Economist Endorses Kerry, Reluctantly

An anonymous reader writes "The Economist has picked John Kerry as its preferred presidential candidate, over George W. Bush. Though a British publication, the magazine points out that almost half of its readers are based in the U.S. The Economist leans right on trade issues and supported going to war in Iraq, but has been critical on Bush's policies on tax cuts and the deficit."

Re: Info

[Black Parrot]

> The Economist has supported the tax cuts, But not the increase of government spending.

Indeed. The "tax and spend" Democrats have been replaced by "tax cut and spend" Republicans. All the rhetoric about fiscal responsibility is just a facade for the real debate, "pay now or pay later".

It's hard for the party in power to cut spending, because pork is one of the primary ways for legislators to buy votes.

Great quote

[Troed]

as 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 ...

Yes, Kerry has more endorsements

[revscat]

See here [editorandpublisher.com] for an overview of battleground state endorsements. Of course, the Republican radio propaganda network will chalk this up to the "liberal media", but this isn't good news for Bush, and is therefore good news for America and the world.

Is this a division between the more intellectual America reading and writing newspapers, and the popular opinion?

More of a reflection that newspaper editorials only have a limited impact. There is far more of an impact from the previously mentioned propaganda network: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, etc., etc. In my hometown (Dallas) there are currently *two* radio stations, with pretty significant market share, whose only purpose is to spread GOP propaganda, 24 hours a day. The Democrats have no such partisan network.

Re: Info

[nelsonal]

I blame the line item veto (the real reason the budget declined during the Clinton years), which was removed following the impeachment trial. It was passed following the Perot candidacy (and strong showing and became a part of the Republican congressional takeover platform, AFAIK). With a line item veto pork could be removed from a bill by the President and a 2/3s vote was required to override it. For those who haven't looked into the sausage factory that is Congress a large bill (annual highway, farm, defense, appropriations, tax, or similar) usually gets a series of amendments added to it that provide for things like a Norwegian-American interpretive center to be built in a congressional district that elected a representative or senator whose support is needed to pass the bill. Since the total bill might be for spending of several billion dollars the expenditure of a few million to secure a marginal vote is good for both parties (those who support the bill for other reasons and the senator whose support was bought). With a line item veto the president could strike the section of the bill that provided for the cultural center, highway, school etc without striking the whole bill and sending it back for another round. Now we shouldn't kid ourselves Presidents were likely to use this to hurt opponents, but overall it cut a whole bunch of wasteful spending. Without that there is no one with an incentive to reduce government spending who is in a position to do so.

Re: Info

[Anonymous Coward]

The deficit looked good because Newt Gingrich shutdown the government, and reduced spending to the point that the government borrowed less; without bonds to put the money into, big institutional investors and foreign banks had to invest it elsewhere, leading to a boom in the stock market and the economy in general. I think Clinton is considerably more conservative that people give him credit for; he probably wasn't as unhappy with the Gingrich freeze as he put on.

But Gingrich represents a completely different party than the Republicans of today. These fuckers have never seen something they didn't want to buy with your child's credit card.

Re:Yes, Kerry has more endorsements

[demachina]

A right wing talk show host explained the phenomena pretty well a day or two ago. Right wing radio/TV portray everything as black and white, liberal media tends to be shades of gray. Unfortunately combative black and white is more interesting and holds an audience better, especially a poorly informed audience who is just listing to have their preconceptions confirmed on a daily basis.

The right wing has also become way more adept at demonizing the democrats and liberals and this again makes for good entertainment, and holds an audience better. The Clintons were mauled for 8 years, and still are, and in the end the worst thing they nailed them for was an affair between consenting adults and lieing about it. Bush/Cheney has lied their way through their entire first term about stuff that matters, stuff that killed people, and it slides right off their teflon coating because liberals suck at demonizing and mauling right wing politicians.

Maybe its just a fact of life you have to kind of vicious to be successful in political talk radio and TV and the right wing are good at vicious. Liberals actually tend to want to explore the issues, think things out, see if there might be a peaceful and diplomatic way to solve a conflict. The right wing has everything predetermined in a little guide to every issue, they never need to revise it, and there is one conflict resolution technique, intimidation, saber rattling ending in Shock and Awe. Shock and Awe again makes for good radio and TV. Its exciting, entertaining and makes people feel good when their giant military crushes a 3rd world country like a bug.

Re: Info

[mugnyte]

well, actually, the post's argument was that Republicans' government outpaces Democrats, but AFAICare, they both pork everything up.

What amazes me is that the "down home" americans, the 50% or so that make up the "working class" rural vote, believe that they somehow benefit from backing the party that spends in deficit and supports smaller government oversight in business alone, since in personal matters, we have abortion fights, patriots acts, and DCMA/internet nonsense.

These people end up the victims of closed factories, large corporate farming buyouts, and other corporate stomping, all while voting for people what have a "homeboy" appeal to their local nature. Sure, the local congressperson or senator may have a nice chuckle and win a government contract to build an extra submarine for 10$billion, but are these folks actually creating a sustainable lifestyle? nope. contracts end, environmental abuses catch up with you, and large corporations migrate to where the best manufacturering is. ask anyone in so many has-been towns - long after the politicos are done stumping, their constituents are screwed.

Re:Not much...

[flyingsquid]

The Economist is a magazine which carries a lot of weight in certain circles. It is the indispensible, must-read weekly magazine of international politics and business. If you had one subscription while working at the State Department or the Federal Reserve, it would probably be this one. Though based in London, their US readership is three times their British readership and 45% of their world readership.While it has a great sense of humor (when Clinton referred to the beginning of WWII in 1941, the Economist noted that this was a "peculiarly American take on things") it is a very serious magazine full of graphs and figures of economic data. It's the type of thing you're likely to find scattered around at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Government rather than the dentist's office.

While surprisingly progressive on social issues (the Economist is against the war on drugs for instance), and other times conservative (they supported the war in Iraq), it's a centrist to center-right magazine, balancing its values against pragmatic considerations. I think this makes the endorsement particularly condemning. A NY Times endorsement for Kerry is expected (anything else would be a sign of the End Times). An Economist endorsement of Kerry means that some very level-headed moderate conservatives and centrists looked at Bush and found him wanting. They say: we like his vision best. But it's clear he lacks the ability to carry it out. They aren't as thrilled by Kerry's vision, but feel he's all in all more capable for the job.

Probably a fair assessment. It's hard to disagree with Bush when he advocates freedom. But turning Iraq into a giant guerilla war and locking people up without due process or trial isn't the way to create that. Perhaps Bush would be more fun on a fishing trip. But John Kerry is clearly the better man to lead the United States.