🔗 Share this article

More than a year after the election that handed Donald Trump a decisive return victory, the Democratic party has still not issued its election autopsy. However, recently, an influential progressive lobby group released its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its writers argued, did not resonate with core constituencies because it did not focus enough on tackling everyday financial worries. In focusing on the menace to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, progressives neglected the bread-and-butter issues that were uppermost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for Europe

As the EU braces for a turbulent era of politics from now until the end of the decade, that is a message that must be fully absorbed in Brussels, Paris and Berlin. The White House, as its recently published national security strategy makes clear, is hopeful that “nationalist movements in Europe will soon replicate 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 working-class voters. Yet among mainstream leaders and parties, it is difficult to see a strategy that is sufficient to challenging times.

Era-Defining Problems and Expensive Solutions

The issues Europe faces are expensive and historic. They encompass the war in Ukraine, maintaining the momentum of the green transition, dealing with demographic change and building 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 necessitate an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A significant report last year on European economic competitiveness demanded massive 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 EU-wide and national levels, there continues to be a lack of boldness 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 overwhelmingly popular with voters. Yet the embattled centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Price of Political Paralysis

The reality is that without such measures, the less well-off will bear the brunt 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 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 target any benefit cuts at non-French nationals.

Avoiding a Political Gift for Nationalists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were deeply disingenuous, as later healthcare reductions and tax breaks for the wealthy underlined. But without a convincing progressive counteroffer 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 torn apart. Governments must avoid handing this political gift to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.