🔗 Share this article

More than a year after the vote that handed Donald Trump a decisive return victory, the Democratic party has yet to issued its postmortem analysis. However, last week, an influential liberal advocacy organization published its own. The Harris campaign, its writers argued, did not resonate with key voter blocs because it failed to concentrate enough on addressing basic economic anxieties. By prioritising the threat to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, liberals overlooked the bread-and-butter issues that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for European Capitals

While Europe prepares for a turbulent era of politics from now until the end of the decade, that is a message that needs to be fully absorbed in European capitals. The White House, as its newly released national security strategy makes clear, is hopeful that “patriotic” parties in Europe will soon 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, supported by significant segments of blue-collar voters. But among mainstream leaders and parties, it is hard to discern a response that is adequate to troubling times.

Major Problems and Costly Solutions

The challenges Europe faces are costly and era-defining. They include the war in Ukraine, maintaining the momentum of the green transition, dealing with demographic change and developing economies that are less vulnerable to bullying by Mr Trump and China. As per a Brussels-based thinktank, the new age of geopolitical insecurity could require an additional €250bn in annual EU defence spending. A major report last year on European economic competitiveness demanded substantial investment in public goods, to be partly funded by collective 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 lack of boldness 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 tax on the super-rich is overwhelmingly popular with voters. But the embattled centrist government – while desperate to cut its budget deficit – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Price of Inaction

The reality is that without such measures, the less affluent will pay the price of fiscal tightening through austerity budgets and increased inequality. Acrimonious recent disputes over retirement reforms in both France and Germany highlight a growing battle over the future of the European social model – a trend that the RN and the AfD have happily exploited 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 Populists

In the US, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as later Medicaid cuts and fiscal benefits for the wealthy underlined. Yet without a compelling progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they worked on the election circuit. Without a radical shift in economic approach, social contracts across the continent are in danger of being torn apart. Governments must steer clear of giving this electoral boon to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.