World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This Washington Post analysis of the Republican tax bill gives an exceptional view of the bill's impact and provisions. This is the first major change to the tax laws since 1986. The size of the bill is $1.5 trillion, with the Joint Committe on Taxation projection that the bill will increase tax revenues over a decade by $500 billion, meaning that it will cost $1 trillion being added to the deficit. What the bill does: 1. It offers a permanent tax cut to corporations by reducing the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Industries benefiting the most are mining, real estate, technology, manufacturing. 2. The individual tax cuts expire in 2025. They are skewed to disproportionately help highest income Americans, much less lower income Americans and much more highest income Americans compared to high income Americans. In this sense it is skewed in a an unusual way to the highest earning Americans- a sort of Trump effect in place. The top 1% get a tax break of $51,140 in 2019, middle income people earning about $100,000 get about $1000 a year in 2019, tax payers earning around $50,000 about $380, and those earning less than $25,000 about $60 a year in 2019. Taxpayers earning about 150,000 get about $2000 a year tax cut. (Tax Policy Center) 3. The basic assumption is that tax cuts are revenue neutral if there is economic growth and most of that growth comes from corporations investing in growth. The problem as Greg Ip points out in the Wall Street Journal is that countries trying thsi approach in the past such as Britain have not seen such growth materialize. Corporate profits are the highest in 15 years as percentage of GDP, according to Vanguard founder Bogle, and are now 20% of GDP compared 11% in 1980. If corporations did not invest with this level of profits how much additional investment is going to happen, ask critics, especially as demand drives growth and wages are not boosted under this plan.  4.  Because the bill's changes to current law makes it likely that 13 million less Americans will be insured over a decade- from fewer people signing up for Medicaid and on exchanges for Affordable Care Act- it will hurt lower income Americans. Skewing at both ends of the income spectrum of this type is rare in American history particularly in the twentieth century after the Depression of the 1930's, and poses risks for social cohesion, making it unpopular with most Americans. A CBS News poll taken Dec 3-5 shows 53% of all Americans opposed, only 35% support the tax bill just passed in Congress.  5. Then why did Republicans do this? Republicans needed a legislative success after failure to repeal the Obama Affordable Care law. This pressure led to passage with Republicans probably aware that this is temporary tax reform requiring a real effort by both parties working together after the midterm elections in 2018 and as the presidential election approaches in 2019.    ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Chozick and Parker of the NYT show how Donald Trump's frequent sexist comments on women and references to Hillary Clinton in similiar terms are likely to influence the outcome of the general election of 2016. The women's vote has played a significant part in the recent elections of 2008 and 2012 helping Democratic candidate Obama. Trump has a astonishingly high disapproval rating with women, unprecedented in U.S. election history, cited by the WSJ as 75%. Cruz's choice of Carly Fiorina as a running mate shows an awareness of the importance of the women's vote. Some of the comments cited here include the Trump comment that "if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don't think she would get 5% of the vote." It is not clear if this will help the Republican party, as such comments could alienate the mass base of women voters, including the base of young women voters who supported Sanders, women who are independents and moderate Republican women. Hillary Clinton is carefully planning a fall campaign in which such Trump attacks are expected, and the response will be handled not directly by Hillary but by Super PAC's, as Hillary sticks to calling them sexist and energizing her base from the attacks. CBS polls show Trump has the support of 39 percent of white women, compared to 50% for Hillary Clinton. Trump's attacks on women are strangely enough targeted at getting the support of white women- and men - in another wild twist of the 2016 campaign....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
In September 2015 Jeb Bush's support in a WSJ/NBC poll drops to 7%. Walker drops out of the race. Trump and Carson are tied, and Rubio is the only elected official in double digits for the Republicans. Hillary Clinton's popularity declines following the email controversy.
