LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Obama is critical of the role played by the media in the 2016 election campaign in a keynote speech at a journalism dinner for the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting. Obama said lately " I spend a lot of time reflecting on how this system- how this crazy system of self-government works. How we can make it work. And this is as important to making it work as anything. People getting information they can trust and that has substance and truth and facts behind it." He added that "what we are seeing right now does corrode our democracy and our society. When our elected officials and political campaigns become entirely untethered to reason and facts and analysis, when it doesn't matter what is true or not, that makes it impossible for us to make decisions on behalf of future generations." On the way Donald Trump's campaign has lowered the level of public debate Obama had this to say- referring indirectly to the NYT report of over $1.9 billion of free television coverage given to Donald Trump by the media- the country, "would be better servedif billions of dollars in free media came with serious accountability, especially when the politicians issue unworkable plans or make promises they can't keep.. and there are reporters here who know they can't keep them." The wall between the U.S. and Mexico to be built with Mexico's financing, the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants, the 45% tariff on imports from China, reducing support for NATO, are some of the campaign themes used to appeal to disaffected voters by Mr. Trump in the election, which are some of the puzzling ways in which the election campaign for 2016 has evolved- without proper media scrutiny, and what some critics say panders to ratings at a time of shrinking television staffs and budgets. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this thoughtful essay Bob Davis of the WSJ asks whether the decision of the Clinton administration to admit China into the World Trade Organization was a bad one for the U.S.  Mr. Clinton in 2000 tried to persuade Congress citing words of president Woodrow Wilson that of a dream "of a world full of free markets, free elections, and free peoples working together."  Every year China would have its most favored nation status renewed with help from supporters in Congress. After WTO entry this was not necessary. Chinese leaders saw the entry into WTO as a way to knock down trade barriers, to act a wrecking ball for the planned economy, to give the economy a big boost.  In 1994 China was a relatively backward economy with 60% of the population living on less than $1.90 a day. Hard to imagine today.  Not everyone was convinced that it was good for the U.S. This included a trade attorney who had tackled a huge trade deficit with Japan in the Reagan period- Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer was Deputy Trade Representative negotiating with the Japanese. His prediction was that no job in America would be safe once China entered the WTO, that China would become a dominant trading nation.  Robert Cassidy, 73, trade negotiator for president Clinton looks back on that time and says that he regrets what has happened, that all his work night and a day only benefited business and hurt workers. David Autor, MIT economist and his colleagues,  in a later study documented loss of 2.4 million jobs to Chinese competition between 1999 and 2011, in many manufacturing towns dotting the landscape of America, particularly in the midwestern states. And the expectation that the higher economic growth would lead to less political control did not turn out to be true.  In the process multinationals rushed to China after WTO entry and China became the world's manufacturing floor. By 2013 China's per capita income reached $7000, after years of fast GDP growth approaching 10% a year.  About 400 million Chinese were lifted out of poverty from living on less than $1.90 per day from 1999 to 2011, according to the World Bank. A big problem was that the U.S. did not plan for the change from WTO entry. No resources were allocated for the plan to let American workers adjust through worker retraining and special trade handicapped income support, to allow for a slow planned shift. Instead the pace of growth was faster than that which the U.S. faced with the Japanese export offensive in the eighties. China experienced double digit growth after 2000. The irony is that the Republican administrations that followed Clinton followed a policy of free trade to the advantage of China's state run economy when working class Americans voted mostly for the Democratic Party. Little was done and little said in the media from Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the establishment during this time even after Mr. David Autor documented the effects of trade in the U.S.  Till Mr. Trump recognizing the alienation in communities hit by job losses from trade upended American politics, shifted this part of the electorate to the Republican base. Mr. Lighthizer's view is that complaints about China should be left out of WTO because it is naive to tackle it that way. With a $375 billion China trade deficit for 2017 the challenge has to be met in a different way, and the U.S. has to rely on regaining its economic strength within a fair trading framework. Having negotiated with the Japanese Mr. Lighthizer sees the approach adopted then as the one right for today. During the long negotiations Lighthizer is said to have received many negotiating positions of the Japanese signifying no change in long sessions. He once simply made a paper plane and sent it right back, in one of these sessions. He meant that the U.S. was serious about reversing the imbalance in trade. