Skip to main content

In a somewhat backhanded compliment, the Economist - a traditionally conservative and pro-business economic magazine- has thrown in their support to Obama.  The piece is more of a take-down of Romney than a celebration of Obama, but here's the conclusion.

As a result, this election offers American voters an unedifying choice. Many of The Economist’s readers, especially those who run businesses in America, may well conclude that nothing could be worse than another four years of Mr Obama. We beg to differ. For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but their takedown of Romney is based upon his predilection for changing his stances.  See more below the orange croissant.

They cite Romney's prior foreign policy decisions:

Take foreign policy. In the debates Mr Romney stuck closely to the president on almost every issue. But elsewhere he has repeatedly taken a more bellicose line. In some cases, such as Syria and Russia (see article), this newspaper would welcome a more robust position. But Mr Romney seems too ready to bomb Iran, too uncritically supportive of Israel and cruelly wrong in his belief in “the Palestinians not wanting to see peace”. The bellicosity could start on the first day of his presidency, when he has vowed to list China as a currency manipulator—a pointless provocation to its new leadership that could easily degenerate into a trade war.
And his incomprehensible budget and taxation positions:
Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further).
To be fair, The Economist did endorse Obama in 2008, but has not exactly been kind on his performance since then.   They even come out in the article and state that if there had been a more pragmatic Republican candidate they would probably have endorsed him.  But Mitt is not that candidate, and their endorsement goes to Obama.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This actually is a fairly big deal (10+ / 0-)

    It really underlies how incompetent candidate Romney is.  

    The Economist loves to endorse conservatives, hates to endorse incumbents, and swoons at the thought of successful businessmen in office.

    For R not to get the endorsement, it just underscores everything we tend to believe about him around here, from a squarely right-of-center source.

    You couldn't load a pistol with dormitive virtue and shoot it into a breakfast-roll - CS Pierce

    by Mr Raymond Luxury Yacht on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 11:56:54 AM PDT

    •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Russgirl

      Their take seems to be that Romney's policies are not what the American economy needs to right itself, and in fact will probably make things worse.

    •  good point on the incumbent endorsement... (0+ / 0-)

      have they ever endorsed one before? Maybe Tony Blair?

    •  It also unlines how far to the radical right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Russgirl

      Romney and the Republicans have gone that they can't even get the endorsement of the conservative The Economist. And yes, they know Romney's economic policy is nuts.

      (One thing that you don't hear a lot about is how well the markets have done under Obama, that they've made huge gains. If  you believe in letting the markets decide as most conservatives do, then the markets have decided that Obama's a winner--and The Economist endorsement reflects that.)

  •  calling the Economist "conservative"... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lina

    is a rather simplistic view of the magazine. They can be conservative on some economic issues and more progressive on others (i.e. immigration, Keynesian economics). They tend to skew more liberal on social issues. It's pages are not as clearly defined left or right in the American sense.

    •  ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nanorich

      It's pages are not as clearly defined left or right in the American POLITICAL sense.

      •  True (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aeroplane

        I've been reading the magazine for years as I find it to be a great source of international economic news and insight.  Perhaps "conservative" is not entirely accurate, but their editorial tends to slant toward a conservative approach- for example, in the article check out some of their non-equivalent call-outs of Democratic senators watering down Obamacare and their failure  to mention Republican obstructionism in Obama's first term.

        •  I agree with what you're saying... (0+ / 0-)

          but it is true conservaDems helped water down the ACA. Heck, I'm still smarting on the fact Menedez was against the Public Option. Even our more progressive senators backed more conservative policy on Obamacare.

    •  Keynsian economics is simply being rational (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      heingerous

      To go back to a purely asset-based economy would be like going pre-industrial age economics.

      That's not a progressive view, it's just being sane from an economic standpoint.

      Economist is a magazine that epouses whatever is good for business as a whole - this isn't necessarily bad, but I wouldn't agree that any of their views are "progressive", other than to understand that many basic progressive ideas are, in fact, "good for business".  Where they diverge, the economist goes with "business".

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

      by sacrelicious on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 12:27:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I... (0+ / 0-)

        don't disagree that the Economist is pro business. It is. It's just not this neatly defined conservative POV that's been implied by a few posters. It tends to straddle both sides of the American economic spectrum. It's certainly pro-stimulus, which is at odds with the GOP and the magazine also backs government intervention to curb global change pollutants. Are there things in the magazine at odds with progressive thinking? Sure. Are there things in the magazine at odds with conservative thinking? Yes.

  •  Kind of shocking (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies

    By 2009, when I cancelled my subscription, they were tilting off the deep end into wingnuttery.

    Either:
    A) They're straying back toward sanity
    B) Even these guys can't hold their nose at the stench of Romney (as they couldn't at the stench of Berlusconi) or
    C) They're finding they can't fill their subscription quotas with teabaggers (not the biggest readers, you know)

    I bet C (unlike most right-wing rags, the Economist tries to turn a profit...).

    Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

    by Minerva on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 12:03:43 PM PDT

  •  The Economist is full of it here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paradigm Change

    Goes on in the usual vein about how Obama is "anti-business" (without explaining how he could have possibly been more pro-business during his first term) and "partisan" (because, apparently, he doesn't play enough golf with Republican politicians who hate him -- no, really, it says that!). I'm disappointed that The Economist seems to have bought into the U.S. right-wing spin about Obama; I thought they were more discerning than that.

    Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

    by eataTREE on Thu Nov 01, 2012 at 12:37:57 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site