Trump must lead for an equitable and shared world order

As I reflect on President Donald Trump’s inauguration, I am struck by the unapologetic embrace of American exceptionalism and its implications for domestic policy and global diplomacy (“Trump rides new wave of cultural anti-elitism”, 22/1).

His rhetoric – marked by references to reclaiming dominance and prioritising US interests above all else – may resonate with a portion of the electorate, but it comes at a significant cost to America’s standing in the world.

Proposals such as acquiring Greenland, reclaiming the Panama Canal or imposing economic force on neighbouring countries such as Canada reveal a troubling sense of entitlement rooted in past victories and unchecked power. These ideas, which some may dismiss as hyperbolic or symbolic, reflect a deeper hubris – a belief that America alone is entitled to dictate the terms of global order.

This mindset, while emboldening to some, undermines the foundations of diplomacy and mutual respect.

True leadership is not about exerting dominance or redefining borders; it is about fostering co-operation and understanding. Yet the tone of the inaugural speech suggests a shift away from these ideals, favouring unilateral action over collaboration.

History teaches us that unchecked arrogance leads to isolation, resistance and, ultimately, decline. If the US continues down this path, it risks alienating allies and exacerbating global tensions.

The world deserves a US that leads with wisdom and humility, not one drunk on the notion of its own superiority.

President Trump has an opportunity to temper this vision of “America first” with the principles of fairness and partnership. To do otherwise is to jeopardise not only America’s moral standing but also the shared hope for a more equitable international order.

Patrick McGrath, Lenah Valley, Tas

President Donald Trump’s aim is to restore America’s strength and prosperity.

Two of Trump’s executive orders cancelled US membership in the World Health Organisation and the Paris Agreement. He will also revive manufacturing and enable the full use of the country’s mineral resources, acknowledging that plentiful energy is the key to progress.

Other countries will follow suit when they see they are being left behind. Will Australia be one of them? We can dream.

Julie Winzar, Palm Beach, Qld

Biden burst of pardons

The nonbelievers among the media would have you believe the whiff of Trump’s misdeeds was pervasive on inauguration day in the US.

However, I’m thinking the odour lingered longer over former president Joe Biden’s move to name members of his extended family and grant them immunity from potential future criminal charges.

Though this didn’t excite the inauguration day media and there was no corpse in the library, it certainly would have had Hercule Poirot sniffing the air.

Rosemary O’Brien, Ashfield, NSW

Climate message

Western nations are embracing the Trump vibe for a transition to realism on climate change and unachievable zero emissions goals. Down Under, however, the Coalition is timid about it and the Labor government has immediately chosen to “work around” it.

The reflexive workaround is a doubled-down search for like-minded US states also on the merry-go-round of ignoring evidence that current global warming mitigation strategies are colossally expensive failures undermining good governance.

Betty Cockman, Dongara, WA

Your editorial was correct to conclude that Australia must “avoid doing unnecessary self-harm” (“Trump’s new climate paradigm”, 22/1).

The irony is that any pulling back of the subsidised renewables juggernaut not only benefits economic growth but, in tandem with a possible application of nuclear power, the environment could also derive some substantial benefits.

Ron Hobba, Camberwell, Vic

Censorship made easy

The Australian Classification Board is modifying books, films and TV shows to reflect modern values (“Censorship one goosestep too far”, 21/1).

Censors may not have the time to watch the shows or read the books they invariably end up monstering, so I’d like to save their time by reassuring them:

● Gone With the Wind isn’t a one-sided attack on a renewable energy source.

● Pride and Prejudice is not a polemical work on intolerance against the LGBTQIA+ community.

● Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas is not a treatise on the capabilities and durability of nuclear-powered submarines.

● Madame Bovary is not an irreverent attack on IVF, infertility or women’s reproductive rights.

Roy Stall, Mount Claremont, WA