🔗 Share this article

Over a year following the election that delivered Donald Trump a clear-cut return victory, the Democratic party has yet to issued its postmortem analysis. But, recently, an prominent liberal advocacy organization released its own. The Harris campaign, its writers contended, failed to connect with core constituencies because it failed to concentrate enough on addressing basic economic anxieties. By prioritising the menace to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, liberals overlooked the kitchen-table concerns that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for European Capitals

As the EU braces for a turbulent era of politics from now until the end of the decade, that is a lesson that must be fully understood in Brussels, Paris and Berlin. The White House, as its newly released national security strategy indicates, is optimistic 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) lead the polls, backed by significant segments of working-class voters. Yet among establishment politicians and parties, it is hard to discern a strategy that is sufficient to troubling times.

Era-Defining Problems 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, dealing with demographic change and developing economies that are less vulnerable to pressure 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 significant study last year on European economic competitiveness called for substantial investment in shared infrastructure, to be partly funded by collective EU debt.

Such a economic transformation would stimulate growth figures that have stagnated for years.

However, at both the EU-wide and national levels, there continues to be a deficit of courage when it comes to generating funds. The EU’s so-called “frugal” nations resist 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 widely supported with voters. But the embattled centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – will not consider such a move.

The Cost of Political Paralysis

The reality is that in the absence of such measures, the less affluent will bear the brunt of fiscal tightening through austerity budgets and increased inequality. Bitter recent disputes over retirement reforms in both France and Germany highlight a developing struggle over the future of the European social model – 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 said that it would focus any benefit cuts at foreign residents.

Avoiding a Political Gift for Nationalists

In the US, Mr Trump’s promises to protect working-class interests were deeply disingenuous, as later Medicaid cuts and fiscal benefits for the wealthy demonstrated. But in the absence of a compelling progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the election circuit. Absent a radical shift in fiscal policy, societal agreements across the continent are in danger of being ripped up. Policymakers must avoid giving this political gift to the populist movements already on the rise in Europe.