October 28, 2004

- the Economist's choice: a surprising endorsement from the conservative weekly
posted by elykcooks 20 years ago
  • Proves there's still some principled, intelligent conservatives left, that the hocus-pocus neo-con noisemakers haven't completely taken over the right. I hope this sways some people.
  • This sways me more toward a Kerry vote than anything I've read on the net, by far. It in many ways articulates my own position.
  • I've always enjoyed the economist. They have been my primary resource when it comes to understanding the general conservative point of view. The trend liberal on social issues ( gay marriage, legalization of various silly things, etc.) and trend conservative on many others, free trade, fiscal restraint... They are who I look to to provide a sensible, well reason argument for policies and opinions that i usually do not hold, as well as sound arguments for opinions that I do beleive in. This, to me, has been the strongest Kerry endorsement yet, even though it still echos the anybody but Bush sentiment quite strongly.
  • this is the wishi-washiest article I've read in a while... but perhaps the most accurate for the times.
  • If by "wishi-washi" you mean "considering both sides of a difficult problem and laying out the pros and cons of each before coming to a conclusion that, although perhaps not ideal, is the one that reason demands," then yes, it's wishi-washi. If, however, you mean Wishi-Washi, the new Pokemon character with the power of Storm Fart, then I fail to see the connection. ;)
  • It's kind of sad, actually, that the Wall Street Journal has gone over to faith-based thinking when it comes to this election. (As I understand it, the WSJ doesn't give formal endorsements, but its support for Bush is writ large all over it's editorial pages.)
  • Oh, jeezus, it's "its" in that last sentence, of course.
  • I don't think it's too surprising however, the Economist has been nothing less than scathing over the entire Abu Ghraib issue, and it's made clear over the past couple of years that it completely disagrees with Bush's fiscal policy (or, utter lack thereof). Having said that, I'm curious what kind of an impact this will have. What is the percentage of undecideds who read The Economist? I'd assume it's readship is primarily businessmen, and of them, I'd assume most have already made up their mind.
  • Fes - this sways you more than a flash animation? Or, like, a really witty slogan? I find that very hard to comprehend... (This does actually say something in Kerry's favour which I've not read anywhere else - namely, that his percieved vacillation and 'flip-flopping' is actually a sign of deeply pragmatic opportunism. Which is exactly what America needs right now.)
  • this man....he is a giver.
  • Pettle - by wishi-washi I OBVIOUSLY mean the pokemon character, tho the "Storm Fart" is overrated...I prefer the "Cunt Slash" of doom. it's lamentable, really, that you fail to see the connection.
  • in response to 'ian would say' question about who reads The Economist - a lot more than businessmen read it. A large student population, heck, anyone interested in govt or politics my age reads it at least once in a while. Unlike U.S. News or Newsweek or Time, The Economist's articles are better researched, more thought out, and provide for a much better understanding of the world. as for the endorsement, it's not all that surprising . The Economist did initally support the war in Iraq but has been slowly retreating from that position.
  • The Economist's articles . . . provide for a much better understanding of the world. Not true. They provide for a better understanding of how a people with a certain economic ideology view the world.
  • Not "a people," "people." Damn Internets, again.
  • people with a certain economic ideology view the world. Well, yes, but people interested in investing want the least biased news to inform their purchase. From a purely money-making point of view, it's the only sensible position.
  • The Economist is highly credible to me. I was undecided until I read that piece (more along the lines of "lesser of two evils"). Their argument makes absolute sense to me. Now the weight of confusion is off my shoulders. Thanks, Economist!
  • The Economist is nothing if not intellectually consistent. This is no surprise at all: Bush has been a terrible conservative by their standards. Only people for whom conservative is a label of tribal allegiance could honestly number Bush among them. Huge deficits, blowout in goverment spending, reduction in civil liberties, interference in private conduct, prosecution of unprovoked war; this is not conservative behaviour. It's actually a radical attack on the status quo. (Hmm, perhaps reactionary is the label I'm looking for). The Economist is not conservative in the way that Americans seem to use the term. The Economist believes in a laissez-faire approach to the economy, personal liberty, and the benefits of appropriately applied technology. The Economist does not on the other hand give a rat's arse about superstition, Christian or otherwise, and its only concern with private behaviour or morality is its effect on free commercial relations between individuals. Even if you don't agree with their editorial viewpoint, you always know where The Economist is coming from. I love the way that no Economist reporter has a byline, so as to suppress stardom. They have a dry sense of humour too. I <3 the Economist.
  • This was a really interesting article; thanks for linking it.
  • Invading Iraq was not a mistake. Huh. At least he didn't type "Liberating" - thank god for small favors.
  • Well, yes, but people interested in investing want the least biased news to inform their purchase. Okay, but I don't think that changes the fact that one should recognize that the magazine has a particular philosophical lens through which it views the world, and that you're not getting "reality" in its pages, but rather "reality according to the Economist."
  • Especially in terms of what it considers newsworthy.
  • This is fascinating because the Economist has been hinting for months that it might not be satisfied with Bush and go with Kerry, but recently it sounded fed up with both candidates. I thought the editors might just forgo an endorsement this year. Basically I think they were waiting to see something notably good or bad about one of the candidates, and haven't. Sigh.
  • The Economist is both a superior and inferior source of news. Superior because it makes a serious attempt to understand issues and trends, even unsexy ones, from around the world. Inferior because these bulletins are all targeted to bureaucrats and CEOs. Efficiency and economic strength are the primary virtues. Ashcroft is just another manager. It's a curiously deep and shallow way of looking at the world. But I am not surprised that they endorsed Kerry. They are for rationality above all.
  • verbose is spot-on.
  • They say they sell 450,000 copies in the US, so one presumes their actual readership is somewhat higher. That's actually quite a respectable chunk of the voting age population. Don't know how many of them are concentrated in Ohio or Florida though... verbose and HawthorneWingo: you're both right. But verbose, which paper is deep on both counts? I think that's too much to expect of any publication. I try to use the Economist for a bit of a brake on my natural leftiness, and for a dispassionate summary of facts. I don't have to buy into their interpretation. Also, I don't have the issue to hand, but I'm pretty damn sure that they do not regard Ashcroft as just another manager. The Economist is big on civil liberties.
  • Count me as one of their 450K US subscribers. It's not just a business magazine (for that, I get BusinessWeek and Business 2.0). I get Time, Newsweek and the Economist, and while Time and Newsweek are both roughly the same, both in style and content, I find that the Economist not only does a far better job of magazine journalism (NW and T are about the journalistic equivalent of People, by and large), it lends a perspective on the news woefully underrepresented here in the US, which is that of the internationalist. That they tend to be traditionally conservative, pro-business, and a calm voice of reason amongst a rather large population of shouting wingnuts only further appeals to me.
  • Thanks, Fedora. That was an excellent summary of everything wrong about the Right the last four years, and a hopeful glance to a better future.