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in DW.com cites experts who point out that the Republican Party always had tensions within it because of the diverging interests of three groups that have allied together to form the party- Wealthy businessmen and corporate interests, evangelicals, and white working class people who have seen their incomes decline for several decades. The interests of each group have some overlap, are sometimes masked but frequently they diverge. Nigel Bowles, former director of the Rothermere Institute at Oxford University, says there is no particular reason that this coalition would hold together, that it was unstable to begin with, a wonder that it did not split up earlier. Scott Lucas, an expert on American Studies at the University of Birmingham, says that Reagan showed great skill in holding this coalition together, and Donald Trump has taken it apart by mobilizing only one constituency of white working class voters and leaving out others. The break between Republican party leaders Ryan, McCain, and state party leaders, with Trump is unprecedented in post war American politics, and putting it back together now looks like a lost cause in the medium term.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Fareed Zakaria points out that the primary elections of the Republican and Democratic parties can pose a danger to democracy because of demagogic politicians who can appeal to popular passions to bring a fringe group or individual to the presidency. Primaries for both parties became important after 1968. Eisenhower and Lincoln won the nomination after the person nominated on the first ballot failed to win the necessary votes. Another serious problem is that the turnout in the primaries is low, so low that a 15% turnout is considered high turnout. The media attention is so great that it creates the impression that a real election has taken place when in reality about 85% of the people have not voted- as the Economist magazine points out a representative turnout would change the outcome significantly so it is not clear how much this promotes democratic process.

LyrArc Article Gist
Donald Trump's campaign and the Republican National Committee raises $64 million in July 2016 through a digital and mailing effort that helps to bring in a large number of small donations- about two thirds of it. The fund raising effort for Trump brings a total of $82 million in July, just short of the $90 million raised by Hillary Clinton that month. Much of the digital fund raising effort was made possible by efforts made by the RNC to improve its mailing lists since the last presidential campaign. Many of the Trump donations are made from the Trump website buttons of $10, $25, $50, and by an offer to match this with Trump's own personal finances. Hillary Clinton is also ramping up her fund raising. Trump now has $74 million on hand, up from $1.5 million at one point, and Hillary Clinton has $102 million. For the Trump campaign that was far less organized than the Clinton campaign, this is an effort to catch up, though this comes quite late in the campaign with only 3 months left; with advertising rates higher, and not enough time to invest in digital and campaign infrastructure.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Brooks says one of the good things about the ugly election campaign of 2016 and its depletion of moral capital, is the way people are responding to it by finding their voice for something better and uplifting. He cites Michelle Obama as one example of someone who acts not as a politician but as a mother in her behaviour and talk. He praises Hillary Clinton for adopting this Michelle tone and giving 3 answers he calls great in the final debate with Trump. The answers came on the questions about Trump and denigration of women,  on the contrast between the experience gained on a television show "Apprentice," and the experience of Clinton as senator and secretary of state. Brooks says they were given in a gradual understated manner, showing moral sentiment and a quiet contempt, similar to how a mother or parent would respond and not a politician. Another way to look at it is that the contrast was so great between her and her opponent's experience and respect for parenthood, and the campaign so long with so many people who had shown indifference when they should have known and done better, that Hillary Clinton simply stood her own ground based on her own Protestant Methodist faith and conviction.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Confessore describes ways in which the Republican Party agenda moved away from the interests of ordinary American working class voters in the last decade, ignoring some of the effects of the 2008 financial crisis and the deep recession in the years that followed.

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....

LyrArc Article Gist
In this interview with Der Spiegel Bernie Sanders reflects on the 2016 election. He says that the Democratic Party missed the fact that many people in the midwest, south and other parts of the country, were worse off after president Obama left than when he came in in 2008. He also says Hillary Clinton relied too heavily on speechwriters and advisers upto the point of  having three speechwriters say why she was running for president. He finds the cuts proposed to healthcare, in the budget, and action on climate change, immoral. He also points out about the investigations that Mr. Mueller is someone everybody respects and that it would be wrong to offer a biased opinion, that Trump supporters would see this in the way that he is picked on when he just came in. He also believes Trump supporters are like other voters and are likely to look at the results, how better off they are under the Trump administration.

