🔗 Share this article

More than a twelve months after the election that delivered Donald Trump a clear-cut comeback 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 contended, failed to connect with core constituencies because it failed to concentrate enough on tackling everyday financial worries. In focusing on the menace to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, liberals neglected the kitchen-table concerns that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for Europe

As the EU braces for a turbulent era of politics from now until the end of the decade, that is a message that must be fully understood in Brussels, Paris and Berlin. The White House, as its newly released national security strategy makes clear, 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) top the polls, backed by large swaths of blue-collar voters. Yet among mainstream leaders and parties, it is difficult to see a response that is adequate to challenging times.

Major Challenges and Costly Solutions

The issues Europe faces are expensive and historic. They include the war in Ukraine, maintaining the momentum of the green transition, addressing demographic change and building economies that are more resilient to pressure by Mr Trump and China. As per a European thinktank, the new age of global instability could necessitate an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A significant report last year on European economic competitiveness called for massive investment in public goods, to be financed in part by jointly held EU debt.

Such a economic transformation would stimulate growth figures that have flatlined for years.

However, at both the EU-wide and national levels, there continues to be a lack of boldness when it comes to revenue raising. The EU’s so-called “budget hawks resist the idea of shared debt, and EU spending plans 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 – though 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 financial adjustment through austerity budgets and greater inequality. Bitter recent disputes over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany highlight a developing struggle over the future of the European social model – a trend 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 said that it would focus any benefit cuts at non-French nationals.

Avoiding a Political Gift for Nationalists

In the US, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as subsequent Medicaid cuts and fiscal benefits for the wealthy demonstrated. Yet without a compelling progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they worked on the election circuit. Without a fundamental change in economic approach, societal agreements across the continent are in danger of being torn apart. Policymakers must avoid giving this political gift to the populist movements already on the rise in Europe.