Addressing Europe's National Populists: Shielding the Less Well-Off from the Winds of Change

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, last week, an prominent liberal advocacy organization published its own. Kamala Harris's campaign, its authors contended, did not resonate with key voter blocs because it failed to concentrate enough on tackling basic economic anxieties. In focusing on the threat 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

As the EU braces 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 Brussels, Paris and Berlin. The White House, as its recently published national security strategy indicates, is hopeful that “nationalist movements in Europe will soon 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 large swaths of working-class voters. Yet among mainstream leaders and parties, it is hard to discern a response that is sufficient to challenging times.

Era-Defining Challenges and Costly Solutions

The issues Europe faces are expensive and era-defining. They encompass the war in Ukraine, sustaining the momentum of the green transition, dealing with demographic change and building economies that are more resilient to bullying by Mr Trump and China. As per a European thinktank, the new age of global instability could require an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A major study last year on European economic competitiveness demanded massive investment in public goods, to be partly funded by jointly held EU debt.

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

However, at both the EU-wide and national levels, there remains a lack of boldness when it comes to generating funds. The EU’s so-called “budget hawks resist the idea of shared debt, and Brussels’ budget proposals 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 beleaguered centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – will not consider such a move.

The Cost of Political Paralysis

The reality is that in the absence of such measures, the less well-off will bear the brunt of fiscal tightening through spending cuts and increased inequality. Bitter recent conflicts over retirement reforms 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 stated that it would target any benefit cuts at foreign residents.

Avoiding a Political Gift for Nationalists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as subsequent healthcare reductions 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 radical shift in economic approach, social contracts across the continent risk being ripped up. Governments must avoid giving this electoral boon to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.