The Economist endorses Kerry

Al · Post by Al » Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:44 pm

[Spoted on The Volokh Conspiracy] The Economist, who supported the war in Iraq, endorsed Bush in 2000 and Dole in 1996 gave Kerry its endorsement today, albeit a reluctant one.

If Mr Bush is re-elected, and uses a new team and a new approach to achieve that goal, and shakes off his fealty to an extreme minority, the religious right, then The Economist will wish him well. But our confidence in him has been shattered. We agree that his broad vision is the right one but we doubt whether Mr Bush is able to change or has sufficient credibility to succeed, especially in the Islamic world.

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:48 pm

That's a big deal in my eyes.
I love the Economist, no matter how conservative or neo-liberal they are! It is simply one of the best sources of news anywhere, and if they don't like you, Mr. Bush, you must have done something really bad!
And we all know you did.
And welcome to the OO forum, Mr. Bush!

Al · Post by Al » Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:51 pm

Eduardo X wrote:And welcome to the OO forum!

Um... Thanks? While I've spawned more threads than usual today, I actually joined the same day you did, Ed.

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:52 pm

Al wrote:
Eduardo X wrote:And welcome to the OO forum!
Um... Thanks? While I've spawned more threads than usual today, I actually joined the same day you did, Ed.

I was making fun of myself because I kept addressing Mr. Bush.
I know you! I love you!

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:54 pm

Wow, colour me suprised. Seriously.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:52 pm

Wow. That's a surprising endorsement. But it doesn't really matter since most people who'd read the Economist made up their minds long ago.

Eco-Logic · Post by **Eco-Logic** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:20 pm

That is a big suprise indeed.

Massena · Post by **Massena** » Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:45 pm

Wow. Just, wow. I read that mag every week. I love that mag.

I usually don't consider endorsements to be of much value... but... just wow. I never thought that something would come along to sway my mind, or even make me doubt my convictions. I never liked Bush much, but I dislike Kerry even more. But this, from them... Huh.

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:14 am

Massena, you don't have to vote for ANYBODY!
That said, you must have seen them come out against Bush earlier this year, with that "Different Ways to Attack Bush" article.

Massena · Post by **Massena** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:42 am

Yeah, I've known they weren't thrilled with Bush for a long time. It's been rather obvious. With all their fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, the only thing they actually agree with Bush about is the Iraq war. What suprised me is that I agree with them FAR more often than I agree with Bush, yet I had been planning to vote for Bush instead of Kerry.

The article in favor of gay marriage and the one you mention, in addition to their recent reconsiderations of the Iraq war's current handling all signalled a certain... dissatisfaction with W, but I didn't see it going so far. Kerry, aside from certain notable social issues, is on the absolute far side of the spectrum from their philosphy. Protectionism, higher taxes, undecided terror policy, the guy just doesn't seem to square with what I read every week.

And yes, I DO have to vote. I'm just that type of guy. I guess it just shocked me that a magazine that I agree with so often has come do a distinctly different conclusion. I like to think it's pretty rare that I misread something this badly.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:11 am

This endorsement has been coming for a long time. Following the paper closely as I do (I get my foreign news from the Economist, my domestic political analysis from the New Republic), you could see the sentiment away from Bush growing ever since the "end of major combat operations" boondoggle. The Economist went irate when Bush imposed steel tarrifs, and then had a tizzy when he repealed them, accusing him of playing political games with the world economy. And that was when they really sorta liked him.

The Economist is a very sober, very old school sort of conservative publication. It likes things like gay marriage precisely because they are conservative in nature, it appreciates multilateral organizations when they further global economic integration (like the old European Steel & Tariff Union) and isn't so keen on them when they start mucking around with what the paper thinks are domestic policy issues (like the new European Union).

Their support for the war was grounded greatly in reasons colored by Western economic interests (nothing objectively wrong with that), though they're also suckers for a Gladstonian appeal to the exportation of democracy. So Bush and Blair may well have written their (third... or was it fourth?) justification for the war specifically for the Economist's editors.

But they're all about results, which is where Bush loses them. I understand how they feel... I expected a lot from this president as well, only to see none of it really delivered.

Given their coverage of Bush in recent months and the values of the Economist, I would have been stunned if they'd endorsed Bush.

Now, endorsing Kerry is a fairly radical step. Though Democrats aren't the protectionists they used to be (Kerry is no Gephardt), they're not much for laissez-faire, and take a sort of Disraelian view to exporting democracy. I think this endorsement is a statement of disgust at the neocon movement that has enthralled the GOP. A tactical move -- put Kerry in for four years, hoping that "real" Republicans will retake the party's reins by 2008 and offer up a reasonable, reliable standard bearer.

I've convinced a couple friends of mine to vote Kerry for that same reason -- discrediting the Bush wing of the GOP might be the best way to restore the GOP of old.

