🔗 Share this article

More than a twelve months after the election that delivered Donald Trump a decisive comeback victory, the Democratic party has yet to issued its election autopsy. However, recently, an prominent liberal advocacy organization released its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its writers contended, failed to connect with key voter blocs because it did not focus enough on tackling basic economic anxieties. In focusing on the menace to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, liberals overlooked the bread-and-butter issues that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for Europe

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 makes clear, is hopeful that “nationalist movements in Europe will quickly mirror Mr Trump’s success. In the EU’s Franco-German engine room, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) lead the polls, backed by significant segments of working-class voters. But among mainstream leaders and parties, it is difficult to see a strategy that is adequate to challenging times.

Major Challenges and Expensive Solutions

The issues Europe faces are costly 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. According to a European research institute, the new age of global instability could necessitate an additional €250bn in annual EU defence spending. A major report last year on European economic competitiveness called for massive investment in shared infrastructure, to be partly funded by collective EU debt.

Such a economic transformation would stimulate 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 resist the idea of collective borrowing, and EU spending plans for the next seven years are deeply timid. In France, the idea of a tax on the super-rich is widely supported 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 truth is that in the absence of such measures, the less affluent will bear the brunt of financial adjustment through austerity budgets and increased inequality. Bitter recent conflicts over pension cutbacks 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 eagerly leveraged to promote a politics of nativist social policy. 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.

Preventing a Strategic Advantage for Populists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as subsequent Medicaid cuts and tax breaks for the wealthy underlined. But in the absence of a compelling progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the election circuit. Without a radical shift in economic approach, societal agreements across the continent risk being ripped up. Policymakers must steer clear of handing this political gift to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.