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Hancock County, Iowa, is one of those rural counties in the American heartland that did not support Mr. Trump in 2016. This county now supports Trump by a large margin because they see his policies benefitting rural America, and see him as a way for the Republican party to be back in power to pursue a conservative agenda. WSJ reports from Hancock County in Iowa. The American voting system gives more importance to states with smaller populations in the Electoral College relative to larger states. States with large farming communities such as Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa play a larger role in elections in the US than population alone would suggest. John McCormick of the WSJ talks to farmers in this rural county in Iowa with a higher proportion of less educated voters than the rest of the counties in Iowa. One of five voters have a bachelors degree in Hancock County compared to one in three in Iowa as a whole and 38% nationally. The median age is 44 years compared to 39 years nationally and in Iowa. This part of rural Iowa is also in farmland that is many miles away from large cities and urban areas and more isolated and homogenous as 9 out of ten people are non-Hispanic and white. About a fourth of these voters are supporting his candidacy over Nikki Haley because they see it as more likely to win because of polls, even though Haley is according to the WSJ editorial opinion the stronger candidate for Republicans across the suburbs critical for 2024, which are slightly younger, more educated, and less isolated from the rest of the country. Biden and Obama are a sharp contrast when it comes to rural America. Where his own Agriculture secretary felt rural America was neglected by president Obama, Biden truly cares for rural America and has huge investments in rural America as part of the rural infrastructure effort. ...
The Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
What were the stories in the Economist magazine that were the most read stories of 2019? Not on president Trump. On Malaysia, China under Jinping, and exodus from San Francisco and Silicon Valley. The most read article was on the newly elected president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro. The mismanagement of the economy particularly extravagant state spending on the Olympics and soccer stadiums for the World Cup at the expense of basic sanitation services, bus and transport services, health services, led to the result of a majority of Brazilians rejecting the Workers Party and its leader former president Lula. Unfortunately most of the media including the Economist did not draw attention to this gap. During a period in which income from mining with export of iron ore, and soyabeans to China, enabled Brazil to live beyond its means, there was no effort to draw attention to glaring gaps in development of public services such as sanitation, bus services and transport, lack of building infrastructure other than to support mining. Glaring gaps in education and health services made the situation worse. The second most read piece in the Economist  was on March 10th- Malaysia's PM is about to steal an election. Here the Economist magazine joined the Wall Street Journal which originally broke the story on the 1MDB fund and irregularities in Malaysia where a development fund was misused by the government. Najib actually lost that election and the WSJ covered the story of the developments that followed in which Malaysia's new governemnt led by a returning former prime minister in his nineties Mahathir Mohammed, ousted his own protege Mr. Najib.  The third most read piece in the Economist magazine was - How the West got China Wrong.  Unfortunately the Economist magazine and most of the media covered China in the two decade long boom years without covering the other emerging story as well in which Mr. Lighthizer (now president Trump's top trade adviser) and others questioned the huge unsustainable trade surpluses in U.S. trade with China. With the economy facing huge downside risks and rising trade tensions with the U.S. Chinese president Jinping's move to remove the limit on terms in office in the Constitution was considered a shift from the notion that China was likely to turn into a democracy. Mr. Jinping had already completed his first term in office and the anti-corruption campaign, managing the economic boom for a soft landing, was carried out with the central leadership of the party, after the destabilization evident in the early part of Xi Jinping's first term. Much of China's path was predictable and rational behaviour in its national interest, what was not clearly defined or defended was the way the U.S. could sustain the trade deficits that had reached a billion dollars a day. Leading to Mr. Trump seizing on this as an election issue to form a bloc of voters separate from the two main parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. The fifth most read piece was on Oct 11, 2018- the next recession. It pointed out that with low interest rates central banks in the U.S. and Europe and America could not cope effectively with a recession. The sixth most read piece was on June 29, 2018- Bullshit jobs and the yoke of managerial feudalism. It cited Prof. David Graeber of the London School of Economics, who