The Economist is one of the most important periodicals in the world. It's hard to overstate how landmark this endorsement is, even if it doesn't move any votes.

Snow · Post by **Snow** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:19 am

All I know is that I'd really like one of the jobs posted in their classified section

Al · Post by Al » Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:08 am

Eduardo X wrote:I know you! I love you!

Awa, shucks Ed. That's really sweet and all but I think we should just be friends. After all we're from two different worlds. I'm a moderate Republican with Libertarian leanings; you're an anarcho-Communist. I'm straight; you're gay. I'm married; you think that such social constructs are a product of a male dominated society meant to maintain their control and enforce conformity. It'd never work!

Could make a good sitcom though...

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:08 pm

Al wrote:
Eduardo X wrote:I know you! I love you!
Awa, shucks Ed. That's really sweet and all but I think we should just be friends. After all we're from two different worlds. I'm a moderate Republican with Libertarian leanings; you're an anarcho-Communist. I'm straight; you're gay. I'm married; you think that such social constructs are a product of a male dominated society meant to maintain their control and enforce conformity. It'd never work!

Eduardo, take it from me pal, when they tell you they just want to be friends, it's time to walk away. You'll never be happy with any relationship that is a pale substitute for what you really want.

Eduardo X · Post by **Eduardo X** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:15 pm

Poleaxe wrote:
Al wrote:
Eduardo X wrote:I know you! I love you!
Awa, shucks Ed. That's really sweet and all but I think we should just be friends. After all we're from two different worlds. I'm a moderate Republican with Libertarian leanings; you're an anarcho-Communist. I'm straight; you're gay. I'm married; you think that such social constructs are a product of a male dominated society meant to maintain their control and enforce conformity. It'd never work!
Eduardo, take it from me pal, when they tell you they just want to be friends, it's time to walk away. You'll never be happy with any relationship that is a pale substitute for what you really want.

And my world comes tumblin' down.

Al · Post by Al » Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:37 pm

Eduardo X wrote:And my world comes tumblin' down.

Man, now I know how Rose, my crush in the 8th grade, felt.

none · Post by **none** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:53 pm

one of you (Eduardo X, i'm looking in your direction here) just needs to get the other drunk and, well, you know the rest.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:44 pm

none wrote:one of you (Eduardo X, i'm looking in your direction here) just needs to get the other drunk and, well, you know the rest.

Nuke him from Orbit?

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:50 pm

gbasden wrote:
none wrote:one of you (Eduardo X, i'm looking in your direction here) just needs to get the other drunk and, well, you know the rest.
Nuke him from Orbit?

It's the only way to be sure.

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:20 pm

BTW, here's the article stating the endorsement and detailing the reasons for it.

For anyone wondering how ecstatic they are about it, the headline of this week's edition is "The Incompetent or the Incoherent?"

I don't think either candidate should be too thrilled with The Economist's assessment of them.

- Ash

Asharak · Post by **Asharak** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:50 pm

Some of the other highlights (note: quotes intended to convey the most powerful statements of the article, not necessarily the most accurate summary of it; as always, The Economist's position contains more nuance than soundbites can relate - read the thing to under their position):

This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men

Mr Bush's record during the past three years has been both inspiring and disturbing.

But overall, the mission [in Afghanistan] has achieved a lot

The biggest mistake, though, was one that will haunt America for years to come [...] Guantánamo Bay offers constant evidence of America's hypocrisy [...] this administration, which claims to be fighting for justice, the rule of law and liberty, is incarcerating hundreds of people, whether innocent or guilty, without trial or access to legal representation.

Mr Bush's credibility has been considerably undermined not just by Guantánamo but also by two big things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking evident in the way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq

America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes and of learning from them. Mr Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything

Mr Kerry has shaped many of his positions to contrast himself with the incumbent. That is par for the course. What is more disconcerting, however, is the way those positions have oscillated, even as the facts behind them have stayed the same.

Still, on social policy, Mr Kerry has a clear advantage: unlike Mr Bush he is not in hock to the Christian right.

The biggest questions, though, must be about foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. That is where [Mr. Kerry's] oscillations are most unsettling. A war that he voted to authorise, and earlier this year claimed to support, he now describes as ?a mistake?.

John Kerry says the war was a mistake, which is unfortunate if he is to be commander-in-chief of the soldiers charged with fighting it. But his plan for the next phase in Iraq is identical to Mr Bush's, which speaks well of his judgment.

That's my public service for the day.

- Ash

Hetz · Post by **Hetz** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:26 am

Wow, this is pretty huge. I would have never expected them to endorse Kerry.

I also read yesterday that former Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) has endorsed Kerry. That was a HUGE shock to me as well, since he was the guy that threatened to leave the Republican party since they were not conservative enough for him...