🔗 Share this article

Over a twelve months after the vote that delivered 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 writers contended, did not resonate with key voter blocs because it did not focus enough on addressing everyday financial worries. By prioritising the menace to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, liberals neglected the kitchen-table concerns that were uppermost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for European Capitals

While Europe prepares for a tumultuous period of politics from now until the end of the decade, that is a message that needs to 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. In the EU’s core nations, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) top the polls, backed by significant segments of working-class voters. But among establishment politicians and parties, it is difficult to see a response that is sufficient to challenging times.

Major Challenges and Expensive Solutions

The issues Europe faces are costly and era-defining. They encompass the war in Ukraine, sustaining the momentum of the green transition, dealing with demographic change and building economies that are more resilient to bullying by Mr Trump and China. According to a European research institute, the new age of geopolitical insecurity could necessitate an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A significant report last year on European economic competitiveness called for massive investment in public goods, to be financed in part by collective EU debt.

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

However, at both the pan-European and national levels, there remains a deficit of courage when it comes to generating funds. The EU’s so-called “budget hawks oppose the idea of collective borrowing, and Brussels’ budget proposals for the next seven years are profoundly 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 Political Paralysis

The truth is that without such measures, the less affluent will bear the brunt of fiscal tightening through austerity budgets and increased inequality. Bitter recent conflicts over retirement reforms in both France and Germany testify to a growing battle over the future of the European social model – a phenomenon that the RN and the AfD have happily exploited to promote a politics of welfare chauvinism. 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 foreign residents.

Avoiding a Political Gift for Nationalists

In the US, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as subsequent healthcare reductions and tax breaks for the wealthy demonstrated. But in the absence of a compelling progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the campaign trail. Without a fundamental change in fiscal policy, social contracts across the continent are in danger of being torn apart. Governments must avoid giving this political gift to the populist movements already on the march in Europe.