🔗 Share this article

More than a twelve months after the election that handed Donald Trump a decisive comeback victory, the Democratic Party has yet to issued its postmortem analysis. But, last week, an influential liberal advocacy organization released its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its authors argued, failed to connect with key voter blocs because it did not focus enough on addressing everyday financial worries. By prioritising the threat to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, liberals neglected the kitchen-table concerns that were foremost 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 newly released national security strategy makes clear, is hopeful that “patriotic” parties in Europe will quickly replicate 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 significant segments of working-class voters. Yet among establishment politicians and parties, it is hard to discern a response that is sufficient to challenging times.

Major Challenges and Expensive Solutions

The issues Europe faces are costly and era-defining. They include the war in Ukraine, sustaining the momentum of the green transition, addressing demographic change and building economies that are less vulnerable to pressure by Mr Trump and China. As per a Brussels-based thinktank, 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 demanded 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 stagnated for years.

However, at both the pan-European and national levels, there remains a deficit of courage when it comes to revenue raising. The EU’s so-called “budget hawks oppose the idea of shared debt, 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 embattled centrist government – though 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 austerity budgets and increased inequality. Bitter recent conflicts over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany testify to a developing struggle over the future of the European social model – a phenomenon that the RN and the AfD have happily exploited to promote a politics of welfare chauvinism. Ms Le Pen’s party, for example, has opposed moves to raise the retirement age and has stated 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 later healthcare reductions and fiscal benefits for the wealthy underlined. Yet without a compelling progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they worked on the election circuit. Absent a fundamental change in economic approach, societal agreements across the continent are in danger of being ripped up. Policymakers must avoid giving this electoral boon to the Trumpian forces already on the rise in Europe.