🔗 Share this article

Over a twelve months after the election that handed Donald Trump a decisive return victory, the Democratic party has still not issued its postmortem analysis. But, recently, an prominent progressive lobby group released its own. The Harris campaign, its writers contended, failed to connect with core constituencies because it did not focus enough on tackling everyday financial worries. By prioritising the menace to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, progressives neglected the bread-and-butter issues that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Warning for European Capitals

While Europe prepares 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 indicates, is hopeful that “patriotic” parties in Europe will soon replicate Mr Trump’s success. Within Europe's core nations, 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 Challenges and Expensive 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 bullying by Mr Trump and China. According to a Brussels-based thinktank, the new age of geopolitical insecurity could require an additional €250bn in annual EU defence spending. A major report last year on European economic competitiveness demanded substantial investment in shared infrastructure, to be financed in part by jointly held EU debt.

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

But, at both the pan-European and national levels, there continues to be a lack of boldness when it comes to revenue raising. The EU’s so-called “frugal” nations resist the idea of collective borrowing, and Brussels’ budget proposals for the next seven years are profoundly 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 – will not consider such a move.

The Price of Political Paralysis

The reality is that without such measures, the less affluent will pay the price of financial adjustment through spending cuts and increased inequality. Bitter recent disputes over retirement reforms in both France and Germany testify to a developing struggle over the future of the European social model – a trend that the RN and the AfD have happily exploited 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 focus any benefit cuts at non-French nationals.

Preventing a Political Gift for Populists

In the US, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as subsequent healthcare reductions and fiscal benefits for the wealthy demonstrated. But without a convincing progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the campaign trail. Absent a fundamental change in fiscal policy, societal agreements across the continent risk being torn apart. Policymakers must avoid handing this political gift to the Trumpian forces already on the rise in Europe.