🔗 Share this article

Over a year following the vote that delivered Donald Trump a decisive return victory, the Democratic party has yet to issued its election autopsy. However, recently, an influential liberal advocacy organization published its own. The Harris campaign, its authors argued, did not resonate with key voter blocs because it did not focus enough on addressing everyday financial worries. In focusing on the threat to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, liberals overlooked the kitchen-table concerns that were uppermost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for Europe

As the EU braces for a tumultuous period of politics between now and 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 quickly mirror 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 significant segments of working-class voters. Yet among mainstream leaders and parties, it is hard to discern a strategy that is sufficient to troubling times.

Era-Defining Problems and Expensive Solutions

The challenges Europe faces are expensive and era-defining. They include the war in Ukraine, sustaining 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 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 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 pan-European and national levels, there remains a lack of boldness when it comes to generating funds. The EU’s so-called “frugal” nations oppose the idea of collective borrowing, and Brussels’ budget proposals for the next seven years are profoundly 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 – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Price of Political Paralysis

The truth is that in the absence of such measures, the less affluent will bear the brunt of fiscal tightening through austerity budgets and increased inequality. Bitter recent disputes over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany testify to a growing battle over the future of the European social model – a trend that the RN and the AfD have eagerly leveraged 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 target any benefit cuts at non-French nationals.

Avoiding a Political Gift for Populists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect working-class interests were largely insincere, as later healthcare reductions and fiscal benefits for the wealthy underlined. But without a compelling progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the campaign trail. Absent a fundamental change in economic approach, societal agreements across the continent are in danger of being ripped up. Governments must steer clear of handing this political gift to the populist movements already on the rise in Europe.