wrote a short essay that went viral on the prevalence of work that had no social or economic reason to exist, work he called "bullshit jobs". Graeber said people want to feel they are transforming the world around them in a way that is leading to a positive difference. No. 7, 8, 9, were on Bitcoin, Netflix and programming language Python. No. 10 most read was on Aug. 30, 2018- Why startups are leaving Silicon Valley. It showed that in 2017 more people left the county of San Francisco than entered. The main reason the cost of living was burdensome and out of control. As Amazon shifts attention to India and Brazil, and Apple pulls back from India, social media companies coming under fire for disinformation, this period of Tech is making way for a shift in a new direction. A direction that focuses on people's lives, wages, spending on much needed infrastructure and services. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mr. Moon Jae-in, South Korea's leader, emerges from this week of direct talks between president Trum and Kim Jong Un of North Korea, with many of his goals accomplished. During most of 2018 with threats and missile tests from the North relations with the U.S. had worsened, South Korea was left out in many developments relating to the Korean peninsula, and tensions had risen. After this weeks diplomacy in Singapore, the South Korean leader has reduced tensions, achieved the goal of direct talks between the U.S. and North Korea, and reduced tensions. Moon-Jae-in now has poplarity of 79% according to Gallup South Korea, and won in local elections. Even the cancellation of military exercizes by president Trump after the Kim meeting achieves a long standing goal of reducing tensions by moderating the exercizes- which are seen by North Korea as a threat. A Gallup poll shows 66% of South Koreans supporting the Kim- Trump talks. Conservatives in South Korea are still skeptical that this can last given past experience with North Korea. The consensus is still that reduction of tensions and dialogue is still the best way to resolve the disputes, with the added pressure of sanctions with China's active participation to make the effort work. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ points to Bernie Sanders 15% lead over Donald Trump in a Jan. 2016 WSJ/NBC poll- with Hillary Clinton having a 10 point lead- as proof that Sanders should be taken seriously. It says that electability of Sanders is no longer an issue, especially because the 2016 election is coming up with many surprises, including a changed election environment. Other possibilities raised in the editorial- the possibility that an independent like Bloomberg might run if Trump is nominated, further increasing the chance for Sanders to be elected president. By splitting the Republican party a Trump or Cruz nomination could also put the House in jeopardy for the Republicans, removing the House as a check if a Democrat is elected president.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
House rules of order from the U.S. House of Representatives would have as presiding officer at the Republican National Convention, Speaker Paul Ryan. Efforts to change this were pushed back at a RNC meeting in Florida. Trump's representatives Manafort and Ben Carson attempted to repair damaged relations between the Republican National Committee, its chairman Vince Preibus, and Trump, at that meeting. The Manafort argument was that Trump's flaws were of personality not character, which would be easier to fix than that facing Hillary Clinton, yet many RNC members were skeptical of this. A April 2016 WSJ/NBC poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Trump 50% to 39%, by 11 points- the surprising finding is that the poll also shows 56% of both candidates support comes from voters anxious to avoid the alternative candidate.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Seib points out why the current political landscape with the popularity of Trump and Sanders reflects demographic, economc and social changes in America compared to when Geroge H.W. Bush won the election in 1988 and Bill Clinton won in 1992. The Republican party is more populist, with older Americans, more Southern and conservative, making it harder for Jeb Bush or Wall Street backed candidates. The Democratic Party more liberal, more popular on both the east and west coast of the U.S., with younger Americans, diverse demographic groups, making it harder for Hillary Clinton as an establishment candidate. A Journal/NBC poll of Oct. 2015 shows 28% of Republicans describing their views as very conservative, and 26% of Democrats saying they are very liberal. Yet there is another aspect that will show up once the primaries are over. And this is the steady group of somewhat conservative and moderate combined in the Republican Party of 64%, and the steady group of somewhat liberal and moderate in the Democratic Party of 62% in the 2015 Journal/NBC poll. The moderates are up from 26% in the above 1990 poll to 31% in the 2015 poll for the Republican Party, and from 26% to 33% in the Democratic Party. So that one sees about a quarter of people polled in each party pushing for fringe views and a countervailing trend for moderate or close to moderate views with about two thirds support in the 2015 Journal/NBC poll for each party....
The Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This view in the Economist shows that president Trump actually represented the instincts of the Republican party base by 2018- anti-immigrant, anti-elitist, and to the right on social issues. As a result it says it is no surprise that he has taken over the Republican party. As the elections for Congress get closer most candidates are trying to get Trump's support and many of the older senators and Congressman from the earlier period of the party are retiring. It cites polls showing Trump has support of 85% of the Republican party base. In 2018 Mr. Trump appointed new members of his cabinet who more closely represented his views on China, Iran, NATO, and business issues. Remaining party leaders such as Mr. Romney running for Senate seat from Utah are now seeking and getting Trump's endorsement. The Republican National Committee is also run by Trump supporters. On issues of foreign affairs Trump has combined alternate shifts between demands and pragmatism in relations with China, Iran, and other countries on trade, politics, coming up with a new way international relations are tackled. Part of the reason for their appeal is the nature of the intractable problems such as the imbalances in trade, nuclear weapons, and the idea that an alternative approach might work when other approaches have failed.  On social issues such as issues facing workers in globalization and free trade the parties to the left in the U.S. and countries in western Europe have failed to deliver, leading to the appeal of Mr. Trump, Brexiters, National Front in France.  The immigration issue has also worked against the socialist parties.  In Britain dissatisfaction with Theresa May and hard core Brexiters is growing, leading to Labor Party getting 40% of the vote in the recent election. Suggesting that the changes induced by the Brexiters and the Trump administration may lead to other changes in the future that may shift the focus back to basic issues and delivery on infrastructure, health and education which are fundamental for the future.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
After the 2008 election of president Obama rural whites left the Democratic Party, Following the election of president Trump educated suburbanites left the Republican Party. These two trends have accelerated as seen in the 2018 U.S. Congressional elections. Democrats won in and around major cities, and Republicans won in rural and small town America. Democrats won 27 GOP Republican COngressional seats to win the majority. Republicans added 2 seats to their Senate majority.  The electorate is sharply divided in terms of education in a way that is regressive and not good for America, and in a way that has never happened before. Republicans share of of House districts with lowest shares of college education bachelors degrees increased from 44% in 1998 to 60% in 2018. Democrats share of House districts with the highest share of Bachelors degrees went up from 50% in 1998 to 81% in 2018. Much of the Democrats support from educated suburbanites comes from lopsided support from educated women. The result is that the Republican Party is trading faster growing counties for slower growing smaller counties and now has a base of older voters. The Democrats have to find a leader who can rally support from this new combination of educated suburbanites, younger voters, and minorities. And big issues are at stake. About 77% of people in recent polls now support a national health care insurance like than in the UK and Canada. Poor reading skills and reading comprehension in school tests show a need for greater investment  in education. Infrastructure investment is a big priority for a decade that has yet to be tackled directly. Of the 50 new Democrats in the House of Representatives 24 campaigned on a promise for a national health insurance like that in Canada or UK. The focus on economic issues would move the Democratic Party back to where it was in all the post war years till the distractions from cultural issues  in the last decade shifted its focus from its historical base support of working class voters. ...
NBC News Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This interview with Donald Trump by the publisher, editors and columnists of The Washington Post, Ryan Jr., Hiatt, Lane, Marcus, Diehl, Armai, Attiah, provides an exceptional insight into the views of Donald Trump on domestic and foreign policy, on his campaign for president. It is the result of an effort to get Trump to state his policies on different issues without the fuzziness in which Trump has carried out his campaign, often taking different sides of the same issue. In some situations Trump is pressed hard on his positions or controversial statements, to clarify what he has not clarified in the burst of media attention Trump received in the past 6 months, especially on television media. First some myths and realities. A recent March 19, 2016, issue of the Economist cites the Pew Trust in showing that only about 17% of eligible Republican voters voted in the primaries. A person watching television news media coverage on Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC, would get the impression that the voter turnout was tremendous- this is not confirmed by the Pew Trust survey. The Economist points out that had the other eligible voters cast their ballots and even if Trump had a share of these votes, the results might look different. With a highly fragmented vote in the Republican primaries, and about half of the vote going to candidates other than Trump, Trump's voter support would add up to about 8-9% of eligible Republican voters based on the Pew Survey results. The question here would be is this a representative sample of the U.S. or of the Republican Party. And is one likely to make false generalizations about the nature of the Republican party from such a limited sample of voter opinion. Is voter sentiment inadequately reflected, and results hopelessly skewed because of the lack of good candidates in the Republican Party, and Trump's tactical rhetoric appealing to a group of working class Americans left out in the technological progress of the last decade. In the process is the hard work of the founders of the Republic, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and