Countering Europe's Populist Movements: Protecting the Less Well-Off from the Forces of Change

Over a twelve months after the election that delivered Donald Trump a clear-cut return victory, the Democratic party has yet to issued its election autopsy. However, last week, an influential progressive lobby group released its own. The Harris campaign, its writers argued, failed to connect with core constituencies 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 uppermost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for Europe

While Europe prepares for a turbulent era of politics from now until 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 “patriotic” parties in Europe will soon mirror Mr Trump’s success. In the EU’s Franco-German engine room, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) and Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) lead the polls, backed by significant segments of blue-collar voters. Yet among establishment politicians and parties, it is hard to discern a response that is sufficient to challenging times.

Era-Defining Problems and Costly Solutions

The issues Europe faces are expensive and historic. They include the war in Ukraine, maintaining the momentum of the green transition, dealing with demographic change and building economies that are more resilient to pressure by Mr Trump and China. According to a European research institute, the new age of geopolitical insecurity could require an additional €250bn in yearly EU defence spending. A major report last year on European economic competitiveness called for massive investment in shared infrastructure, to be partly funded by jointly held EU debt.

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

But, at both the pan-European and national levels, there remains 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 profoundly timid. In France, the idea of a wealth tax is overwhelmingly popular with voters. But the embattled centrist government – while desperate to cut its budget deficit – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Price of Political Paralysis

The truth is that in the absence of such measures, the less affluent will bear the brunt of financial adjustment through austerity budgets and increased inequality. Bitter recent disputes over retirement reforms in both France and Germany testify to a growing battle over the future of the European social model – a trend that the RN and the AfD have eagerly leveraged 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.

Avoiding a Political Gift for Nationalists

Across the Atlantic, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were largely insincere, as later healthcare reductions and fiscal benefits for the wealthy underlined. But in the absence of a compelling progressive alternative from the Harris campaign, they worked on the election circuit. Absent a radical shift in fiscal policy, social contracts across the continent risk being torn apart. Policymakers must steer clear of handing this electoral boon to the Trumpian forces already on the rise in Europe.