🔗 Share this article

More than a year following the vote that handed Donald Trump a decisive comeback victory, the Democratic party has yet to issued its postmortem analysis. However, last week, an influential progressive lobby group released its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its authors argued, did not resonate with key voter blocs because it failed to concentrate enough on addressing everyday financial worries. By prioritising the menace to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, progressives overlooked the kitchen-table concerns that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for Europe

As the EU braces for a tumultuous period of politics from now until the end of the decade, that is a lesson that needs to be fully understood in European capitals. The White House, as its newly released national security strategy makes clear, is hopeful 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, supported by large swaths of blue-collar voters. But among mainstream leaders and parties, it is difficult to see a response that is adequate to troubling times.

Era-Defining Challenges and Costly Solutions

The issues Europe faces are costly and era-defining. They encompass the war in Ukraine, maintaining the momentum of the green transition, addressing demographic change and building economies that are more resilient to pressure by Mr Trump and China. As per a Brussels-based research institute, the new age of global instability could necessitate an additional €250bn in annual EU defence spending. A significant study 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 boost growth figures that have stagnated for years.

But, 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 “budget hawks oppose the idea of shared debt, and Brussels’ budget proposals 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 beleaguered centrist government – while desperate to cut its budget deficit – will not consider such a move.

The Price of Inaction

The truth is that without such measures, the less well-off will pay the price of fiscal tightening through spending cuts and increased inequality. Bitter recent disputes over pension cutbacks 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 said that it would target any benefit cuts at foreign residents.

Avoiding a Political Gift for Populists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as later healthcare reductions and fiscal benefits for the wealthy underlined. But without a compelling progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the election circuit. Without a fundamental change in fiscal policy, social contracts across the continent risk being torn apart. Policymakers must steer clear of handing this political gift to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.