🔗 Share this article

Over a twelve months following the election that delivered Donald Trump a decisive comeback victory, the Democratic Party has yet to issued its postmortem analysis. But, last week, an prominent progressive lobby group released its own. The Harris campaign, its writers argued, failed to connect with key voter blocs because it failed to concentrate enough on tackling basic economic anxieties. In focusing on the threat to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, progressives overlooked the kitchen-table concerns that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for Europe

As the EU braces for a tumultuous period of politics from now until the end of the decade, that is a lesson that must be fully absorbed in European capitals. The White House, as its newly released national security strategy indicates, is hopeful that “patriotic” parties in Europe will quickly mirror Mr Trump’s success. In the EU’s Franco-German engine room, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) lead the polls, supported by large swaths of working-class voters. But among mainstream leaders and parties, it is hard to discern a strategy that is adequate to troubling times.

Era-Defining Challenges and Costly Solutions

The issues Europe faces are costly and historic. They include the war in Ukraine, maintaining 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 geopolitical insecurity could require an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A major report last year on European economic competitiveness demanded massive investment in shared infrastructure, to be partly funded by collective EU debt.

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

However, at both the pan-European and national levels, there remains a lack of boldness when it comes to revenue raising. The EU’s so-called “frugal” nations oppose the idea of shared debt, and EU spending plans for the next seven years are deeply timid. In France, the idea of a wealth tax 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 in the absence of such measures, the less well-off will bear the brunt of fiscal tightening through austerity budgets and increased inequality. Bitter recent disputes over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany highlight a developing struggle over the future of the European social model – 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 non-French nationals.

Avoiding a Strategic Advantage for Nationalists

In the US, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as later healthcare reductions and fiscal benefits for the wealthy demonstrated. Yet in the absence of a compelling progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the campaign trail. Without a fundamental change in economic approach, social contracts across the continent are in danger of being ripped up. Policymakers must avoid giving this political gift to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.