Donald Trump’s agenda
A chara, – It seems clear that those who decided when voting for Donald Trump to take him “seriously, but not literally” were gravely wrong. Since his inauguration, he has pressed on with his controversial agenda, cutting access to healthcare, dismissing environmental concerns and taking an extremist, hardline position on national security. It seems clear that the wall will be built, and that immigration from Muslim countries will be suspended. “America First!” is his slogan.
In light of this mantra, what is the point of the annual St Patrick’s Day event in Washington. where the US president is presented with a bowl of shamrock? Will its only purpose be to demean and embarrass Ireland in front of the world, making us seem sycophantic to any US president, disregarding our values? Do we really believe that Mr Trump will hesitate in imposing tariffs on American companies that make their products overseas (pharmaceutical and technology companies based in Ireland) because of a bowl of shamrock?
One presumes he will obsess about the amount of shamrock in the bowl itself, comparing it to what his predecessors received, rather than the sentiment or relationship behind it. – Is mise,
Sir, – During his presidency, Barack Obama armed Saudi Arabia as it bombed civilians in Yemen, supported Israel as it attacked schools in Gaza, and provided critical assistance in the toppling of Gadafy in Libya, resulting in large scale destabilisation not only in north Africa, but also in Europe. Yet despite this, and in stark contrast to the recent mass anti-Trump protests, western liberals have not only failed to condemn Mr Obama, but have fawned over him. Is the lesson from the last eight years that if one wishes to engage in reckless aggression overseas, you had better register as a Democrat? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – When the new US president trumpets the size of the attendance at his inauguration, and his press secretary spices up the number and maligns the media, then the whole shoddy schoolboy charade is nothing short of pathetic. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I can see the point that Kathy Sheridan is making when she supports what she calls the “solidarity and catharsis” of the recent and widespread anti-Trump marches by women (“Donald Trump brings out the best in women”, Opinion & Analysis, January 25th).
However, we should all remember that voting is a much more efficient method of making your point than marching.
Representative democracy would be more efficient and indeed more representative if the talents, perspectives and interests of the majority of the population that are women were not marginalised in most parliaments of the world.
In the recent US presidential election there was a choice between the highly competent and very experienced woman candidate that is Hillary Clinton and the neo-totalitarian misogynist that is Donald Trump for the post of the most powerful politician in the world.
The fact that the neo-totalitarian misogynist that is Donald Trump was supported by more than 50 per cent of white women in the US is an obscenity.
No amount of marching is going to change that fact or protect all of us, including women, from the consequences of what Kathy Sheridan calls the “evolving horror show”. – Yours, etc,