🔗 Share this article

Over a twelve months after the vote that handed Donald Trump a decisive return victory, the Democratic party has still not issued its election autopsy. But, last week, an prominent progressive lobby group released its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its writers contended, failed to connect with core constituencies because it did not focus enough on addressing everyday financial worries. In focusing on the menace to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, liberals neglected the bread-and-butter issues 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 message that needs to be fully understood in European capitals. 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 core nations, 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 hard to discern a response that is sufficient to challenging times.

Major Problems and Expensive Solutions

The issues Europe faces are costly and historic. They include the war in Ukraine, sustaining the momentum of the green transition, addressing demographic change and developing economies that are more resilient to bullying by Mr Trump and China. As per a Brussels-based research institute, the new age of global instability could necessitate an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A major study 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 fiscal paradigm shift would boost growth figures that have flatlined for years.

But, at both the pan-European and national levels, there remains a lack of boldness when it comes to revenue raising. The EU’s so-called “frugal” nations oppose the idea of shared debt, and EU spending plans for the next seven years are deeply timid. In France, the idea of a tax on the super-rich is widely supported 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 well-off will bear the brunt of financial adjustment through spending cuts and greater inequality. Bitter recent conflicts over retirement reforms in both France and Germany highlight a growing battle over the future of the European welfare state – 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 stated that it would target any benefit cuts at non-French nationals.

Avoiding a Political Gift for Nationalists

In the US, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect blue‑collar interests were deeply disingenuous, as later healthcare reductions and fiscal benefits for the wealthy underlined. But in the absence of a compelling progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they worked on the campaign trail. Absent a radical shift in fiscal policy, social contracts across the continent risk being ripped up. Governments must steer clear of handing this electoral boon to the populist movements already on the march in Europe.