Nikki Fuller, 56, sets up flags on her truck near the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla. of president-elect Donald Trump on Nov. 11Julia Demaree Nikhinson/The Associated Press
America abroad
Re “U.S. support for Ukraine may be in peril under a Trump presidency” (Nov. 7): “The American people want sovereignty protected here in America before we spend our funds and resources protecting the sovereignty of another nation,” said U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Franklin D. Roosevelt understood that protecting the sovereignty of “other nations,” especially nations facing existential threats from authoritarian states, is the first step in protecting the sovereignty of the United States. Unfortunately for America and the world today, that type of leadership did not win the U.S. election.
Walter Daschko Toronto
Postmortem
Re “By channeling comedy, the Republicans have the last laugh” (Nov. 11): In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election, I again hear talk of the problem being out-of-touch “elites,” here defined as those who “dominate America’s universities, media organizations, publishing houses, museums, foundations, and NGOs.”
But Trump supporters don’t call those on Fox News “media elites,” nor influential right-wing radio and online political commentators such as Joe Rogan, whose podcast boasts more than 17 million subscribers. Those media entities have far more influence than those few working in museums and non-governmental organizations.
No, “elite” seems merely a strategic term to cast aspersions on those who do not share the views of the right. Often, it seems to merely point to the educated. It carries just the right amount of negative connotation, while leaving all sorts of room to include or exclude just whom one wants.
It is a political power tool, and a dangerous one to buy into.
Sascha Maicher Ottawa
Re “Don’t tell me” (Letters, Nov. 8): A letter-writer notes that most Americans “voted with their pocketbooks.” As an economist, I find this disturbing.
We expect democracy to work in part because people are reasonably well-informed in what they “feel.” The evidence is that most Americans have higher real incomes now under Joe Biden than they did under Donald Trump.
Surely some broader community concerns still exist. Climate change, perhaps, as wildfires rage in California and two massive hurricanes recently ravaged the southeastern U.S.
If pocketbook issues do matter, are they so shallowly based that they rely on a hazy recall of how one felt six years ago? Presumably, some Trump voters were thinking: “He’s going to impose tax hikes that will kickstart a new bout of inflation and generate an international trade war leading to a global recession. Sounds good to me.”
Let’s hope we can expect more from Canadian voters.
Alan MacFadyen Canmore, Alta.
How’s business?
Re “Canada reacts to Trump’s victory as Trudeau pledges collaboration” (Nov. 7): I have noticed a sudden and distinct uptick in Canadian businesses contemplating moving parts of their operations to the United States to try to blunt the impact of anticipated tariffs imposed by Donald Trump.
Can anyone explain how this squares with Chrystia Freeland’s assertion that “Canada will be absolutely fine?”
Barbara Yaffe Vancouver
Re “The promise and peril of Canada’s U.S.-centric trade strategy under a new Trump administration” (Report on Business, Nov. 9): There is speculation and trepidation over how the Trump regime will hurt trade between our two countries. We need not fret: We can do that all by ourselves.
The ports of Montreal and Vancouver have been shuttered, and Canada has delayed billions of dollars in trade. Trade may still occur – through U.S. ports and with U.S. railways and trucks. To top it all off, Canada Post may also be on strike.
I think it is the wrong time for labour to be tough on its employers. When the smoke clears, there may be a huge reduction in employment.
When we lose shipping customers they may not return, at least not right away and maybe never. Farmers would also suffer, if grain terminals are full and they have to store commodities at the farm gate.
Donald Trump wouldn’t be at fault for hurting our economy. It would be self-inflicted.
Peter Kaufmann Winnipeg
Burn away
Re “How Ottawa’s proposed emissions cap could have an impact on oil production costs” (Report on Business, Nov. 11): Many fossil fuel executives’ complaints about the emissions cap can be flipped to positives.
“It would ultimately impose a ceiling on production” – exactly what meeting the Paris Agreement targets requires. Solar and wind power are healthier, faster, fairer, cleaner, more abundant, more efficient and cheaper. Customers would gain.
“Limit infrastructure buildouts” – saving companies the cost of stranded assets as fossil fuel use decreases.
“Slowing the coal-to-gas switch” – natural gas emits methane. Its reduction and elimination in favour of renewables should be a priority. It would provide bang for the buck, and more breathing space for reducing carbon.
Since the Paris Agreement, fossil fuel companies have increased emissions and profit while the low-emitting Global South has suffered horrendous climate-related damage and deaths. An emissions cap should be essential for a healthy planet – and fossil fuel CEOs.
Elizabeth Snell Guelph, Ont.
Re “Naturally” (Letters, Nov. 12): The president and CEO of the Canadian Gas Association maintains that natural gas is an acceptable trade-off for environmental concerns about its use. He maintains that Canadians “don’t want politicians taking this energy choice away.”
I’m assuming he also read that “global solar capacity hits record two terawatts on path to climate goal: data” (Report on Business, Nov. 8). And hopefully he’s aware of “what Canadian provinces can learn from the Texas energy experience” (Online, Oct. 31), comparing how renewable energy is faring in Texas (very well) versus Alberta (not so well).
It won’t be politicians who “take away” fossil fuel-fired power generation. The marketplace seems to be taking care of this, as it should.
Chris Gates Cobourg, Ont.
Whose values?
Re “Danielle Smith is affirmed as the most unapologetic conservative leader in Canada” (Nov. 8): In the Saskatchewan provincial election in October, the NDP won every seat in Regina and all but one seat in Saskatoon – yet the right-wing Saskatchewan Party won a legislative majority due to rural ridings.
In Alberta’s last provincial election, the NDP won every seat in Edmonton and the majority of seats in Calgary – yet the right-wing United Conservative Party also won a legislative majority due to rural ridings.
Right-wing parties in Saskatchewan and Alberta do not represent the vast majority of urban-dwelling Canadians, but instead represent a Canadian minority of rural and small-town voters, many of whom seem to be anti-vaccine, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-government and anti-education.
Such people do not align with the values of the majority of Canadians.
Mike Priaro Calgary
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com