I make a point of looking at the Economist each week, in order to see what this part of the establishment are thinking. I can not normally stand to read it for than a couple of minutes (as it makes me feel unclean), but that is enough time to find some utter absurdity with which amuse people.
However, this week I think I have come upon the worst Economist article of all time:
The title, featured on the front cover, is “McCain’s lurch to the right”… For those who do not know British “political speak”, “lurch to the right” is what the Labour party (and so on) have long said whenever a Conservative party politician gives any sign of not agreeing with everything the BBC and Guardian newspaper hold to be correct.
However, in the case of John McCain the Economist goes overboard.
First he is, as normal with the Economist, damned with faint praise – for example we are told that although it “may be wrong-headed” he does genuinely believe in the right of individuals to own firearms – so at least he is an honest lunatic. We are to forget the basis of freedom in the right of freeman to be armed, in both Classical Civilization and in English (and other Germanic) Common Law – only a few insane Americans believe in the right to keep and bear arms.
But McCain is worse than wrong-headed – he is also a liar.
For example, he has “recently” been saying that there should only be immigration reform after the borders of the United States are secured – which everyone knows is impossible.
Actually it is not a recent “lurch to the right” as McCain has been saying this (over and over again) for more than a year. And everyone clearly does not include the vast majority of Americans who support securing the borders.
On taxation the evil McCain now supports the Bush tax rate cuts – which he once wisely opposed (no mention of John McCain also opposing the Bush spending increases of course), and the crazy man even wants more tax cuts.
The Economist of course does not mention that the American tax code is absurdly complex and something like a voluntary flat tax would be sensible – but it is more than this.
According to what is implicit in the article this recent “lurch to the right” by McCain, actually – again something he has been saying for ages, is wrong (indeed obviously wrong) – McCain should come out and support higher taxes. Which is what “ending the Bush tax cuts” actually means.
So the Economist holds that taxes should be increased at a time of economic weakness – this is a position that even Lord Keynes would have had trouble with. Even a few months off the Federal fuel tax is an insane thing that the all-wise Senator Obama “cleverly opposed”.
Finally we are told that McCain’s support for off shore drilling, if the States agree, is the sort of thing that centrists and moderates would never go for.
This is odd on two grounds:
Firstly as John McCain’s main task at this election is to bring out the conservative, or rather conservative and libertarian – i.e. the anti left, base (a lot bigger than the Republican base) which includes many people who really dislike him. The stay-at-home threat is a terrible one for McCain.
Secondly – the Economist folk simply do not know what they are talking about.
In reality, with the price of fuel being what it is – and set to get a lot higher over time, about 70% of American voters support an end to the Federal de facto ban on new off shore drilling. Nor does the Economist even mention alternatives like opening up the areas of the Western States for oil shale, and allowing new nuclear power stations (both of which McCain has supported and Obama has not).
So by “centrists and moderates” the Economist in fact means “committed hard core leftists who would never vote for McCain if their lives depended on it”.
I do not expect to influence some people to vote for McCain with the above, John McCain has too much baggage (McCain-Feingold, the amnesty bill for illegals, and so on) for that.
However, I do hope to have finally have convinced the die hards that if the Economist is a “free market” publication then I am the Emperor Augustus.
The Economist is written by a group of people who were taught a lot of semi, and not so semi, collectivist doctrines at university – and simply trot them out each week in vague connection to the events of the time.
You know what, the more these people slag off McCain, the more I want him to win. There is a point at which John Q Public just fights back blindly and does the opposite of what people tell him. And I am John Q Public.
When ever they write about something I know about I find they are full of it.They know nothing about the US. That is why I let my subscription lapse.
Not to worry – the Economist has even less impact on US elections than does the Guardian.
What irks me about the Economist that it publishes all its articles without a byline. Any article that appears in its pages simply reflects the omniscient opinion of The Economist. I find this sort of Voice of God journalism annoying in the extreme. I feel the same about newspaper editorial pages. They reflect someones opinion, whether that of the publisher, editor or journalist responsible. Hiding behind a New York Times or Wall Street Journal masthead doesnt change that.
