Sir, – In reviewing the results of the US election, Justine McCarthy seems to see confirmation of her belief that the preference is for “anyone but a woman” (“Thanks a bunch, America. Love, women everywhere”, Opinion & Analysis, November 8th). I’m not sure the viewpoint is justified. The approach of the Democratic Party appears to be to run candidates whom the public doesn’t like much and then infer, when they go on to lose, that the electorate are prejudiced against some characteristic of the person. It is a circular logic which ultimately portrays the ordinary person as bigoted. At present a quarter of the senators in the US are women, so if such prejudice exists, it is not insurmountable. I’m not sure what the balance of the total field of candidates was which would provide the comparator data to see if gender influenced voting patterns strongly.
One wonders if the Democrats might try identifying via competition some politically minded, popular individuals, as evidenced by comfortably winning an election somewhere – while placing an emphasis on the ability to speak to crowds. This skill tends to come up in political life. Ideally though they might toy with the idea of finding the best candidate and running them, and ignore their gender, skin tone, shoe size or other characteristics. I’m trying to think of a term for such an approach. Some combination of words like employment, opportunity and equal might cover the concept. Conversely though, to follow through on Justine McCarthy’s view, if the electorate will elect only people of certain characteristics, then the parties should stop running candidates who lack them. It is pointless and a waste of enormous resources. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN O’BRIEN,
Kinsale,
Mick Wallace’s son a chip off the old block when it comes to Italian restaurants
Love and the housing crisis: Living together because the rent is too high
Tori Amos on Neil Gaiman, sexism and trauma: ‘I’m sure that I have met men who treat me differently’
Joan Baez: Do I ever hear from Bob Dylan? ‘Not a word’
Co Cork.
Sir, – Justine McCarthy suggests that a woman fleeing Afghanistan would now think twice before selecting the US because Donald Trump won the election. Your columnist cannot be unaware of the horrific conditions women in Afghanistan are living under – no access to education or work, total body and face coverings and recent laws passed to prevent them from even speaking to each other in public.
She would do well to highlight their plight instead of weaponising them to make a dig at Donald Trump.
While no fan of Donald Trump myself, I can see why he has won. The Democrats, much like the Government here, have lost touch with normal people. Every time we raise the issues that concern us, we are vilified rather than listened to.
If anything, the Democrats handed him the presidency and should reflect on their own behaviour. – Yours, etc,
SARAH HOLMES,
Newcastle,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – While Justine McCarthy’s article contains a lot of harsh truths, it is also based on the premise that half of America’s voting population is sexist. Accusing 70 million-plus men and women of sexism because of an assumed understanding of their voting mindset comes across as both derogatory and elitist. Further, using the daily hell that is reality for women trying to live under the Taliban as a forewarning of what the US will become is callous and glib.
We don’t know the American rationale for returning this particular candidate to office, but the numbers suggest understanding why, instead of name-calling, might deliver better results next time. – Is mise,
DARA O’DONNELL,
Dublin 8.
Sir, – Justine McCarthy misses the point. The United States is a very centred country. It veers slightly back and forth between right and left, but mostly stays in the middle. For this US election, the media seemed to pit one personality against another. What Americans began to see were laws not being enforced, and a loss of control over daily lives.
Cherished institutions and loyalties were being abandoned. I think they said, “Enough is enough.”
The American people are still in their same place; it is the Democrats that lurched left.
To give credit to Kamala Harris, she performed as well as she could have and worked extremely hard. Her electoral college outcome was substantial.
But she could never distance herself from the four years she supported Joe Biden.
And the US wasn’t doing well. For many Americans, the ideas promoted by the Democrats worked against them.
The elites were out of touch with the daily lives of ordinary American people.
The Americans voted and that, simply, is what happened. – Yours, etc,
KATHLEEN KELLEHER,
Greystones,
Co Wicklow.
A chara, – As we enter into a depressing era of déjà vu when it comes to US politics, Ireland’s dependence on the US forces us to think of the ways in which we will have to ethically and economically compromise over the next four years.
We cannot pretend to act surprised or ignore the fact that, irrespective of who is in the White House, we have worked our way into an extremely precarious and morally suspect position. In recent months alone, we have seen how difficult it is to disentangle ourselves from the US influence, even when it comes to our collective revulsion at what is happening in Gaza. The Occupied Territories Bill remains unpassed, despite its almost unanimous support publicly and in the Houses of Oireachtas. The US military still uses Shannon Airport, despite our efforts at maintaining military non-alignment.
At the same time, the fragility of our economic dependence on the US has become all too evident this year: from a clear reluctance on the part of our outgoing Government to accept billions of taxes owed by Apple, to the inability to limit excess flights at Dublin airport, despite the grave environmental implications, and the over-reliance on US tourism. The debate on “closer to Boston than Berlin” has existed in Ireland for many years but no one seems to be able to approach it now. Of course, Ireland needs consistently good relations with the US, economically and otherwise, but we have seen the calamitous results of an over-dependence on one source or sector of economy very recently in this country. As we head into an election, is there any party that is offering to nudge the Sword of Damocles even slightly away from our own neck? – Is mise,
TIM SHEEHAN,
Dublin 8.
A chara, – Having read your coverage of the US election, in particular the opinion pieces, am I to conclude that 51 per cent of Americans are fascists, 45 per cent of American women are misogynists and 42 per cent of US Latinos are racists? – Is mise,
DAVE SLATER,
Kilkea,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – I do not like Donald Trump. I do not like his lies, his misogyny and his insults.
Mr Trump may have won but in reality it was an own-goal by the Democrats that won him the match. – Yours, etc,
TOMMY RODDY,
Ballybane,
Co Galway.
Sir, – As one who has been involved heavily in Democratic Party politics in the US since 1968, I would rate the Harris campaign for president in 2024 an “F”. – Yours, etc,
VINCENT J LAVERY,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – If Mr Trump delivers on some of his key campaign commitments, specifically the possible ending of the ongoing leadership role of the US in Nato, while maintaining his oft-declared admiration for hardline autocrats such as Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán and Xi Jinping, Europe will be left in a very precarious position. It is very late in the day for both the EU and Nato to address this situation but it must do so now at whatever cost. Any future reliance on US support under a Trump administration, in the increasingly likely event of a more widespread conflict in Europe, would be pure folly. – Yours, etc,
GERRY PRIZEMAN,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – Significant gaps in economic wellbeing within a population have drastic consequences for society, and we have already seen the evidence in Brexit and Donald Trump’s return.
Time to rein in the billionaires and share the loot or expect more geopolitical earthquakes. – Yours, etc,
AILBHE MURRAY,
Dublin 18.