"Where was it again?"
The Economist, in the letters to the editor.
/Dissapoint. Sorry. But it is so good I thought its terse excellence should be related here.
It was actually Jon Perr's diary Wednesday The Economist pounds Romney on the economy, which partly spurred this on. I enjoy reading that magazine; last year I was gifted a weekly subscription by my Republican, Romney-supporting grandpa. I had known that The Economist endorsed Obama in '08 so I thought it interesting, both that he reads it and that even though he knows his grandson is a liberal he wanted me to read it.
I'm not serious about it, I'll flip it open and peruse during my infrequent breaks in my work day. I like it. I hadn't read the October 14-20 issue yet so I picked it up at lunch yesterday.
Therein was something which I enjoyed a great deal. Sure, it's only a letter, but its placement seemed prominent to me. It's the first one of the letters, and none of the others could be considered a rebuttal. Of course I may be trying to read a little too much into an LTE, but it certainly was encouraging.
Unbiased economic opinionAwesome, and absolutely right on; right-wing myths, projections and spook-stories retard sensible economic policy. Thanks Laulette. To actually see that last sentence written on the page was enough to make me laugh hard and long. It made my day.
SIR – So academic economists favour Barack Obama over Mitt Romney, which, you reasoned, “may in part reflect partisan preference” because 45% of them say they are Democrats (“Asking the experts”, October 6th). Your implication was that their views are biased by some sort of arbitrary allegiance, perhaps akin to supporting a football team. But isn’t it more likely that academic economists view politics through the lens of their profession, and by a huge margin have concluded that Democrats produce better economic policy?
This is particularly striking given that running the economy sensibly is one of the chief claims of Republicans. In practice, however, Republicans have shown contempt for nonpartisan analysis, pragmatism and facts. Republicans have allowed Grover Norquist, the influential head of a pressure group on tax, to become the arbiter of all tax policy, leaving themselves little scope for sensible reform.
There are fools on all sides, but only on the right are the lunatics running the asylum.
Santa Cruz, California
The next letter was a bit less cutting and a bit more depressing, but still all too honest.
SIR – In an age when American primaries can be won only by appealing to the basest ignorant prejudices, I fail to understand how the charge of being a flip-flopper can be considered a bad thing.Two other things from that edition, they may be trivial and they may not. In their section "Heard on the trail" they highlight memorable (or infamous) quotes heard on one or another campaign trail. Two stood out to me:
One which is just plain cool as hell
Phrase of the week “With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey.”Joe Biden in the vice-presidential debate, October 11thAnd another which is more serious, and bespeaks a certain level of disgust
Most offensive slogan “Put White Back in the White House” T-shirt photographed at a Romney/Ryan rally in Ohio. Buzzfeed.com, October 12thThat was this guy
in case anybody forgot.
These mean little. And there isn't nearly enough disgust. Also; we will know soon enough who The Economist will endorse for President in 2012.
However seeing all of those things gave me a good feeling.
It's said that they know where the smart money is. As of now my money would be on their endorsement of President Obama for reelection, because that's where mine is.
I hope I'm not eating those words next week.
You can contribute to Obama for America here.