🔗 Share this article

More than a twelve months following the vote that delivered Donald Trump a clear-cut return victory, the Democratic Party has yet to released its postmortem analysis. But, last week, an influential 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 basic economic anxieties. In focusing on the menace to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, liberals overlooked the kitchen-table concerns that were uppermost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for European Capitals

As the EU braces for a tumultuous period of politics from now until the end of the decade, that is a lesson 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 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, backed by large swaths of working-class voters. Yet among establishment politicians and parties, it is difficult to see a response that is sufficient to troubling times.

Era-Defining Challenges and Expensive Solutions

The issues Europe faces are expensive and era-defining. They include the war in Ukraine, sustaining the momentum of the green transition, addressing 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 yearly EU defence spending. A major report last year on European economic competitiveness demanded substantial investment in public goods, to be financed in part by jointly held EU debt.

Such a fiscal paradigm shift 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 Brussels’ budget proposals for the next seven years are profoundly unambitious. In France, the idea of a wealth tax is overwhelmingly popular with voters. Yet the beleaguered centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – will not consider such a move.

The Cost of Inaction

The reality is that in the absence of such measures, the less well-off will pay the price of financial adjustment through austerity budgets and increased inequality. Bitter recent conflicts over retirement reforms in both France and Germany testify to a developing struggle over the future of the European social model – 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 stated that it would target any benefit cuts at non-French nationals.

Preventing a Strategic Advantage for Populists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as later healthcare reductions and tax breaks for the wealthy underlined. But in the absence of a convincing progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they worked on the election circuit. Without a radical shift 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 Trumpian forces already on the rise in Europe.