The Economist endorses Kerry

The incompetent or the incoherent?

It’s hard not to giggle. The Economist is probably the most prestigious name in the business press in the US. The editors’ backhanded compliments to Bush don’t cover a contempt for his bungling, even as they support his efforts point by point.

[A]s Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America’s great tasks.

With Kerry, all they can seem to find to say about him that’s nice is that he’s a “fiscal conservative” and that he’s not in debt to the radical right. Fair enough, I suppose, but I recall them saying the same sorts of things about Bush in 2000.

Still, America has only had one CEO president: George W. Bush. To see the flagship of the business press toss him overboard is a real indictment, both of him and of the ideology he represents.

Update: Didn’t notice this til just now either:

Public Opinion Poll Indicates Iraqis Favor Kerry over Bush in U.S. Presidential Race (via Abu Aardvark)

It’s getting harder to suppress the giggling.

This entry was posted in A Fistful Of Euros, Not Europe and tagged by Scott Martens. Bookmark the permalink.

About Scott Martens

Scott is a US-raised Canadian living in Brussels with his American wife. His political background is well to the left of centre, even for Europe, and is very interested in immigration, cultural integration and language policy issues. He is presently working against a deadline on his doctorate in computational linguistics and is on hiatus. Wrote Pedantry, also on hiatus.

20 thoughts on “The Economist endorses Kerry

  1. Yet the Economist is also using Republican campaign lanaguage like “flip-flopping”. I seriously think the magazine has been mad with respect to Bush because so many of its readers (more than 50%) are US citizens and mostly quite wealthy – the average income is around 150,000 USD, every eigth reader is a Dollar millionaire – and thus almost natural fiscal Republicans.

  2. I haven’t been able to understand the Economist’s editorial line in years. Back in the mid-90’s, they seemed liberal – almost socialist – about environmental issues, poverty, international development and social exclusion. The articles haven’t changed tone so much, but the editorials move further and further to the right, and ever closer to the Republican party line.

    This may reflect the magazine’s abandonment of the Tory’s – which led to them endorsing New Labour for a while – and a shift to a more US-centred editorial line since they sell way more magazines in the States. I don’t know. It’s a bit Jeckyl and Hyde – right on so many things, so woefully head-up-the-ass useless on others.

  3. I heard from someone who has a friend there – I know, third hand – that the Economist took a much more aggressive pro-US line over the last few years as a complement to a sales drive, targeted at very much the kind of readership Tobias laid out.

    Maybe their research is telling them something about this group’s changing political affiliations…

  4. Only slightly OT: civilian casualty count in Iraq estimated to be 100,000 says New Scientist.

    The figure of 100,000 ? estimated by extrapolating the surveyed households? death toll to the whole population – is based on “conservative assumptions”, notes Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, US, who led the study.

  5. The Economist is the Reader’s Digest of financial journalism: in other words, a magazine for neophytes.

    The one that really matters is The Wall Street Journal.

  6. Scott, are you calling the good and righteous editors of the sainted Economist a bunch of flip-floppers?

  7. The Economist is probably the most prestigious name in the business press in the US.

    No, that would be the WSJ( quite obviously). I suppose this is in the same category as ‘Daniel Pipes is George Bush’s man in the Middle East.’ It’s obvious Martens doesn’t know as much as he thinks about the US.

    Giggles indeed.

  8. …a magazine for neophytes

    Guess thats why I can understand it. (What’s a neophyte? Sounds like a battle within the matrix.)

  9. No Rupert, just that being an asshole has consequences. We put up with too much here, and you get to be the example.

    Most people have the politeness not to go where they aren’t wanted. Please feel free to be an ass somewhere else.

  10. Frankly, I don’t see Rupert as having said anything offensive. The assertion that The Economist is the most prestigious name in the business press in the US is quite ludicrous. The Wall St. Journal is far more important.

  11. “Gary, you ignorant boob, I refer you to the words of the Declaration
    of Independence:”

    “But this is a blog for and by Europeans who have increasingly
    shown themselves to be nothing more than pompous blowhards and
    buffoons, which I guess would explain the Kerry attraction.”

  12. No, Scott really doesn’t understand the U.S. as demonstrated in this crap he posted in September:

    “Perhaps the most damaging effect of 9/11 and all that has followed will be its role in making divided loyalties one of the most dangerous things a person can have. From the beginning, while the ruins of the World Trade Center were still burning, any effort to hold non-trivial positions about terrorism and Islam were attacked. People opposed to the war in Iraq were branded as terrorist supporters, people unimpressed by a programme of reform in the Middle East imposed at the end of a gun were castigated, people who asked questions about whether there was more to things than ?they hate us for our freedom? were branded as traitors.”

    Funny that the only people I see being “castigated” are the poor saps who correct Scott on a minor issue…

  13. Rupert has not been banned because his first comment to this post.

    Rupert has been banned because he’s consistently been an asshole. I have reviewed all his posts. He’s not made a positive contribution to the afoe comments section.

    I don’t see why anyone who wants our comments section to be an enjoyable place to visit should object to his banning.

  14. There’s thirteen of us, and deleting comments only takes a couple of seconds. But, whatever, knock yourself out. Gotta admire the persistence.

Comments are closed.