The Economist is essentially an entire magazine full of such Op-Eds.
The nature of anonymous drudge work places a natural ceiling on the caliber of journalist it can attract.
Not That It Matters.
The purpose of The Economist is to provide subscribers with a ‘worldview in a box’ they can trot out at dinnerparties to sound superficially erudite with a minimum of effort.
Paul, the thing about the Economist’s snotty superiority meme vis a vis the former colonials is that they neither understand nor tolerate new world egalitarianism. Those of us who laugh at all the pretensions of old worldies and just don’t give a damn about their views drive the soi-disant superior euro crowd mad.
Since when was egalitarianism a good thing?
well done!
i esp like this:
“The Economist is written by a group of people who were taught a lot of semi, and not so semi, collectivist doctrines at university – and simply trot them out each week in vague connection to the events of the time.”
the collectivist dominated academy and collectivist dominated MSM are the only things keeping collectivism alive.
to kill it all we need to do is continue to agitate for more diversity at both.
that’s because collectivism can’t stand the competition.
and collectivists know that.
they hate competition – in the goods & services markets and in the realm of political ideas. (it’s why they want to bring back the “fairness”: doctrine here in the states.
collectivists have competition-phobia.
(is there a greek word for that? )
The thing about the economist that really has changed over the past few years is that are not the honest lefties they used to be. Really used to enjoy the magazine. Everyone knew they were left of center, they did’nt really hide behind the “objective” skirt but they seemed to place value on actually being objective, or at least as much as possible.
Now, I don’t even bother with it on a long haul flight. Hey, you never know, I might be able to get one of the Chinese government English newspapers for free on board the flight.
Our own MSM reports on America as if it were a foreign country. The Economist reports on the United States like we were men from Mars.
(I was tempted to write “Getting US domestic advice from The Economist is like getting child rearing advice from Ayn Rand” but then remembered what blog I was on.)
i’ll coin the term:
agonistophobia – fear of competition.
leftists have it.
it’s why they want enforced outcomes.
CAFE standards for fleets is one example: they want a net result and instead of letting market conditions (competition and choice) accomplish it, they want it set and enforced by big brother/nanny.
Supporting gun control is not the same as opposing the right to own guns.
And the article never mentions a “lurch” to the right.
But you know both these things – it’s pretty clear this isn’t an honest attempt to disagree with the article.
In my imperial youth I read the Economist thinking I might impress people with my cosmopolitan snobbery at parties. That foolishness didn’t work out very well, and the magazine was full of absurd tripe anyway.
If the woolly-brain liberals at the Economist are upset at McCain’s “lurch to the right” they can console themselves by the almost certain knowledge that he doesn’t mean a word of what he is now saying and will quickly “reach across the aisle” to sit down and sing cumbaya with the lefties as soon as the election is over.
reliapundit,
I think just a more literal reading of the existing ‘agoraphobia’ would work 😉
From wikipedia:
“The word agoraphobia, the fear of critical public situations, derives from agora in its meaning as a marketplace.”
The sad thing about the Economist is that it wasn’t always this way. If you go back 20 years or so, to when Norman MacRae was its editor, it was a far more crunchy newspaper: self-consciously pro-American, pro-trade, pro-science, pro-progress (but not ‘progressive’ in the mealy-mouthed socialist sense).
In those days, the editorial writers clearly liked the traditional can-do spirit of America. [On the other hand, Gordon Brown says the same thing – – he just can’t get out of his own petty-socialist ways when running the country he actually leads. But I digress.]
As one of the earlier posters said, the writers and staff at the Economist today all seem to have arrived from Oxbridge (can pretty much guarantee that >50% are Oxford or Cambridge grads) with the identical mushy Euro-wimp collectivist brainwash.
I cancelled my subscription years ago and now occasional glimpses of the ‘newspaper’ (i.e. The Economist) confirm that it’s still moving left. I say, “Bring Back Norman!!”, though he is now 85.
