Mr Trump’s success. In the EU’s core nations, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) top the polls, backed by significant segments of blue-collar voters. But among establishment politicians and parties, it is hard to discern a strategy that is sufficient to troubling times.

Major Challenges and Expensive Solutions

The issues Europe faces are costly and historic. They encompass the war in Ukraine, sustaining the momentum of the green transition, addressing demographic change and building economies that are less vulnerable to bullying by Mr Trump and China. According to a Brussels-based research institute, the new age of geopolitical insecurity could require an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A major report last year on European economic competitiveness called for massive investment in public goods, to be partly funded by collective EU debt.

Such a fiscal paradigm shift would stimulate growth figures that have stagnated for years.

However, at both the EU-wide and national levels, there remains a lack of boldness when it comes to generating funds. The EU’s so-called “frugal” nations oppose the idea of shared debt, and EU spending plans for the next seven years are profoundly timid. In France, the idea of a wealth tax is overwhelmingly popular with voters. Yet the beleaguered centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Cost of Political Paralysis

The reality is that in the absence of such measures, the less affluent will bear the brunt of financial adjustment through spending cuts and greater inequality. Bitter recent conflicts over retirement reforms in both France and Germany testify to 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 welfare chauvinism. Ms Le Pen’s party, for example, has resisted moves to raise the retirement age and has stated that it would focus any benefit cuts at non-French nationals.

Avoiding a Strategic Advantage for Populists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as subsequent Medicaid cuts and tax breaks for the wealthy demonstrated. Yet without a convincing progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they worked on the campaign trail. Without a radical shift in fiscal policy, social contracts across the continent risk being torn apart. Governments must avoid giving this electoral boon to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.