🔗 Share this article

Over a twelve months following the vote that handed Donald Trump a clear-cut comeback victory, the Democratic Party has yet to released its postmortem analysis. However, last week, an prominent liberal advocacy organization released its own. The Harris campaign, its writers argued, did not resonate with key voter blocs because it failed to concentrate enough on tackling basic economic anxieties. In focusing on the menace to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, progressives neglected the kitchen-table concerns that were uppermost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for European Capitals

While Europe prepares 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 quickly mirror Mr Trump’s success. Within Europe's Franco-German engine room, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) lead the polls, backed by significant segments of working-class voters. But among mainstream leaders and parties, it is difficult to see a strategy that is sufficient to troubling times.

Major Problems and Expensive Solutions

The issues Europe faces are expensive and era-defining. They include the war in Ukraine, sustaining the momentum of the green transition, dealing with 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 require an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A significant report last year on European economic competitiveness called for massive investment in shared infrastructure, to be partly funded by jointly held EU debt.

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

However, at both the pan-European and national levels, there continues to be a deficit of courage when it comes to revenue raising. The EU’s so-called “frugal” nations resist 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. But the embattled centrist government – while desperate to cut its budget deficit – will not consider such a move.

The Cost of Inaction

The truth is that in the absence of such measures, the less well-off will bear the brunt of fiscal tightening through spending cuts and increased inequality. Bitter recent conflicts over pension cutbacks 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 nativist social policy. Ms Le Pen’s party, for example, has opposed 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

In the US, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as later Medicaid cuts and tax breaks for the wealthy underlined. But without a compelling progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the campaign trail. Without a radical shift in economic approach, social contracts across the continent are in danger of being ripped up. Policymakers must avoid handing this political gift to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.