🔗 Share this article

More than a year following the election that handed Donald Trump a decisive comeback victory, the Democratic party has still not issued its postmortem analysis. But, last week, an prominent progressive lobby group released its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its authors contended, did not resonate with key voter blocs because it did not focus enough on addressing basic economic anxieties. In focusing on the threat to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, liberals overlooked the bread-and-butter issues that were uppermost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for European Capitals

While Europe prepares for a turbulent era of politics between now and the end of the decade, that is a message that needs to be fully absorbed in European capitals. The White House, as its recently published national security strategy indicates, is optimistic that “nationalist movements in Europe will quickly mirror Mr Trump’s success. Within Europe's core nations, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) lead 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 challenging times.

Major Challenges and Expensive Solutions

The issues Europe faces are costly 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 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 study 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 boost growth figures that have flatlined for years.

However, 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 “frugal” nations oppose the idea of collective borrowing, and EU spending plans for the next seven years are deeply unambitious. In France, the idea of a tax on the super-rich is widely supported with voters. Yet the embattled centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – will not consider such a move.

The Cost of Political Paralysis

The reality is that in the absence of such measures, the less affluent will pay the price of financial adjustment through spending cuts and greater inequality. Acrimonious recent disputes over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany testify to a growing battle over the future of the European welfare state – a trend that the RN and the AfD have eagerly leveraged to promote a politics of welfare chauvinism. 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 non-French nationals.

Avoiding a Strategic Advantage for Nationalists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect blue‑collar interests were deeply disingenuous, as later Medicaid cuts and tax breaks for the wealthy demonstrated. But without a compelling progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the campaign trail. Absent a radical shift in economic approach, social contracts across the continent are in danger of being ripped up. Governments must avoid giving this electoral boon to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.