LyrArc Article Gist
NYT fails to see the importance of delivering on infrastructure building in scale, reshoring, wages and jobs for workers, and climate change action that president Biden is achieving to build a better America. NYT looks at the 2023 and the midterm elections and points out a well known fact that women (and men) in the suburbs care about legalized abortion rights for women, and this extends to states that vote Republican in the south. No attention is given to the importance of infrastructure building, increasing wages and jobs for working class and middle class Americans, bringing factories and investment back to the US, three issues that brought Mr. Trump into office in 2016 coming out of nowhere. Mr. Biden is old is the refrain. Yet it is president Biden who has delivered on infrastructure where Mr. Trump merely talked about it -Building America Better- as Biden pointed out in the State of the Union address in 2023. Biden has delivered in support for wage increases for workers, even joining the picket line at the UAW auto workers strike in Detroit. He was able to do this because he has spent more years in Congress than any other senator, and like Lyndon Johnson for the Great Society programs and desegregation in the 1960's was able to win support from moderate Republicans. Being older, having the wisdom and experience was and is indispensable in the American project started by Washington and sustained by Lincoln, who nurtured wisdom, experience, fully comprehending the people's problems, and mindfulness in the way Mr. Biden does. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Responding to criticism of the Clinton Foundation which has affected Hillary Clinton's ability to win voter support in her contest with Bernie Sanders, the Clinton family has decided to take action in August 2016. The Clinton Global Initiative will be discontinued in 2017. Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton will stop raising funds for the Clinton foundation. The Clinton Foundation will not accept funds from foreign donors. What started as a do-good effort to raise funds for worthy causes such as world health, poverty and hunger turned out -because of its very success in raising large amounts of money from corporate donors- into a distraction for the election campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2016. It opened up Hillary Clinton to charges of having conflicts of interest from outsiders Sanders and Trump. Hillary Clinton discontinued her association as a board member of the foundation in 2015 when she began her campaign. Bill Clinton continued to give paid speeches and raised $2.6 million. All that fund raising appears to have been a big mistake and not even fair to the candidate, as it gave rise to misperceptions about the candidate going far beyond what the Clintons ever understood about was happening. As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich put it, it gives rise to accusations of impropriety that may affect an election, without the voters getting a chance to evaluate the candidates on the basis of what each candidates program or agenda is. In this the Clinton family may have realized that in retrospect the entire foundation activity appears to be a small matter, when put next to the choices facing the U.S. and the world in 2016 for the next decade and beyond. The Clinton Foundation in future would be managed by people independent of the Clinton family and circle. The next step would be setting it up as a public foundation, a new board and professional staff. Was it all worth the problems it has created for voters being able to get a clear idea of what each candidate offered, an not acting as a huge and dangerous distraction which Hillary Clinton and the country and the world could do without, considering the significance of making good choices in a general election- very much so. The foundation and the fund raising made it possible for outsiders Sanders and Trump to turn this election into one of slogans and accusations, to which the Clintons were unprepared to respond, acting as a distraction  which was bad for the country and the world. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the New York Times is strongly critical of former president Barack Obama for accepting $400,000 in speaking fees from Wall Street for a single speech. It says the news is causing people to question the ideas and words presented by Obama in his books about the dangers of losing sight of the interests of ordinary people. It gives the impression says the NYT, that Obama is cashing in like everybody else, and that his talk was empty. The editorial says the millions raised by Hillary Clinton led to her defeat in the election. Obama is reported to plan a foundation with the work of training a new generation of political leaders. This NYT editorial says it would be better to stay true to vision and purpose, to walk the talk for president Obama, especially now that a recent poll shows two thirds of voters, including about half of Democrats say that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the interests of the American People. By associating this closely with wealthy donors leading Democrats contributed to this. During a period when some of the remarkable achievements of the last fifty years such as the European Union are being called into question, when ordinary working people, young people and older people are struggling, this is all the more a tone deaf approach by politicians. The idea of helping train a new generation of political leaders through a foundation sounds bizarre in this context, and seems to suggest politicians believe there is always a solution through marketing their audacity and money.