the framers of the Constitution being undone by a minority of disaffected voters with legitimate grievances on distribution of economic benefits of the technological progress, trade and global manufacturing networks- with a level of divisive rhetoric and decline in levels of public debate rarely seen. These are the clarifications sought from Trump and his response. Attiah raises the question of divisive rhetoric on minorities Hispanics and Black people- Trump says he is only talking about people here illegally, that he gets support from Hispanics here legally. He turns the question to Muslims and says there is a serious problem there that means being careful about how people are being admitted into the U.S. Questions about Trump's controversial statements about a wall with Mexico are not raised. Ryan pushes hard on the question of the libel laws standard that Trump says he is going to change, asking whether this would happen if Trump thinks the reporting "is wrong" but there is no malice. Trump wants the reporting to be fair for him, that reporters call him to check if he did this or that and why, before writing stuff about him, and he sees the reporting from the Post as very bad about him. He says his lawyers would have to tell the media, that he believes he should loosen up the standards so that this kind of coverage does not continue. On ISIS Trump pulls back when asked by Diehl about statements that suggested he would send the number of troops the generals wanted on the ground- estimated at 20,000 to 30,000- saying he would find it very, very, difficult to do that. On a nuclear option for ISIS Trump says he does not favor that. Suggesting that Trump like the other candidates in the election know there are no easy ways to tackle ISIS. Trump would rely on other countries in the region for help with troops on the ground, something that president Obama also favors, with limited results. Diehl also pushes hard on NATO- Trump says hundreds of billions of dollars are going to NATO and the whole burden for defending South Korea falls on the U.S. when it is not now a rich country that it once was. Diehl corrects him by saying for the public record that its not hundreds of billions, and South Korea, Japan pay 50% of the cost for defending their region. Trump wants to see 100% for the Korean peninsula defense borne by the South Koreans and Japan. Trump seees NATO as a good concept but needing more help from Germany, Poland, Baltics. At one point the Washington Post journalists tell Trump this is a position he shares with president Obama. Trump responds to questions from Hiatt about how he would handle the situations in black communities such as Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland. Trump says he feels law enforcement is important and should play a big role in preventing the destruction of property from day one. He says jobs are what hurts inner cities but offers no solution about how to get the jobs lost in the steel industry for Baltimore, black neighborhoods sitting ironically next to the John Hopkins high technology university complex. Trump brings up the response that jobs could be created if the U.S. simply did not spend money on supporting nationbuilding overseas, a policy that president Obama has supported, and which the public has favored in the U.S. As Holman Jenkins brings up in a column on March 22, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal, these policies are being pursued today, and most of these jobs are not coming back so how would Trump bring them back or do anything about it, especially when Chinese workers in China's factories are being displaced by robotics in places such as Hon Hai factories. The more one thinks about it many of things Trump is saying are already being done, and there are no new solutions Mr. Trump has for today's problems of lack of upward mobility for the middle and working class- a priority for Sanders and Clinton also, not just for Trump. As a television personality and a candidate with a understanding of voter concerns, Trump artfully voices voter concerns of working class Americans for problems that defy easy solutions. Are there risks with Trump's approach that Trump has failed to think through or grasp? Does the unpredictable behaviour Trump suggests that would get allies thinking and trade partners responding lead to unpredictable consequences? Divisive rhetoric creates additional distractions in tackling the problems of the middle class and working class Americans. Divisive rhetoric within the NATO alliance would create additional distractions in tackling the problems of defending the European Union, such as using the very show of unpredictability. Diehl pushes Trump on this question. Would trade threats to China lead to a withdrawal from the Senkaku Islands by China? Trump says he thinks this would cause the Chinese to retreat . What if the Chinese see it differently, in their relations with Japan and South Korea, with a long difficult history, not necessarily in their relations with the U.S. Would a trade war hurt the global economy, and hurt confidence in U.S. fianncial markets just when the U.S. and European economies are staging a recovery, and when the economes of China, Japan and India are in a sensitive phase? These questions could not be raised because of time constraints, but must be on the minds of the editors of the Post and the WSJ, coming from different ends of the political spectrum. How would this help tackle the problem of upward mobility for working class Americans that all the candidates in the presidential election share? ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Peggy Noonan, former press spokesperson for president Reagan, says what the president does in private is as important as what happens in public- that the tweets by president Trump done in private have not helped in the first 100 days. She says attacks on the Freedom Caucus deepened divisions in the Republican party. The failure to shake German chancellor Merkel's hand was not a proper diplomatic move and shows lack of public respect for Germany with which America shares a common history. Her sense is that what counts today is a constructive mentality and keeping perspective for the long run, and in this respect the first 100 days are not encouraging, she says.

