Posted on 07/05/2008 4:05:20 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
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.
The amazing thing is that some try to pass The Economist off as a “conservative” magazine.
The Economist is a terrible magazine, and full of liberal bias. But, they are essentially correct that for the last year McCain has moved right on a number of issues.
the economist has always been a socialist mag.
no surprise here.
You should read the Economist last week they Fawned over Obama as did Newsweek with no Single article on McCain but 8 features on Obama 11 pictures of Obama not one of McCain.. Now thats BIAS!!!
I remember about twenty or more years ago the Economist actually was about - economics.
It is now a simply an educated, elitist, oh-so-in-the-know, London and New York centered commentary on business, finance and political trends of the day for the chattering classes.
I admit I subscribe to the Economist, I enjoy reading different perspectives especially from a source that provides great international coverage.
That being said they have made some very snide comments regarding Obama over the last few months. They bash his economic policies and his catering to populists.
Are they biased, yes. They are “classically liberal” in favor of rights/freedoms, which I like. However, they agree with social egineering to some extent, which I hate.
Do they even attempt to hide their bias? No, they freely admit it, unlike the MSM in this country. Regardless of bias do they generally provide good coverage? Yes.
If you only read something you agree with 100% of the time you wouldn’t bolster your own arguments and ideas.
I Liked their investigative and backround reporting on a Subject.. newsweek and time used to be like that then they became the USA Today like.... in Mag format!
The Economist *IS* conservative... to Europe.
(That says a LOT, don’t it?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.