🔗 Share this article

More than a twelve months following the election that handed Donald Trump a clear-cut return victory, the Democratic party has yet to released its postmortem analysis. However, recently, an influential liberal advocacy organization released its own. The Harris campaign, its authors contended, did not resonate with core constituencies because it failed to concentrate enough on addressing everyday financial worries. In focusing on the threat to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, liberals neglected the bread-and-butter issues that were uppermost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for European Capitals

While Europe prepares for a turbulent era 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 recently published national security strategy indicates, is hopeful that “patriotic” parties 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 large swaths of blue-collar voters. Yet among establishment politicians and parties, it is hard to discern a response that is sufficient to challenging times.

Major Problems and Costly Solutions

The issues Europe faces are costly and era-defining. 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. 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 public goods, to be partly funded by jointly held EU debt.

Such a fiscal paradigm shift would stimulate growth figures that have flatlined for years.

However, at both the pan-European and national levels, there continues to be a lack of boldness when it comes to generating funds. The EU’s so-called “budget hawks resist the idea of shared debt, and EU spending plans for the next seven years are profoundly timid. In France, the idea of a wealth tax is overwhelmingly popular with voters. But the embattled centrist government – while desperate to cut its budget deficit – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Cost of Political Paralysis

The reality is that without such measures, the less well-off will bear the brunt of fiscal tightening through spending cuts and increased inequality. Bitter recent conflicts 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 happily exploited 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 focus any benefit cuts at non-French nationals.

Avoiding a Political Gift for Nationalists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as later Medicaid cuts and fiscal benefits for the wealthy underlined. But in the absence of a convincing progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they worked on the election circuit. Without a radical shift in economic approach, societal agreements across the continent are in danger of being torn apart. Policymakers must avoid giving this political gift to the populist movements already on the march in Europe.