🔗 Share this article

More than a twelve months following the vote that handed Donald Trump a decisive return victory, the Democratic party has yet to released its election autopsy. But, recently, an prominent progressive lobby group published its own. The Harris campaign, its authors argued, did not resonate with core constituencies because it did not focus enough on addressing basic economic anxieties. In focusing on the threat to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, progressives neglected the kitchen-table concerns that were uppermost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for Europe

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 absorbed in European capitals. The White House, as its recently published national security strategy indicates, is optimistic that “patriotic” parties in Europe will soon replicate Mr Trump’s success. In the EU’s core nations, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) top the polls, backed by large swaths of working-class voters. But among establishment politicians and parties, it is difficult to see a response that is adequate to challenging times.

Era-Defining Problems and Costly Solutions

The issues Europe faces are expensive and era-defining. They encompass the war in Ukraine, sustaining the momentum of the green transition, addressing demographic change and developing economies that are less vulnerable to bullying by Mr Trump and China. According to a European research institute, the new age of geopolitical insecurity could require an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A significant study last year on European economic competitiveness called for substantial investment in shared infrastructure, to be partly funded by collective EU debt.

Such a economic transformation would stimulate 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 tax on the super-rich is widely supported with voters. Yet the beleaguered centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Price of Inaction

The reality is that in the absence of such measures, the less affluent will pay the price of financial adjustment through spending cuts and increased inequality. Acrimonious recent conflicts over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany highlight a developing struggle over the future of the European social model – 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 foreign residents.

Preventing a Political Gift for Populists

In the US, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were deeply disingenuous, as later healthcare reductions and fiscal benefits for the wealthy demonstrated. Yet in the absence of a compelling progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they worked on the campaign trail. Without a radical shift in fiscal policy, societal agreements across the continent risk being torn apart. Policymakers must steer clear of giving this electoral boon to the populist movements already on the rise in Europe.