🔗 Share this article

Over a twelve months after the vote that handed Donald Trump a clear-cut return victory, the Democratic Party has yet to issued its election autopsy. But, recently, an influential liberal advocacy organization released its own. The Harris campaign, its writers argued, failed to connect with key voter blocs because it did not focus enough on tackling basic economic anxieties. In focusing on the threat to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, liberals neglected the kitchen-table concerns that were uppermost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for European Capitals

As the EU braces for a tumultuous period of politics from now until 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 indicates, is hopeful that “nationalist movements in Europe will soon replicate 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 significant segments of working-class voters. But among establishment politicians and parties, it is hard to discern a response that is adequate to troubling times.

Major Problems and Costly Solutions

The issues Europe faces are costly and era-defining. They include the war in Ukraine, maintaining the momentum of the green transition, addressing demographic change and developing economies that are more resilient to bullying by Mr Trump and China. As per a Brussels-based research institute, the new age of geopolitical insecurity could necessitate an additional €250bn in annual EU defence spending. A significant study last year on European economic competitiveness called for massive investment in shared infrastructure, to be financed in part by jointly held EU debt.

Such a fiscal paradigm shift would boost growth figures that have flatlined 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 “frugal” nations resist the idea of shared debt, and EU spending plans 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 – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Cost of Political Paralysis

The truth is that without such measures, the less affluent will pay the price of fiscal tightening through austerity budgets and increased inequality. Acrimonious recent conflicts over retirement reforms in both France and Germany testify to a growing battle over the future of the European welfare state – a phenomenon that the RN and the AfD have eagerly leveraged 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 stated that it would focus any benefit cuts at foreign residents.

Avoiding a Strategic Advantage for Nationalists

In the US, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect blue‑collar interests were deeply disingenuous, as later healthcare reductions and tax breaks for the wealthy demonstrated. Yet without a convincing progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the election circuit. Without a fundamental change in economic approach, social contracts across the continent risk being torn apart. Policymakers must avoid giving this political gift to the populist movements already on the march in Europe.