🔗 Share this article

More than a year after the election that delivered Donald Trump a clear-cut comeback victory, the Democratic party has still not issued its postmortem analysis. However, recently, an prominent liberal advocacy organization released its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its authors argued, did not resonate with key voter blocs because it did not focus enough on tackling everyday financial worries. By prioritising the menace to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, progressives overlooked the bread-and-butter issues that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for European Capitals

As the EU braces for a turbulent era of politics from now until the end of the decade, that is a lesson that must be fully understood in Brussels, Paris and Berlin. The White House, as its recently published national security strategy makes clear, is optimistic that “nationalist movements in Europe will soon mirror Mr Trump’s success. Within Europe's Franco-German engine room, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) lead the polls, backed by large swaths of working-class voters. Yet among mainstream leaders and parties, it is hard to discern a strategy that is adequate to challenging times.

Major Challenges and Expensive Solutions

The issues Europe faces are costly and historic. They encompass 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. According to a Brussels-based research institute, the new age of geopolitical insecurity could require an additional €250bn in annual EU defence spending. A significant study last year on European economic competitiveness demanded substantial investment in public goods, to be partly funded by collective EU debt.

Such a fiscal paradigm shift would boost growth figures that have stagnated for years.

However, at both the EU-wide and national levels, there remains a lack of boldness when it comes to generating funds. The EU’s so-called “budget hawks resist the idea of shared debt, and EU spending plans for the next seven years are deeply unambitious. In France, the idea of a tax on the super-rich is widely supported with voters. But the embattled centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – will not consider such a move.

The Price of Inaction

The reality is that without such measures, the less affluent will pay the price of fiscal tightening through spending cuts and greater inequality. Acrimonious recent disputes over retirement reforms 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 target any benefit cuts at non-French nationals.

Avoiding a Political Gift for Populists

In the US, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were deeply disingenuous, as subsequent 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 radical shift in fiscal policy, 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 march in Europe.