🔗 Share this article

More than a year following the election that handed Donald Trump a decisive comeback victory, the Democratic party has still not issued its election autopsy. However, recently, an prominent progressive lobby group released its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its authors argued, did not resonate with core constituencies because it did not focus enough on addressing basic economic anxieties. By prioritising the menace to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, progressives overlooked the bread-and-butter issues that were foremost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for European Capitals

While Europe prepares for a tumultuous period of politics between now and the end of the decade, that is a lesson that needs to be fully absorbed in European capitals. The White House, as its recently published national security strategy indicates, is hopeful that “patriotic” parties in Europe will soon mirror Mr Trump’s success. Within Europe's core nations, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) lead the polls, supported by significant segments of blue-collar voters. But among mainstream leaders and parties, it is difficult to see a response that is sufficient to challenging times.

Era-Defining Problems and Expensive Solutions

The challenges Europe faces are expensive and historic. They encompass the war in Ukraine, sustaining the momentum of the green transition, addressing demographic change and building economies that are less vulnerable to pressure 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 study last year on European economic competitiveness called for massive investment in public goods, to be partly funded by jointly held EU debt.

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

But, at both the EU-wide and national levels, there remains 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 deeply unambitious. 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 Cost of Inaction

The truth is that without such measures, the less well-off will bear the brunt of financial adjustment through spending cuts and greater inequality. Acrimonious recent disputes over pension cutbacks in both France and Germany testify to a growing battle over the future of the European social model – a phenomenon that the RN and the AfD have happily exploited 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 non-French nationals.

Avoiding a Strategic Advantage for Nationalists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as subsequent Medicaid cuts and fiscal benefits for the wealthy demonstrated. Yet without a convincing progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the election circuit. Without a fundamental change in economic approach, social contracts across the continent risk being torn apart. Policymakers must avoid handing this political gift to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.