🔗 Share this article

Over a year after the election that delivered Donald Trump a clear-cut return victory, the Democratic Party has still not released its postmortem analysis. But, last week, an prominent liberal advocacy organization published its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its writers contended, failed to connect with core constituencies because it did not focus enough on tackling basic economic anxieties. By prioritising the threat to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, progressives neglected the bread-and-butter issues that were uppermost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for European Capitals

While Europe prepares for a tumultuous period of politics between now and the end of the decade, that is a lesson that must be fully absorbed in Brussels, Paris and Berlin. 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 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 mainstream leaders and parties, it is difficult to see a strategy that is sufficient to challenging times.

Major Challenges and Costly 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 less vulnerable to pressure by Mr Trump and China. According to a European research institute, the new age of geopolitical insecurity could require an additional €250bn in annual EU defence spending. A major study last year on European economic competitiveness demanded substantial investment in public goods, to be financed in part by jointly held EU debt.

Such a economic transformation would boost growth figures that have flatlined for years.

But, at both the pan-European and national levels, there continues to be a lack of boldness when it comes to revenue raising. The EU’s so-called “frugal” nations oppose the idea of shared debt, and Brussels’ budget proposals for the next seven years are deeply timid. In France, the idea of a tax on the super-rich is widely supported with voters. But the beleaguered centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Cost of Inaction

The reality is that without such measures, the less well-off will pay the price of fiscal tightening through spending cuts and increased inequality. Bitter recent conflicts over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany highlight 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 opposed moves to raise the retirement age and has said that it would target any benefit cuts at foreign residents.

Preventing a Strategic Advantage for Nationalists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as subsequent healthcare reductions and tax breaks for the wealthy demonstrated. Yet in the absence of a convincing progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the election circuit. Absent a radical shift in economic approach, societal agreements across the continent are in danger of being ripped up. Policymakers must avoid giving this political gift to the populist movements already on the rise in Europe.