🔗 Share this article

More than a twelve months following the election that handed Donald Trump a clear-cut comeback victory, the Democratic Party has yet to issued its election autopsy. But, last week, an prominent liberal advocacy organization published its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its writers contended, failed to connect with key voter blocs because it did not focus enough on addressing basic economic anxieties. By prioritising the threat to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, progressives overlooked the kitchen-table concerns that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for European Capitals

While Europe prepares for a turbulent era of politics between now and the end of the decade, that is a message that must be fully absorbed in European capitals. The White House, as its newly released national security strategy indicates, is hopeful that “nationalist movements in Europe will quickly replicate 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 blue-collar voters. Yet among mainstream leaders and parties, it is difficult to see a response that is adequate to troubling times.

Era-Defining Problems and Costly Solutions

The challenges Europe faces are expensive and historic. They encompass 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. According to a European research institute, the new age of geopolitical insecurity could necessitate an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A significant report last year on European economic competitiveness demanded substantial investment in public goods, to be financed in part by collective 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 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 EU spending plans for the next seven years are deeply unambitious. In France, the idea of a wealth tax is overwhelmingly popular with voters. But the embattled centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Cost of Political Paralysis

The truth is that in the absence of such measures, the less affluent will bear the brunt of financial adjustment through austerity budgets and greater inequality. Bitter recent disputes over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany testify to a developing struggle 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 resisted moves to raise the retirement age and has said that it would focus any benefit cuts at non-French nationals.

Avoiding a Strategic Advantage for Populists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were deeply disingenuous, as later Medicaid cuts and tax breaks for the wealthy underlined. Yet without a compelling progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the election circuit. Absent a fundamental change in economic approach, social contracts across the continent are in danger of being torn apart. Governments must steer clear of giving this electoral boon to the Trumpian forces already on the rise in Europe.