Tom says:
Supporting gun control is not the same as opposing the right to own guns.
But supporting gun control and claiming you are not opposed to the right to own guns is the same as lying.
And the article never mentions a “lurch” to the right.
Oh, cute. You mean, because the Economist screams “John McCain’s lurch to the right” on its front cover, and merely says “veering off to the right” in the article, we should take your comments seriously?
That’s great. And very true.
Hail, Caesar!
Well, maybe next time.
As an Oxbridge graduate, I used to read the Economist every week. Then I moved to America, and noticed howlers like this in their US coverage every week. As this pattern went uncorrected, they eventually convinced me that their coverage of the rest of the world probably wasn’t worth spit either, and I cancelled my subscription.
M, first of all don’t try your hoity toity deconstructionism on me.Nowhere did I suggest that egalitarianism was a good thing. If I say the sun is shining, it’s a report not a plus or minus commentary.
Second egalitarianism versus feudal serf and master set ups – take your pick.
Yes, I agree with others when I first started to read the economist, 25 years ago they were sometimes wrong (their articles about gun control inthe american context were/are hopelessly clueless), but at least their economy based articles were ok, and a lot of the foreign coverage was decent. Not perfect, but well informed, and pretty clear on what was rumour and opinion and what was fact.
I cancelled a couple of years ago for same reason every else I knew did, a slow drift leftward and faster drift away from quality journalism.
“The Economist is written by a group of people who were taught a lot of semi, and not so semi, collectivist doctrines at university – and simply trot them out each week in vague connection to the events of the time.”
Robert Scheer is a doctrinaire ex-Los Angeles Times and currrent San Francisco Chronicle lefty who was perfectly captured in Stefan Sharkansky’s 2003 “Canard-o-matic”
I highly recommend it: http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/canard-o-matic.html
Someone with enough time on their hands could do the same with The Economist.
I too miss The old Economist.
I work in financial services as an editor and have to read unedited stuff like The Economist every day, so I gave up reading that paper years ago. Give me Jane Austen any evening. However, many years ago I spent two months in northern Pakistan (another, unconnected life) and soon after arriving, met an American professor who was there on a long-term research project. When he saw that I had the latest Economist, he offered me four issues of Time magazine for it. At the time I did not understand the concept of relative worth, but this sure exemplified it.
Tom says:
… the article never mentions a “lurch” to the right.
That’s not what the posting claimed:
The title, featured on the front cover, is “McCain’s lurch to the right”
And so it does:
http://economist.co.uk/printedition/displayCover.cfm?url=/images/20080705/20080705issuecovUS400.jpg&CFID=12784160&CFTOKEN=30222000
Oh come on, for fuck’s sake. Please do not even try that shit on. What the liberal left mean by “gun control” is exactly what a normal person would understand as opposing the right to own guns. At best they would permit the privilege of owning a very small subset of guns, at the approval of the state, and for certain tightly constrained approved uses. That is the situation we have in Britain today, and it is precisely what the likes of Feinstein, Clinton, Schumer and Obama would impose in the USA if they could get away with it, say, if they held the Presidency, Senate and House for instance.
Though the flag on the mast proclaims British origins, I don’t believe that the writers who cover the U.S. political scene have been Oxford or Cambridge trained. (Though they are quite capable of producing equivalent mischief.) I believe that the moment of consequence for the great slide of the Economist came when they hired the staff of Roll Call, the Washington, D.C. Democratic Party gaggle, to lead their U. S. coverage. Does anyone remember the details?
What Fred said – I live in Germany and their reporting was so lacking that I wouldn´t trust them when it came to other parts of the world. After ten years I let my subscription lapse in 2005 and never regretted it.
However, the worst Economist article I ever read is still “The New Dutch Model?” from March 31st 2005. That is a masterpiece of character assassination.
I hate to say this, but the ‘economist’ has now become the ‘socialist.’
The Economist has become bollocks. Have you seen their article this week singing the praises of collectivised medicine? Disturbing.