WSJ Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ after the New Hampshire primary, points out that the attacks by Republican candidates on each other instead of educating voters on Donald Trump, will only lead to them falling behind. During the Republican television debate the sharp exchange between Christie and Rubio hurt both candidates in New Hampshire. It says that one of Trump's important weakness is that one third of the voters who voted for Trump have reservations about him. Trump was also lagging behind in voter confidence in his ability to handle an international crisis. Ted Cruz was not able to win big with non evangelical voters in a state on the East coast, which would affect him as a Republican nominee in November 2016. It also points out that voter perceptions about Sanders are changing- voters may now see a "socialist" as electable, if Republicans can nominate a person with no serious credentials and a volatile temperament. Voters may also now see Clinton having electability problems of her own with the email controversy, and voter skepticism about her honesty and trustworthiness. The Democratic Party has shifted in the Obama years- with exit polls showing 7 of 10 Democrats in the New Hampshire primary saying they are liberals, and one fourth "very liberal." ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Nate Cohn of the NYT points out that based on the way in which moderate voters shifted to vote for Cruz in Wisconsin, especially in the eastern part of the state, this could be a turning point in the Cruz campaign. Cohn cites exit polls showing 29% of moderate voters went for Cruz in Wisconsin compared to 12% in Michigan and 15% in Illinois. In Madison's Dane County, a moderate area, Cruz had 38% of the vote. If this proves to be resilient then Trump could become the underdog in California, Indiana, Maryland, and Montana, with Pennsylvania becoming competitive, says Cohn. Reasons why this shift of moderate voters to Cruz could be a lasting shift are the results on March 15, 2016, with Cruz getting 40% of the vote in Missouri, and 30 percent in Illinois.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Among women 18-29 less than 30 percent say their career or education has been hurt by sexism or child-care needs. The figures move higher with age. This is one of the reasons that Hillary Clinton draws more votes from older women than younger women. This is one of the insights from analysis of polling questions in a University of Massachusetts poll before the Massachusetts primary in Feb. 2016. Another insight from this article in the WP is that it also shows younger women think deeply about the issues. In a general election with Trump as the nomnee these women supporting Sanders are likely to vote for Clinton because of being alienated by the sexist comments of Trump. It helps that younger women are thinking deeply about the issues when so much is at stake in this election.
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Steve Bannon is described in this indepth report by Scott Shane as a workaholic, born to working class family with his father a telephone line operator, who went to Virginia Tech and joined the Navy in the hope of advancing a career in politics. At Virginia Tech he won a leadership position of the student organization. He was described by another student who knew him well as passionate but not likely to get much done. The period at Virginia Tech and in the Navy were the Carter years followed by election of Ronald Reagan. The election of Reagan had a huge influence on Bannon- the same overtones of that campaign of Reagan are seen today in the forgotten men and women, white working class families that Conservatives then and Tea Party Conservatives in the Obama years felt ignored. The downward drift of the lower middle class families that saw incomes drop as manufacturing hollowed out in the U.S. with foreign competition, the failure of establishment politicians of both parties to protect American manufacturing and working class families, added to the sense of angst for Bannon. Bannon just like politicians in the Obama camp such as Emmanuel, found the way to politics through finance and gains made as the banking sector and financial institutions made huge financial gains by 2008. This was a stepping stone for their political ambitions. Emmanuel who is also a workaholic and passionate about his views worked to elect a black president, Bannon choosing to do the opposite and push for bringing back the Reagan era. Most on the liberal side see him as part of a racist movement. Reagan was none of those things. How does one reconcile the two? It is possible that seeing the fight against the established politics as an impossible task, Bannon in his passionate temperament did not object to the support of right wing extremists, in the same way that Trump did. As both Trump and Bannon have people of Jewish origin and black people in their circle of friends or family. What incensed Bannon as described here by Scott Shane of the NYT, was that after the financial crisis of 2008, hardly any bank executives who had committed wrongdoing went to jail, his father's line operator retirement savings were devastated by the financial crisis, and working class families struggled harder than ever, that his daughter at West Point was with mostly children of working class families who were the ones fighting America's wars. Many ironies abound in the story. Bannon got his business start in the same financial institutions that were involved in the financial crisis of 2008, Bannon & Co was acquired by Societe Generale. He is from an Irish Catholic working class family in Richmond and attended Benedictine High School, with a mother Doris that worked on the campaign to elect Douglas Wilder, a Democrat, as the first African American governor of Virgina.  