Countering Europe's National Populists: Protecting the Less Well-Off from the Forces of Change

Over a year after the vote that delivered Donald Trump a clear-cut return 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 writers contended, failed to connect with core constituencies because it did not focus enough on addressing basic economic anxieties. By prioritising the menace to democracy that Maga authoritarianism represented, liberals neglected the kitchen-table concerns that were uppermost in many people’s minds.

A Warning 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 must be fully understood in European capitals. The White House, as its newly released national security strategy makes clear, is optimistic that “patriotic” parties in Europe will soon replicate Mr Trump’s success. In the EU’s Franco-German engine room, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) top the polls, backed by large swaths of working-class voters. Yet among mainstream leaders and parties, it is hard to discern a strategy that is adequate to troubling times.

Era-Defining Challenges and Expensive 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 developing economies that are more resilient to bullying by Mr Trump and China. As per a European research institute, the new age of global instability could require an additional €250bn in annual EU defence spending. A significant study last year on European economic competitiveness called for massive investment in public goods, to be financed in part by jointly held EU debt.

Such a economic transformation would boost growth figures that have flatlined 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 “frugal” nations oppose the idea of collective borrowing, and EU spending plans 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 beleaguered centrist government – while desperate to cut its budget deficit – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Price of Inaction

The truth is that in the absence of such measures, the less well-off will bear the brunt of fiscal tightening through austerity budgets and increased inequality. Acrimonious recent disputes over pension cutbacks 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 resisted moves to raise the retirement age and has said that it would target any benefit cuts at non-French nationals.

Preventing a Strategic Advantage for Nationalists

In the US, Mr Trump’s pledges to protect working-class interests were largely insincere, as subsequent healthcare reductions and fiscal benefits for the wealthy demonstrated. But without a compelling progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they proved effective on the campaign trail. Without a fundamental change in fiscal policy, social contracts across the continent are in danger of being torn apart. Governments must avoid giving this electoral boon to the populist movements already on the rise in Europe.