Posted by M at July 6, 2008 01:27 PM
“Since when was egalitarianism a good thing?”
In the US it just means being treated equally under the law, by the state, when negotiating contracts, et cetera. Not equal results. So, it is a good thing.
Re: Agonistophobia:
Absolutely bonkers! For use in this way.
Simply learn what the term agonist means (e.g., medically, for neural receptors).
Consider, if that is beyond effort, why do we use the term antagonist – and what does it mean?
Re: Agonistophobia:
Absolutely bonkers! For use in this way.
Simply learn what the term agonist means (e.g., medically, for neural receptors).
Consider, if that is beyond effort, why do we use the term antagonist – and what does it mean?
Well, that one was pretty bad, but I’d have to say pretty much anything they write on the Arab-Israeli conflict is worse. Last week, for example, they pooh-poohed Israel’s fretting about an Iranian bomb because even if Iran had a nuclear capacity it “probably” wouldn’t use it on Israel.
For what it’s worth, John McCain isn’t quite so gun-friendly as he and his supporters would have you believe. Gun Owners of America has given him a well-deserved F- on gun rights issues, based on his actual record.
I hate to say this, but the ‘economist’ has now become the ‘socialist.’
Posted by Chaz at July 6, 2008 09:12 PM
Ditto, and like how Business Week has become Anti-Business Week
I started reading the Economist over 20 years ago when I was in college. At the time, I thought it excellent. Maybe it was, then.
But, as several people have noted, the Economist became progressivley more detached from any sensible evaluation of conditions in the United States.
What is worse is that as I learned more about economics (I have a PhD), I realized that much of its economics and finance coverage was as subjective, incomplete and often nonsensical as its coverage of the mouth-breathing Americans.
This caused me to reconsider whether it was likely to fairly and accurately cover topics about which I know little, like quantum physics or the domestic politics of Zimbabwe.
So I cancelled my subscription about 10 years ago. Useless.
I did read a good portion of the article on McCain. It was a hit piece.
Worst article ever? Not by a long shot.
A few years back now (between ’95 and ’97 approx.) The Economist ran an article talking about the great internet domain name land rush. Upon reviewing the idiotic trademark practices of the registrar, they suggested that the only good solution was to do away with domain names, and replace them with… wait for it….
Numbers.
They made some weak analogy to phone numbers, but I can’t remember the rest of the article. Probably because I was dying of laughter at that point.
They do have a point about him changing his tone a bit, though. He used to almost enjoy digs at the Republicans, reveling in his “maverick” image. Before his current immigration policy that The Economist dislikes, for example, his previous policy was to co-sponsor a bill with Ted Kennedy. Regardless of which approach you prefer, “secure the borders first” and “sign on to the Ted Kennedy solution” are clearly not the same policy, so it does seem like a shift.
I was going to reply to Tom – but other comments did much of the job for me.
As for “gun control” (and yes the Economist does want to disarm ordinary Americans, and ordinary everyone else, as part of its international communityism) – the only good thing about the Economist in this regard is that some time ago they admitted that a book they had been pushing (for ages) was a tissue of lies.
They did not actually say the words “tissue of lies” of course – but they admitted that the thesis of the book (that firearm ownership among Americans was very rare before the Civil War) was not true and that the author had known it was not true and had produced fraudulent “evidence”.
So sometimes the Economist does correct itself – when it is exposed enough.
John McCain and the right to be armed:
John McCain is a difficult personality – I did NOT support him in the primary contests (“and what is it do you with you Englishman?” – well all my adult life working on the American side, the importance of the United States to the West….. and various other minor things).
However, he is a Second Amendment man – that “F.” was most likely a “I am not voting for your motion in opposition, I am voting for my motion in opposition – your motion is on the wrong color paper” sort of F.
The pro life people had similar problems with McCain – he is pro life (i.e. anti abortion) but will only do things his way.
For example – totally against a Federal ban on abortions (on States rights grounds).
I wonder why when any publication write something factual about Mr. Senile….his cohorts immediately climb out of their little septic tanks with slander. What a shame