The other ironies are in that Bannon sees Trump as "an imperfect vessel" but still good enough, and Trump sees himself as "making all the decisions" when asked about Bannon, as a range of interests struggle to form a coherent movement on the right in American politics- an unlikely combination of a telephone operator's son and real estate magnate's son who built his own real estate business in luxury real estate towers far removed from ordinary men and women they represent. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
The Guardian Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Biden calls ending the war in Afghnistan a "wise decision" for the American people. He says in his foreign policy speech that "it is about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries." A Pew Research poll shows 54% of American adults support the decision.  In a sense the decision had already been made. Biden cited the Doha agreement president Trump signed a year ago with Taliban that called for the release of 5000 Taliban prisoners which included most of the top commanders, and no agreement on the future of Afghanistan. The decision had come much earlier than that when the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the period of George Bush were rejected by the American people for the cost and lack of purpose during the presidential election of 2016. That period marked the rejection of policies set under Reagan, Bush and Obama for starting American involvement in the Iraq-Iran conflict first on one side and then on the other side. All the time precious resources that were needed for infrastructure and services in education and healthcare were diverted to these wars, impoverishing America and also Europe. Looking beyond the words thrown around for political advantage both Trump and Biden and the American people, had decided to put these wars behind them 5-10 years earlier. Biden said assertively that America had made a tragic wrong turn, that was all he could say about Reagan, Bush, Obama policy. In the meantime he stated something else was happening- the US was losing its position in the world by wasting its resources in these wars that do not serve the interests of America. "There is nothing China and Russia would want more in this competition than the US to be bogged down for another ten years in these wars."  Biden was saying that he had the courage and tenacity to make a decision that was the right one and a wise one for America against all the transient opinion of people who lacked a grasp of what was happening to the American people- the increasing impoverishing of America in both rural and urban areas. And a similar situation in Europe. It was time to take a new turn, close this chapter, and write a new one in American history, brighter and with new sense of hope. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the NYT shows that some of the people who identified themselves as Republican in 2016 may not do so in 2017, as the Trump administration makes policy moves that are unpopular with sections of society that were earlier open to his new ideas. Gallup supports studies at Emory University showing a 4% shift, a 4% decline in identification with the GOP Republican label. After a eight years under a Democratic administration some fatigue set in and this was reflected in the election. Now that Republicans are in power in states and the federal level, they face a critical public spotlight on how their actions match the interests of their constituents. A similar process was seen in Britain, after the seeming support for Brexit in 2016. By 2017 some of that support shifted and some new energy on the side of Labor among young people made a difference in the last election with losses for the ruling Conservatives who supported Brexit. Normally this process takes time. Yet this time because ideas such as Brexit or withdrawal from the Paris climate change agreement, or the investigation into Russia and the U.S. election, are so drastic in their impact that the pendulum seems to correct itself by swinging to the middle. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Thomas Friedman of the NYT sees a climate change as an area in which Trump has ignored the information of eminent scientists. He sees a weakness of the Trump administration in Trump's putting no importance to briefings by experts from climate change to national security briefings. Friedman sees Russia and hacking as a major issue facing the new Trump administration, including the new hearings in Congress from leading Republicans on the cyberattacks.

The New York Times Original article ›

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us