🔗 Share this article

More than a twelve months after the election that handed Donald Trump a clear-cut comeback victory, the Democratic Party has still not issued its postmortem analysis. However, recently, an prominent liberal advocacy organization published its own. The Harris campaign, its writers argued, did not resonate with core constituencies because it failed to concentrate enough on addressing everyday financial worries. In focusing on the menace to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, liberals overlooked the kitchen-table concerns that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for European Capitals

While Europe prepares for a tumultuous period of politics from now until the end of the decade, that is a message that must be fully understood in European capitals. The White House, as its newly released national security strategy makes clear, is optimistic that “patriotic” parties in Europe will quickly mirror Mr Trump’s success. In the EU’s core nations, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) top the polls, backed by significant segments of working-class voters. Yet 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 expensive 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 bullying by Mr Trump and China. According to a Brussels-based thinktank, 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 called for substantial investment in public goods, 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 EU-wide and national levels, there remains a deficit of courage 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 tax on the super-rich is widely supported with voters. But the beleaguered centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – will not consider such a move.

The Price of Political Paralysis

The reality is that in the absence of such measures, the less well-off will pay the price of fiscal tightening through spending cuts and increased inequality. Acrimonious recent disputes over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany highlight a developing struggle over the future of the European welfare state – a trend 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 opposed moves to raise the retirement age and has stated that it would target any benefit cuts at non-French nationals.

Avoiding a Political Gift for Populists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect working-class interests were largely insincere, as later healthcare reductions and fiscal benefits for the wealthy demonstrated. Yet in the absence of a convincing progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they worked on the campaign trail. Absent a fundamental change in fiscal policy, societal agreements across the continent are in danger of being torn apart. Governments must steer clear of giving this electoral boon to the populist movements already on the rise in Europe.