Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE ELECTORATE OF the United States has voted in tens of millions to return former President Donald Trump to the White House. This election was always going to be close but the realisation that their fellow citizens, their neighbours, friends and even family, have voted for a convicted felon who ran a campaign on division is a body blow for supporters of Kamala Harris. They are despondent, depressed and in disbelief.
The day before the election, there was a quiet, hopeful expectation that America was on the verge of making history, electing the first woman to the office of president.
Harris did not run on breaking the glass ceiling like Clinton did in 2016, but a woman in the Oval Office resonated with many of the voters I spoke to on the ground in Illinois and Indiana regardless. That hope has given way to a question; is it that any man is preferable to a woman? How deep-seated is misogyny in America?
There is no shortage of emotionally charged videos of women voting for Kamala Harris, but it wasn’t just about the symbolism of a woman holding the top job; it was the importance of protecting women’s rights.
Abortion rights were on the ballot in several states at the same time passing in Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Missouri, Colorado, New York and Maryland. In Nebraska a vote to further ratify the state’s 12-week abortion ban passed, in Florida efforts to amend abortion law are set to fail despite a projection of 57% in favour, 60 percent is required to pass.
Many women are scared, they know that women are at risk of being disproportionately impacted by a second Trump term with expectations that Republicans will bring forward a national abortion ban and other Project 25 – a far-right blueprint for deconstructing long-established norms, rights and governance in the US – aspirations including bans on contraception and access to IVF treatment. Instead of waking up to the first woman president, women face a potential erasure of their rights that will literally put their lives in danger.
Trump ran on ideology – we know how identity politics can resonate with an electorate that feels disconnected from the political system, Brexit being a prime example. His campaign benefited from inflation; the cost of goods and services are higher than they were four years ago – explaining that this is due in large part to global factors is not going to reach a disenfranchised voter.
The success of populism as a political vehicle is in its simplicity; all of your ills and problems can conveniently be attributed to one person or community. There is a slide towards populism in America today, and some analysts believe the environment is now ripe for dictatorship. The new president-elect has repeatedly heaped praise on authoritarian leaders, calling President Xi a “brilliant man”, Russia’s Vladimir Putin “very smart”, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un a “tough, smart guy”, and Hungary’s Viktor Orban “one of the strongest leaders anywhere in the world”.
This was another election that pitted American against American, the impact of which will continue to be felt within communities and families. People know the US is becoming more polarised – they feel that polarisation, but don’t know how to stop it.
Accepting that the Democrats have lost and that millions of voters sat out of this race will take a long time to sink in. An autopsy of what went wrong has already begun, but there isn’t only one smoking gun. There will be some who will seek to pin blame on those who voted for the 3rd party candidate in protest over Israel’s war in Gaza, but Jill Stein’s vote would not have changed the outcome.
At play here was the economy, immigration, ideology, misinformation and disinformation online, social media, Biden’s late drop-out which limited Harris’ campaign and Harris’ inability to distance herself from Biden’s administration, as well as sexism and racism.
Trump will take office with a Republican majority in the Senate, a conservative Supreme Court, and as we await results, an outside chance of a Republican House. He will have almost unchecked power, and fear is palpable among those who do not support him that he will action on some of his most alarming campaign pledges, including mass deportation and threats to prosecute and imprison political opponents.
This isn’t going to be the same as 2016; more moderate voices have long left the Trump camp and in their place, the American people will have shapeshifter JD Vance as vice-president and a cabinet that includes conspiracy theorist Robert F Kennedy Jr and the ego-driven, unpredictable billionaire, Elon Musk.
The landscape of America is shifting, and its seismic impact won’t only be felt in the United States but globally.
Emma DeSouza is a writer and campaigner. She is in Chicago for the US election results.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Not shocking anymore. Kind of half expect this sort of stuff now.
What is it with this man and “conflicts of interests” ?
Nothing to see here move along now !!
Ah lads , cronyism in ireland ? NEVER !!
Of course he denies a conflict of interest. When did you ever read, “Minister admits conflict of interest.”
O’Reilly would deny today is Friday. He cant even lay in bed straight at this stage.
From a guy who pushed two primary care sites in his own constituency up the list of potential sites…still waiting on the criteria you used Stroker!
Then what exactly is it then? Walks like a duck…etc
Welcome to Ireland,probably the most corrupt country in Europe
Hands up who is shocked or surprised by this. …….
Richie rodgers
We’ll get there stroke by stroke.
Reilly involved again no surprise there to be honest.
Shattergate mark2 ….Reilly on the inside track…….FG/Lab even more corrupt than FF, there is a scary reality…..Resign James you have your money made…..
How come the 20,000 commission was so low? The going rate for a report like this was 125,000 in 2011 and the Health Partnership is not a charity!
Women of Ireland, come together and let us al put a stop to this madness, I’d like to c a man in the full throws of labour, having to face a 2 hr car journey. On lovely pot-holed roads!!!
If he appointed someone from outside the area, the complaint would be that they didn’t understand the area.
If he appointed someone without the medical knowledge, the complaint would be that someone who didn’t understand medical provision was making the decisions
If he appoints someone from inside the area with the right medical background, the complaint is that there’s a conflict of interest.
I wish people would state who they think should be appointed, because almost every decision can have some line of attack.
Kinda sums up JR. Anyway after the reshuffle it will be someone else’s problem.
How many absolute effin’ outrages are we, as a nation, prepared to put up with? This Minister and his shady pals should be run out of the country, let alone sacked.
And deny being in denial
How come this commission was 6 times less than the going rate for the job? A bargain at 20,000! Such reports cost 125,000 in 2011.
The Journal got it wrong! The Health Partnership predates 2008! in March 2005 the company wrote to the Dept of Finance highlighting their role in private health care ventures in Ireland, UK, Portugal and Germany and suggesting tax incentives for private sector players in e.g. direct service provision, the supply of high tech equipment, patient and staff accommodation, primary care provision, nursing home care, etc. Even hospital traffic management got a look in. Hard to believe no one in the West/North-West hospital group knew of Mr Daly’s involvement with this high profile healthcare company.
Why would anyone be surprised with this ruling class carryon, and they wonder why people voted for the left
The main conflict of interest here is the fact tgat Noel Daly wrote to revenue in 2005 with what could be described as a bluepriting which would see private interests profiting from tge removal of public services. In that letter it mentions how the private sector could provide accomodation for people who due to clousure of public services would have to travek greater distances.
Over 6 years later tgis man is appointed chair of a hospital group. In the space of little over a year his company is given the task of reviewing maternitu in the same region. This report is said to recommend many clousures.
Given all this histiry I cannot see how this review can hold any authority. Or indeed how anyone in this countru could trust its recommendations.
In fact this review ihas been damaged beyond repair. Hiwever it should be made available to the public.
Luje Ming Flaagan spoje about concerns that gospital staff had about how tgis revuew was completed. Perhaps he should come back to this important debate in Irish healthcare before he leaves fir Europe.
Reilly people dont believe a word from your lying mouth!
have your say