Uninspiring choice for American voters

Thanks for an excellent article by Troy Bramston (“Harris uninspiring, but Trump presidency a threat to America”, 22/10). A second Donald Trump presidency would be far more dangerous to the world than the first one. It reminds me of the ending of the poem “The Second Coming”, by famous Irish poet William Butler Yeats:

“And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, / Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”

Bob Cowley, Broadview, SA

Troy Bramston has systematically listed many reasons why US citizens should not vote for either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. However, despite Bramston’s view to the contrary, the American people know what they are getting with Trump whereas with Harris, she sways from one opinion to the next depending on the audience she is speaking to. Harris may be a former prosecutor but she is only capable of asking questions, not answering them. The world didn’t collapse when Trump was last president. Indeed, with Joe Biden and Harris as President and Vice-President, the free world has endured the Russia-Ukraine and Middle East wars. Also Russia, China, North Korea and Iran have formed closer military and geopolitical ties.

Trump may be an awful person but the formal separation of powers between the judiciary, the congress and the executive under the US constitution will ensure American democracy is not under threat from a second Trump presidency.

Riley Brown, Bondi Beach, NSW

PM allows foreign hatreds to flourish here

Since the Hamas slaughter of innocent Jews in October 2023, Australia has been subjected to many disturbing protests by Palestinian supporters who have brought their hatreds from overseas to our shores and are trying to hold our fellow Australians of the Jewish faith accountable for whatever happens in the Middle East. When granted citizenship these protesters, or their forebears, pledged their loyalty to Australia and its people, and further pledged to respect the rights and liberties of their fellow Australians, and obey Australian laws including hate laws.

However, due to weak leadership from our PM and his senior cabinet ministers, along with our state premiers and university vice-chancellors, anti-Semitic protesters have been emboldened in their abusive and intimidatory behaviour towards one section of our population. Such disgraceful behaviour has made many people, myself included, ashamed to be Australian for the first time in their lives.

The primary role of our Prime Minister, above all others, is to ensure unity of our nation, to stand up for all Australians and not allow any group to threaten or intimidate other Australians. By allowing sectarianism to flourish PM Albanese has allowed societal divisions to dangerously widen and as a nation we are poorer for this failure of leadership. For standing by and allowing foreign hatreds to be brought to our shores, perhaps for base political reasons, PM Albanese and his colleagues should be condemned.

Brian Barker, Bulimba, Qld

Restoring institutions

It is interesting to reflect on Sir Niall Ferguson’s remark that the goal of the Australians for Responsible Citizenship Conference is to build a network of like-minded people concerned about the state of our society, upon twin aphorisms (“West asleep at wheel on extremist surge”, 22/10). The first by Heraclitus, the world is in a constant state of flux; the second by Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Though seemingly at odds, both epigrams are true, as is exemplified by the ARC, which brings together thinkers concerned with restoring belief in our core values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and trust in the institutions that defend these values (“Call to action to break the stifling political system”, 22/10).

That is a tall order, especially as this depends not only on effective public education and support but also on recognition of the relationship between increased public service and growing debt burden. Lincoln recognised the need for government to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they cannot, by individual effort, do at all or do so well. That implies subsidised help within affordable limits, though affordability seems of little concern to government these days. For instance, universal childcare (“Universal childcare just another bluff”, 22/10) where the projected changes provide a disproportionate share of increased support to families in the top 25 per cent of income distribution.

That makes it politically expensive, unfair and ultimately ineffective. So the bottom line is not just restoring traditional values and institutions, but also a careful consideration and audit of our ability to maintain existing services and provide new ones. That must take into account our fiscal ability to do so. The bulk of taxpayers ought to be included in that discussion as they will ultimately bear the burden.

Ian Dunlop, Hawks Nest, NSW