A ‘Liberal’ – neo or otherwise, as the term is used in Europe, is actually on the Right. European Liberals favour efficient government, free enterprise and deregulation. I should know.  I am one.

European Liberals are not Marxists, nor are we fans of Marcuse or Derrida.  Rather, we favour economic efficiency, government accountability – particularly with regard to public spending –  free enterprise, and, as is universal in Europe, basic social protections. So far so good – ‘Welfare’ apart, we would in the US likely be positioned to the right of the political spectrum.

Donald Trump, as seen from Europe, is aligned with the European alt-right rather than the mainstream.  Kamala Harris might have found a home on the right wing of a European Social Democratic party, or, perhaps more realistically, on the left wing of a Christian Democratic party.

The European alt-right is in general accord with deregulation, but on occasion looks askance at free trade.   It is not at all clear that Mr. Trump really understands how the European mainstream actually works.  Most European governments are coalitions of parties of varying ideological hues.  Deep State conspiracy theories do not hold sway.

No-one in Europe, across the political continuum, seriously questions provision of basic social protections, most notably in that area of US rightist obsession – provision of quality universal healthcare. And Americans, again notably those on the right – are usually surprised to learn – even incredulous – that European healthcare outcome metrics are better than those of the US. Many European healthcare systems actually feature combinations of public and private provision, subject to caveats re quality and accessibility.  Insurance companies do not dictate prices, for drugs or for treatment.

The European alt-right may hold that mainstream parties have lost focus on the concerns of ordinary people. There is indeed some electoral mileage in that.  But no-one is alleging that there are deep state conspiracies at work. Distressingly, against Europe’s fractious history, the European alt-right focus tends toward ethno-nationalism rather than economics.

As lauded by Mr. Trump, the European alt-right tends to be sceptical concerning coordinated policy-making between the member states of the European Union.  Rather ill-defined notions of national sovereignty are cited.  But that really flies in the face of economic reality.  A recent report produced under the leadership of Mario Draghi, late prime minister of Italy and late of the World Bank, sets out in rather stark terms the benefits of coordinated economic policy as set against the bleak prospect of partisan focus on imagined national interest. 

US productivity – GDP per capita – is ranked 12th in the world. (In truth it is probably positioned 11th – Ireland ranks above it by virtue of multinational taxation treatment.)  However, US wealth distribution is polarised when compared with that of other developed countries. GINI indices measure wealth distribution across populations.  The US GINI index is 39.8 (compare Germany 31.7, France 31.5), which positions the US in a range characteristic of third world countries, where 40+ is common.

Objective measurement has long since discredited the idea that cutting taxes for the wealthy stimulates economic growth by virtue of trickle down. But focusing tax cuts on higher earners is exactly what Mr. Trump did.  What actually stimulates growth is tax cutting at the mid-level, which encourages work and enterprise. Higher taxes on high earners would not damage the US economy. Lower taxes on mid-earners – a constituency that both US candidates of 2024 claimed to favour – would stimulate economic growth.

But at the moment, and thanks in part to Mr. Trump, the US features a very wealthy minority – the top 1% of households holds 31% of wealth, vs the bottom 50%, which holds 2.5%.

One might argue that there is a limit to which inequality can go before social unrest commences. The US may be hovering at that point now. Trump’s electorate senses economic disenfranchisement, in that the benefits of recent economic growth did not percolate downwards. As is common in febrile times, a Golden Era in the past is imagined. A core facet of Trump’s agenda is to claim that redress may be found in diminution of the role of the federal government, and concomitant reduction of staffing of the federal public administration. Thus, according to the narrative, will economic opportunities for individuals improve.

This is a tricky area, which engages issues of the US national narrative, and the ‘American Dream’ in particular.  There were periods in US history when social mobility was much greater than it is now, and certainly greater than was the case in Europe.  One common element of the national self-image is that any shoe-shine boy, by dint of hard work, can aspire to ownership of a railroad, and that the way that things are organised in the US uniquely facilitates this.  But it is questionable. 

The US emerged from WW2 as a shining City on the Hill, with a standard of living that was the envy of the rest of the benighted, war-torn world.  And all due credit should be afforded to US industrial genius for that.  But it might also be remembered that there was one key element, which, confidence-building of the New Deal aside, actually put paid to the Depression.  That was, of course, the massive government allocation of resources and financing to put the economy on a war footing, and the breakneck economic development that resulted. 

Government intervention is not all bad.  It took the rest of the world a long time to catch up with US economic performance.

Enda Hardiman is an Irish engineer and businessman who has worked extensively worldwide with multinational corporations, banks and governments.  hardiman@mail.com.