🔗 Share this article

Over a twelve months following the vote that delivered Donald Trump a clear-cut comeback victory, the Democratic Party has yet to issued its election autopsy. However, last week, 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 addressing everyday financial worries. By prioritising the threat to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, progressives neglected the bread-and-butter issues that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for Europe

As the EU braces for a tumultuous period of politics between now and the end of the decade, that is a message that must be fully absorbed in European capitals. The White House, as its newly released national security strategy indicates, is hopeful that “nationalist movements in Europe will soon mirror Mr Trump’s success. Within Europe's core nations, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) top the polls, supported by significant segments of blue-collar voters. But among establishment politicians and parties, it is hard to discern a response that is sufficient to troubling times.

Era-Defining Challenges and Costly Solutions

The issues Europe faces are expensive and historic. They include the war in Ukraine, maintaining the momentum of the green transition, addressing demographic change and building economies that are less vulnerable to pressure by Mr Trump and China. According to a Brussels-based research institute, the new age of global instability could necessitate an additional €250bn in annual EU defence spending. A significant report last year on European economic competitiveness demanded massive investment in public goods, to be partly funded by jointly held EU debt.

Such a fiscal paradigm shift would stimulate growth figures that have stagnated for years.

But, at both the pan-European and national levels, there continues to be 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 deeply timid. In France, the idea of a wealth tax is widely supported with voters. But the embattled centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Cost of Inaction

The truth is that in the absence of such measures, the less well-off will pay the price of fiscal tightening through spending cuts and greater inequality. Bitter recent conflicts over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany testify to a developing struggle 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.

Preventing a Strategic Advantage for Nationalists

In the US, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect working-class interests were deeply disingenuous, as subsequent Medicaid cuts and fiscal benefits for the wealthy demonstrated. Yet in the absence of a convincing progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they worked on the election circuit. Without a radical shift in economic approach, societal agreements across the continent are in danger of being ripped up. Policymakers must avoid giving this electoral boon to the populist movements already on the rise in Europe.