Letter of the week: Why Trump won the workers

Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk to have your thoughts voiced in the New Statesman magazine.

Photo by Niall McDiarmid/Millennium Images

Had Kamala Harris, rather than tout plaudits from Goldman Sachs, “articulated the populist elements” of Joe Biden’s vision (Cover Story, “Why Kamala Harris’s gambit failed”, 6 November), it’s still unlikely it would have won her the election.

The policies of Democrat presidents started to drive working-class voters away as far back as 1976 when Jimmy Carter deregulated the trucking industry, eroding truckers’ wages and the Teamsters Union. Bill Clinton gutted welfare and passed the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), which further undermined US unions. And Elon Musk was able to give $1m handouts to people voting for Trump because of the success of Tesla. Biden’s public aspirations to improve the lot of workers largely remains unrealised. No minimum wage increase and further lack of union support. By failing to defend unions, bulwarks against inequality, Democrat presidents have driven working-class voters away, and eventually into Trump’s arms.

David Murray, Wallington, London

America’s woman problem

In “The great American rupture” (Leader, 8 November), Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign is described as “vacuous”. What’s not vacuous about Trump’s fascination with Arnold Palmer’s private parts? This speaks to Michelle Obama’s claim that the two candidates were held to different standards. Harris managed extremely well with the hand she was dealt. And it’s debatable that any Democratic candidate could have pushed back against the appeal of Trump’s poisonous Kool-Aid for a substantial part of the US electorate. To my mind, this smacks of an unwitting sexism. The question is often asked: why can’t the US elect a woman president? There’s your answer.
Craig Thaine, Auckland, New Zealand

First on the list

Your editorial (Leader, 8 November) is right: we are entering a new era of economic protectionism. Labour’s growth fantasies would be undermined by Trump tariffs, which would dash any hope of substantial exports and foreign investment. Yet Labour is lucky compared with counterparts such as Germany and France. It must enact policies giving voters hope of increased economic security; redefine “growth” as the increase in economic activity directed towards rebuilding public services and turbocharging a green transition; and show how this can happen in every constituency.
Colin Hines, Twickenham

In all fairness

In the US election, a roughly 50:50 popular vote is described as a landslide and the winner takes all: just like Brexit. If we valued fairness, peace and unity, the referendum would have led to a soft compromise, and the US election to a Trump-Harris coalition. But we don’t, preferring (pace Wilfred Owen) to trek from progress.
Mark Blatchly, Felixstowe, Suffolk

Developing hazards

Andrew Marr (Politics, 8 November) is right to identify building as a major battle. But by pointing to planning as a bureaucratic problem to be eliminated rather than a positive force for shaping the future, the government will harden the battle lines between developers and the public. Unless Labour thinks harder about what planning is for, and supports it positively with local communities to create and enhance rural towns and villages, it will encourage developers to build houses in green fields.

This will provoke refusals by local planning authorities, only to be overturned by appeal. Outrage will follow. And little of this will help people who cannot afford current house prices to get on the ladder because developers will still be able to control the pace of building. In other words, same old story.
Trevor Cherrett, Chair, Wiltshire Community Land Trust

Pylon: the pressure

When I see pylons, to quote the Climate Change Committee chief executive Emma Pinchbeck (Spotlight, 8 November), I see enormous harm. I see the 700-year-old oak tree among millions of trees and hedges that will be chopped down. I see the farmers, business owners and homeowners whose lives will be ruined. I see the future bird strikes into the power lines. Our analysis found that in one incident alone in Kent, 177 swans flew into power lines and perished. When I see pylons, I see the landscapes painted by Gainsborough, Munnings and Constable desecrated.

And worse, I see the short-sightedness and tin-eared nature of those making decisions. I see brilliant and popular alternatives overlooked; upgrading the existing grid to double or treble capacity; undergrounding of cables using new, cheap and less harmful high-voltage direct current (HVDC) technology, and integration offshore, which reduces infrastructure, costs and harms. Ms Pinchbeck must wake up to alternatives. She owes it to communities, consumers, and ultimately to the environment.
Rosie Pearson, Essex Suffolk Norfolk Pylons Action Group

Streeting’s strategy?

Severely adverse effects of the Budget on NHS primary care services are seen as a government “miscalculation” (Health Matters, 8 November). But what of the huge donations Wes Streeting has accepted from private healthcare companies and the appointment to senior NHS positions of politicians specialising in privatising healthcare? Is the plan to break the NHS so that voters turn to private healthcare, paving the way for US-style health services?
Prof Priscilla Alderson, UCL

Never mind the Magas

Regarding Freddie Hayward’s article (Encounter, 8 November), older readers of a more punky persuasion may remember the late and great Pete Shelley from Buzzcocks advising us that: “Sooner or later, you’re gonna listen to Ralph Nader” (from the song “Fast Cars” from 1978). Perhaps in a few years’ time Trump voters will be asking: “Ever Fallen in Love” – with someone you shouldn’t have?
Adam Perry, Reading

Send your letters to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters

[See also: The fall of Justin Welby]