🔗 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 election autopsy. But, recently, an prominent liberal advocacy organization released its own. Kamala Harris's 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 threat to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, liberals neglected the bread-and-butter issues that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for European Capitals

As the EU braces for a tumultuous period of politics between now and the end of the decade, that is a message that must be fully absorbed in European capitals. The White House, as its recently published national security strategy indicates, is optimistic that “nationalist movements in Europe will quickly 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, supported by significant segments of working-class voters. Yet among mainstream leaders and parties, it is hard to discern a response that is adequate to challenging times.

Major Problems and Costly Solutions

The issues Europe faces are costly and historic. 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 geopolitical insecurity could require an additional €250bn in annual EU defence spending. A major study last year on European economic competitiveness demanded massive investment in public goods, to be financed in part by collective EU debt.

Such a fiscal paradigm shift would stimulate growth figures that have flatlined for years.

However, at both the pan-European 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 profoundly unambitious. In France, the idea of a tax on the super-rich is widely supported with voters. But 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 affluent will bear the brunt of financial adjustment through spending cuts and increased inequality. Bitter recent disputes over retirement reforms in both France and Germany highlight a growing battle over the future of the European social model – a phenomenon 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 opposed moves to raise the retirement age and has stated that it would focus any benefit cuts at foreign residents.

Preventing a Political Gift for Nationalists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect blue‑collar interests were deeply disingenuous, as later healthcare reductions and tax breaks for the wealthy underlined. But without a convincing progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they worked on the election circuit. Without a fundamental change in fiscal policy, societal agreements across the continent risk being torn apart. Governments must steer clear of giving this electoral boon to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.