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Kristof of the NYT says the narrative about Hillary Clinton being dishonest is clearly overdone and inaccurate. He says the gaffes about the use of personal email server have unfairly created a distorted narrative. On changing positions on trade and minimum wage- this happens frequently with all the candidates. Some are glib enough for not being noticed, Clinton not a natural politician drawing attention. On Libya, and on Syria, Clinton is blamed for the President's errors and not given credit for pushback in league with Panetta, Gen. Kean and Gen. Jones, that has influenced changes made in 2016, and the president accepting blame for errors. In this instance Clinton has been far from shifty by publicly allying herself with Leon Panetta's position in "Worthy Fights," and Gen. Jones's remarks. Far from having erred on Libya and Syria policy, Hillary Clinton, like Chuck Hagel and others in the administration including Joe Biden, showed exceptional patience in dealing with the president, national security advisor, and McDonough in policy matters- when they were right but the country was weary of what were seen as futile global engagements in remote areas setting too high a bar for any action. Clinton rightly described this as a pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction after the Bush/Cheney years. On young women and being "progressive" Hillary Clinton is from a older generation that experienced the kind of discrimination that young women fail to grasp, according to a recent analysis of University of Massachusetts polling survey results cited in the Washingon Post. A PolitiFact Pulitzer winning fact checking site shows 50% of the Clinton statments are either true or mostly true, compared to 49% for Bernie Sanders, 9 percent for Trump, 22% for Ted Cruz, and 52% for John Kasich. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
CNN reporter Cassie Spodak provides this exceptional report into the minds of New Hampshire Democratic voters who gave Bernie Sanders a 22 percent lead in the New Hampshire Democratic primary over Hillary Clinton. In October 2016 Hillary Clinton has the support of Bernie Sanders against Donald Trump in the U.S. presidential election. She described it as "100 percent support" in television debate. Sanders has appeared with Clinton twice, and campaigned 4 times in New Hampshire, and continually across the country. Younger New Hampshire voters still long for Sanders as their favored candidate. Older voters and some who have been motivated by Sanders to run for local office see the shaping of the Democratic Party platform as a victory for Sanders. Key planks of Sanders, taxes on the wealthy and higher incomes to pay for student tuition, infrastructure, and helping working class families, are now key parts of the Democratic platform. These voters see this as a pragmatic step and are enthusiastic in their support for Hillary Clinton. Overall Clinton now has 87 percent of Democratic voter support in New Hampshire according to a WMUR/UNH poll in mid October 2016, and she is doing well with millenials and independents nationally, a critical bloc of voters for Clinton to show nationwide support. One member of the steering committee for Sanders in New Hampshire named Dudley Dudley, reflects the opinion that has shifted the party to emerge united during and even more so in the final months of the presidential campaign of 2016- she tells the CNN reporter Spodak that she supports Hillary because "of the way she has grown, and stretched," and the way Clinton and Sanders are now campaigning together and working together. Both Clinton and Sanders deserve credit for their extraordinary ability to grow during their campaigns and during the party's way to shape the way forward. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Leonhardt points out in the NYT that Hillary Clinton actually won in the popular vote by a substantial margin, by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points. He says that Democrats need to pay more attention to the working class in midwestern states- the job losses, crumbling infrastructure, and the plight of communities such as Detroit, Michigan which suffered through the bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM, and again with the foreclosure crisis, the financial crisis of the City of Detroit. With a similar situation in the neighboring states of Wisconsin and Ohio, in places like Toledo and other parts of communities facing industrial decline. While the Silicon Valley centred region powered the economy in California, and the financial industry and real estate powered New York, older midwestern communities never really recovered from a long decline stretching over 2 decades. The result was the loss of faith in Democrats among union workers and young people, leading to the loss of Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan. For most of its history the Democratic Party was based on its union and working class base including a large number of white voters. Only under Obama because of his unique candidacy was the coalition so dependent on the minorities vote. Before minorities were part of the Democratic coalition, but not in the way under the Obama candidacy. A return to its historic and normal base among whites in unions and working class communities, liberals, minorities, is a way to go back to the historic and natural base of Democratic support. In a sense dependence on tech communities for election funding and the tech booms, globalization, may have distorted Democrats sense of their historic role as champions of the working class and middle class communities throughout the country. There is now an opportunity to restore this lost mission of protecting the interests of the middle and working class who have seen huge drop in net worth as reported by Janet Yellen of the Federal Reserve at the Inequality Conference on October 17, 2014-"62 million households with a net worth of $11,000 for the year 2013." Poorly covered in the media and not made the utmost priority by Democrats (or Republicans). In the words of Janet Yellen, this was in the past several decades "the most sustained rise in inequality since the 19th century after more than 40 years of narrowing inequality since the Great Depression." She added the shocking words "by some estimates, income and wealth inequality near their highest levels in the past hundred years, and probably much higher than much of American history before then." Even discussion in the media goes back to the Obama coalition and treats it as a way forward for Democrats, when history shows it was different and the situation described by Yellen calls for a serious response. ...