🔗 Share this article

Over a twelve months after the election that handed Donald Trump a clear-cut comeback victory, the Democratic party has still not released its postmortem analysis. But, last week, an prominent progressive lobby group released its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its authors contended, did not resonate with core constituencies because it failed to concentrate enough on addressing everyday financial worries. In focusing on the menace to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, progressives neglected the kitchen-table concerns that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for European Capitals

While Europe prepares for a turbulent era of politics from now until the end of the decade, that is a lesson that must be fully absorbed in European capitals. The White House, as its newly released national security strategy makes clear, is optimistic that “patriotic” parties in Europe will soon replicate Mr Trump’s success. In the EU’s Franco-German engine room, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) top the polls, supported by significant segments of working-class voters. Yet among establishment politicians and parties, it is hard to discern a strategy that is sufficient to troubling times.

Era-Defining Challenges and Costly Solutions

The issues Europe faces are costly and historic. They encompass the war in Ukraine, sustaining the momentum of the green transition, dealing with demographic change and developing economies that are less vulnerable to bullying by Mr Trump and China. As per a Brussels-based thinktank, the new age of global instability could require an additional €250bn in annual EU defence spending. A major study last year on European economic competitiveness demanded massive investment in public goods, to be partly funded by jointly held EU debt.

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

But, 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 resist the idea of collective borrowing, and Brussels’ budget proposals for the next seven years are profoundly unambitious. In France, the idea of a tax on the super-rich is overwhelmingly popular with voters. But the beleaguered centrist government – while desperate to cut its budget deficit – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Price 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 increased inequality. Bitter recent disputes over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany testify to a developing struggle over the future of the European social model – a phenomenon that the RN and the AfD have eagerly leveraged 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 stated that it would target any benefit cuts at foreign residents.

Preventing a Political Gift for Populists

In the US, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as later Medicaid cuts and fiscal benefits for the wealthy demonstrated. Yet in the absence of a convincing progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they worked on the election circuit. Without a fundamental change in economic approach, societal agreements across the continent risk being ripped up. Policymakers must steer clear of giving this electoral boon to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.