🔗 Share this article

More than a twelve months following the vote that handed Donald Trump a decisive comeback victory, the Democratic Party has still not released its postmortem analysis. But, recently, an prominent progressive lobby group released its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its authors argued, did not resonate with core constituencies because it failed to concentrate enough on tackling basic economic anxieties. In focusing on the threat to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, progressives neglected the bread-and-butter issues that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for European Capitals

While Europe prepares for a tumultuous period of politics between now and 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 “patriotic” parties in Europe will soon replicate Mr Trump’s success. Within Europe's core nations, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) lead the polls, backed by large swaths of working-class voters. But among establishment politicians and parties, it is difficult to see a strategy that is sufficient to troubling 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 pressure by Mr Trump and China. As per a Brussels-based research institute, the new age of global instability could necessitate an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A major report last year on European economic competitiveness demanded substantial investment in shared infrastructure, to be financed in part by jointly held EU debt.

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

But, at both the pan-European and national levels, there continues to be a deficit of courage when it comes to revenue raising. The EU’s so-called “frugal” nations resist the idea of collective borrowing, and EU spending plans for the next seven years are deeply timid. In France, the idea of a tax on the super-rich is overwhelmingly popular with voters. But the embattled centrist government – while desperate to cut its budget deficit – will not consider such a move.

The Price of Inaction

The reality is that in the absence of such measures, the less well-off will bear the brunt of fiscal tightening through spending cuts and increased inequality. Bitter recent disputes 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 target any benefit cuts at foreign residents.

Avoiding a Strategic Advantage for Nationalists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect working-class interests were deeply disingenuous, as subsequent healthcare reductions and fiscal benefits for the wealthy underlined. Yet without a compelling progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they worked on the campaign trail. Absent a fundamental change in economic approach, societal agreements across the continent risk being ripped up. Policymakers must avoid giving this electoral boon to the Trumpian forces already on the rise in Europe.