🔗 Share this article

Over a twelve months following the vote that delivered Donald Trump a decisive return victory, the Democratic Party has yet to released its election autopsy. But, recently, an influential progressive lobby group released its own. The Harris campaign, its writers argued, did not resonate with key voter blocs because it failed to concentrate enough on addressing basic economic anxieties. By prioritising the menace to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, liberals overlooked the kitchen-table concerns that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for European Capitals

While Europe prepares for a tumultuous period of politics from now until the end of the decade, that is a lesson that must be fully understood in European capitals. The White House, as its recently published national security strategy indicates, is optimistic that “nationalist movements in Europe will soon mirror Mr Trump’s success. In the EU’s Franco-German engine room, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) lead the polls, supported by large swaths of working-class voters. But among establishment politicians and parties, it is difficult to see a response that is adequate to troubling times.

Era-Defining 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 bullying by Mr Trump and China. As per a Brussels-based thinktank, the new age of geopolitical insecurity could necessitate an additional €250bn in annual EU defence spending. A major study last year on European economic competitiveness called for substantial 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.

However, at both the EU-wide and national levels, there remains a lack of boldness when it comes to revenue raising. The EU’s so-called “budget hawks resist the idea of shared debt, and Brussels’ budget proposals for the next seven years are deeply timid. In France, the idea of a tax on the super-rich is overwhelmingly popular 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 reality is that without such measures, the less affluent will pay the price of fiscal tightening through spending cuts and increased inequality. Bitter recent disputes over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany highlight a growing battle over the future of the European social model – a phenomenon that the RN and the AfD have eagerly leveraged to promote a politics of welfare chauvinism. 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 later Medicaid cuts and fiscal benefits for the wealthy underlined. But in the absence of a convincing progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the election circuit. Absent a fundamental change in fiscal policy, social contracts across the continent are in danger of being ripped up. Governments must avoid handing this electoral boon to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.