🔗 Share this article

More than a year following the vote that handed Donald Trump a clear-cut return victory, the Democratic Party has still not 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 failed to concentrate enough on tackling everyday financial worries. By prioritising the menace to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, liberals neglected the bread-and-butter issues that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for Europe

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 European capitals. The White House, as its newly released national security strategy indicates, is optimistic that “nationalist movements in Europe will quickly mirror Mr Trump’s success. In the EU’s Franco-German engine room, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) lead the polls, supported by significant segments of blue-collar voters. But among establishment politicians and parties, it is difficult to see a strategy that is sufficient to challenging times.

Major Problems and Costly Solutions

The challenges Europe faces are costly and historic. They include the war in Ukraine, sustaining the momentum of the green transition, addressing demographic change and building economies that are less vulnerable to bullying by Mr Trump and China. According to a Brussels-based research institute, the new age of geopolitical insecurity could necessitate an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A major report 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 economic transformation would boost growth figures that have stagnated for years.

However, at both the EU-wide and national levels, there continues to be a deficit of courage when it comes to generating funds. The EU’s so-called “frugal” nations oppose the idea of collective borrowing, and Brussels’ budget proposals for the next seven years are deeply timid. In France, the idea of a wealth tax is widely supported with voters. But the embattled centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Price of Political Paralysis

The truth is that without such measures, the less affluent will bear the brunt of fiscal tightening through spending cuts and increased inequality. Acrimonious recent disputes over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany highlight a growing battle over the future of the European welfare state – a phenomenon 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 Strategic Advantage 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 demonstrated. Yet in the absence of a convincing progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they worked on the election circuit. Without a radical shift in economic approach, societal agreements across the continent are in danger of being ripped up. Governments must avoid giving this political gift to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.