🔗 Share this article

Over a year after the vote that handed Donald Trump a decisive comeback victory, the Democratic Party has still not issued its postmortem analysis. But, recently, an influential progressive lobby group released its own. The Harris campaign, its authors argued, failed to connect with key voter blocs because it failed to concentrate enough on tackling basic economic anxieties. By prioritising the menace to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, progressives overlooked the bread-and-butter issues that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for European Capitals

As the EU braces for a turbulent era of politics between now and the end of the decade, that is a lesson that needs to be fully understood in European capitals. The White House, as its recently published national security strategy indicates, is optimistic that “nationalist movements in Europe will soon mirror Mr Trump’s success. In the EU’s core nations, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) lead the polls, supported by large swaths of working-class voters. Yet among mainstream leaders and parties, it is hard to discern a response that is sufficient to challenging times.

Major Challenges and Expensive Solutions

The challenges Europe faces are expensive and historic. 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 Brussels-based 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 demanded substantial investment in public goods, to be partly funded by jointly held EU debt.

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

But, at both the pan-European and national levels, there remains a deficit of courage when it comes to revenue raising. The EU’s so-called “frugal” nations resist 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 embattled centrist government – while 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 financial adjustment through austerity budgets and increased inequality. Acrimonious recent disputes over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany testify to a growing battle over the future of the European social model – a trend 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 opposed moves to raise the retirement age and has said that it would target any benefit cuts at foreign residents.

Avoiding a Strategic Advantage for Populists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as later healthcare reductions and fiscal benefits for the wealthy underlined. But in the absence of a compelling progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the election circuit. Absent a fundamental change in economic approach, social contracts across the continent risk being ripped up. Governments must steer clear of giving this electoral boon to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.