🔗 Share this article

Over a year following the election that handed Donald Trump a decisive comeback victory, the Democratic party has still not released its election autopsy. But, recently, an influential liberal advocacy organization published its own. The Harris campaign, its writers contended, did not resonate with key voter blocs because it did not focus enough on addressing basic economic anxieties. By prioritising the menace to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, progressives neglected the kitchen-table concerns that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for Europe

While Europe prepares 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 recently published national security strategy makes clear, is hopeful that “patriotic” parties in Europe will soon mirror Mr Trump’s success. Within Europe's Franco-German engine room, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) top the polls, supported by significant segments of working-class voters. But among mainstream leaders and parties, it is difficult to see a strategy that is adequate to troubling times.

Major Challenges and Expensive Solutions

The challenges Europe faces are expensive 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 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 significant report last year on European economic competitiveness demanded substantial investment in shared infrastructure, 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 generating funds. The EU’s so-called “budget hawks resist the idea of shared debt, and Brussels’ budget proposals for the next seven years are deeply unambitious. In France, the idea of a tax on the super-rich is overwhelmingly popular 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 reality is that without such measures, the less affluent will pay the price of fiscal tightening through spending cuts and greater inequality. Bitter recent conflicts over retirement reforms 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 welfare chauvinism. Ms Le Pen’s party, for example, has opposed moves to raise the retirement age and has said that it would focus any benefit cuts at non-French nationals.

Avoiding a Political Gift for Nationalists

In the US, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect working-class interests were largely insincere, as later healthcare reductions and tax breaks for the wealthy demonstrated. But in the absence of a compelling progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they worked on the campaign trail. Without a fundamental change in economic approach, societal agreements across the continent risk being torn apart. Governments must avoid giving this political gift to the populist movements already on the march in Europe.