🔗 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 postmortem analysis. But, last week, an influential liberal advocacy organization published its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its authors argued, failed to connect with core constituencies because it did not focus enough on addressing everyday financial worries. By prioritising 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 Europe

While Europe prepares for a turbulent era of politics between now and the end of the decade, that is a lesson that needs to be fully understood in European capitals. The White House, as its recently published national security strategy indicates, is optimistic that “patriotic” parties in Europe will soon replicate Mr Trump’s success. Within Europe's core nations, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) top the polls, backed by large swaths of blue-collar voters. But among establishment politicians and parties, it is difficult to see a strategy that is adequate to challenging times.

Major Challenges and Costly Solutions

The challenges Europe faces are costly and era-defining. They encompass the war in Ukraine, sustaining the momentum of the green transition, addressing demographic change and developing economies that are less vulnerable 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 study last year on European economic competitiveness demanded substantial investment in shared infrastructure, to be financed in part 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 continues to be 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 unambitious. In France, the idea of a tax on the super-rich is overwhelmingly popular with voters. Yet the beleaguered centrist government – while desperate to cut its budget deficit – will not consider such a move.

The Cost of Political Paralysis

The truth is that in the absence of such measures, the less affluent will pay the price of financial adjustment through spending cuts and greater inequality. Acrimonious recent disputes 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 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 target any benefit cuts at non-French nationals.

Preventing a Strategic Advantage for Nationalists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were deeply disingenuous, as later healthcare reductions and tax breaks for the wealthy demonstrated. Yet in the absence of a convincing progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they worked 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 giving this political gift to the populist movements already on the march in Europe.