Countering Europe's Populist Movements: Protecting the Vulnerable from the Winds of Transformation

More than a year after the vote that delivered Donald Trump a clear-cut return victory, the Democratic party has still not released its election autopsy. However, recently, an influential liberal advocacy organization published its own. The Harris campaign, its writers argued, did not resonate with core constituencies because it did not focus enough on tackling basic economic anxieties. By prioritising the threat to democracy that Trumpist populism represented, progressives overlooked the bread-and-butter issues that were uppermost in many people’s minds.

A Lesson for Europe

As the EU braces for a tumultuous period of politics from now until the end of the decade, that is a message that must be fully understood in Brussels, Paris and Berlin. The White House, as its newly released national security strategy indicates, is optimistic that “patriotic” parties in Europe will quickly mirror Mr Trump’s success. Within Europe'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 working-class voters. But among establishment politicians and parties, it is difficult to see a response that is sufficient to challenging times.

Era-Defining Challenges and Costly Solutions

The issues Europe faces are expensive and historic. They include the war in Ukraine, maintaining the momentum of the green transition, addressing demographic change and developing economies that are more resilient to bullying by Mr Trump and China. According to a Brussels-based 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 financed in part by jointly held EU debt.

Such a fiscal paradigm shift would stimulate 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 revenue raising. The EU’s so-called “frugal” nations resist the idea of shared debt, and Brussels’ budget proposals for the next seven years are deeply unambitious. In France, the idea of a wealth tax is overwhelmingly popular with voters. Yet the embattled centrist government – though desperate to cut its budget deficit – refuses to contemplate such a move.

The Cost of Political Paralysis

The truth is that without such measures, the less affluent will bear the brunt of financial adjustment through austerity budgets and increased inequality. Acrimonious recent conflicts over retirement reforms 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 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 focus any benefit cuts at foreign residents.

Avoiding a Political Gift for Nationalists

In the US, Mr Trump’s promises to protect blue‑collar interests were deeply disingenuous, as later Medicaid cuts and fiscal benefits for the wealthy underlined. Yet in the absence of a compelling progressive counteroffer from the Harris campaign, they worked on the election circuit. Without a fundamental change in fiscal policy, societal agreements across the continent are in danger of being ripped up. Governments must steer clear of handing this electoral boon to the Trumpian forces already on the march in Europe.