🔗 Share this article

More than a twelve months after the vote that handed Donald Trump a decisive return victory, the Democratic Party has yet to issued its election autopsy. But, last week, an prominent liberal advocacy organization released its own. The Harris 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 neglected the kitchen-table concerns that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for Europe

While Europe prepares for a turbulent era of politics between now and 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) lead the polls, backed by significant segments of working-class voters. But among mainstream leaders and parties, it is difficult to see a response that is adequate to challenging times.

Era-Defining Problems and Expensive Solutions

The challenges Europe faces are expensive and historic. They encompass 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 thinktank, the new age of global instability could require an additional €250bn in annual EU defence spending. A major report last year on European economic competitiveness demanded massive investment in shared infrastructure, to be partly funded by collective EU debt.

Such a economic transformation 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 “budget hawks oppose 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 widely supported with voters. But the beleaguered centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – will not consider 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 spending cuts and greater inequality. Acrimonious recent conflicts over retirement reforms in both France and Germany highlight a growing battle 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 non-French nationals.

Avoiding a Strategic Advantage for Nationalists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect working-class interests were deeply disingenuous, as later Medicaid cuts and fiscal benefits for the wealthy demonstrated. But without a convincing progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they worked on the campaign trail. Without a radical shift in fiscal policy, societal agreements across the continent risk being ripped up. Policymakers must steer clear of handing this political gift to the populist movements already on the rise in Europe.