🔗 Share this article

More than a year after the vote that delivered Donald Trump a clear-cut comeback victory, the Democratic Party has yet to released its postmortem analysis. But, recently, an influential progressive lobby group published its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its writers argued, failed to connect with core constituencies because it failed to concentrate enough on tackling everyday financial worries. By prioritising the menace to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, progressives overlooked the kitchen-table concerns that were foremost 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 needs to be fully absorbed in European capitals. The White House, as its newly released national security strategy makes clear, is optimistic that “patriotic” parties in Europe will quickly mirror Mr Trump’s success. Within Europe's Franco-German engine room, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) lead the polls, backed by large swaths of working-class voters. But among mainstream leaders and parties, it is difficult to see a response that is adequate to challenging times.

Major Problems and Costly 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 research institute, the new age of global instability could require an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A significant study last year on European economic competitiveness demanded massive investment in shared infrastructure, to be partly funded by jointly held EU debt.

Such a fiscal paradigm shift would boost 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 “budget hawks oppose the idea of shared debt, and EU spending plans for the next seven years are profoundly unambitious. In France, the idea of a tax on the super-rich is widely supported with voters. Yet the embattled centrist government – while desperate to cut its budget deficit – will not consider such a move.

The Cost of Inaction

The reality is that without such measures, the less affluent will bear the brunt of fiscal tightening through austerity budgets and increased inequality. Bitter recent disputes over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany highlight a developing struggle 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 said that it would target any benefit cuts at foreign residents.

Preventing a Political Gift for Populists

In the US, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as later Medicaid cuts and fiscal benefits for the wealthy demonstrated. But in the absence of a convincing progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the campaign trail. Absent a fundamental change in economic approach, social contracts across the continent are in danger of being torn apart. Policymakers must steer clear of handing this electoral boon to the populist movements already on the rise in Europe.