The Economist editorial stance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Economist was first published in September 1843 by James Wilson to "take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress." This phrase is quoted on the newspaper's contents page.

Contents 1 Support 2 Opposition 3 Endorsements 4 Obituaries

[edit] Support

In policy terms, it has supported:

• free trade
• globalisation
• genetically modified crops
• abolishing all nuclear weapons from the world [1][2]
• Israel's "right to exist", while opposing occupation in general
• eliminating agricultural subsidies in developed nations [3] [4]
• turning Britain into a republic, (October 1994)
• 2003 war in Iraq, although subsequent editorials have been somewhat ambivalent it still insists that the invasion was the right course of action
• immigration into western countries (see A Survey of the United States)
• stronger gun control laws in the United States [5]
• expansion of the European Union, including Turkey's application for membership [6]
• space tourism and exploration by private organisations such as Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne instead of government funding through NASA [7] [8]
• regulation by governments where an efficient market cannot or does not exist (e.g. environmental)
• charitable donations by private individuals and governments but condemns most financial charity by companies as "borrowed virtue" (e.g. they support the fact that Bill Gates, not Microsoft, is the world's most charitable non-governmental body) [9] [10]
• education vouchers:[11] "This newspaper has long subscribed wholeheartedly to the idea of school vouchers."[12]
• the abolition of all forms of corporate tax [13]
• mandated health insurance system paid by the government [14]
• the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [15]
• the principle of a European Constitution in theory while opposing the current version [16]
• President Clinton's impeachment. [17]
• gay marriage: "Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have?" [18]
• legal prostitution: "People should be allowed to buy and sell whatever they like, including their own bodies." [19]
• legalization of all drugs [20]
• American welfare reforms initiated by President Clinton
• legalising the sale of human organs for transplantation.[21]

In one of its more light-hearted pieces, the newspaper also supported voluntary human extinction at an unspecified future time. [22] Several articles have also expressed support for the establishment of a flat tax in wealthy countries, although it has also recently criticized the U.S. tax structure as insufficiently progressive.

[edit] Opposition

It has opposed:

• the death penalty [23]
• affirmative action [24]
• the 35-hour workweek [25]
• the establishment of a minimum wage in Britain [26]
• the economic policies of Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez
• the election and policies of Silvio Berlusconi
• the policies of Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's president
• the form of the European Constitution which was drafted
• torture of any kind in any circumstance [27]
• gerrymandering of political districts [28]
• "windfall" taxes [29]
• Holocaust denial laws in Europe
• America's nuclear deal with India
• Israeli intervention in Lebanon & Gaza
• withdrawal from Iraq (for the time being) [30]

[edit] Endorsements

Like many newspapers, The Economist occasionally uses its pages to endorse candidates in upcoming major elections. In the past it has endorsed parties and candidates from across the political spectrum, including:

• Bill Clinton, Democrat (U.S. presidential election, 1992)
• Bob Dole, Republican (U.S. presidential election, 1996)
• Conservative Party, led by John Major (United Kingdom general election, 1997): “Labour doesn't deserve it” [31]
• George W. Bush, Republican (U.S. presidential election, 2000), after John McCain was defeated in the Republican primaries. At the time, the newspaper believed George W. Bush could transcend partisanship, but now the newspaper describes him as the "partisan-in-chief."
• Michael Bloomberg, Republican (New York City mayoral election, 2001): “The Economist would shudder and pull the lever for Mr. Bloomberg” [32]
• Labour Party, led by Tony Blair (United Kingdom general election, 2001): “Vote conservative” [33]
• Christian Democratic Union, led by Edmund Stoiber (German legislative election, 2002): "Time for a change" [34]
• Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican (2003 California recall), though the magazine was strongly opposed to the recall itself [35]
• Ken Livingstone, Labour (London mayoral election, 2004) [36]
• Liberal-National coalition, led by John Howard (Australian legislative election, 2004); had opposed Howard's bid for a third term in 2001 [37]
• John Kerry, Democrat (U.S. presidential election, 2004): “The incompetent George W. Bush or the incoherent John Kerry” [38]
• Labour Party, led by Tony Blair (United Kingdom general election, 2005): “There is no alternative (alas)” [39]
• Conservative Party of Canada, led by Stephen Harper (Canadian general election, 2006) "Those daring Canadians: And why they should vote Conservative this time" [40]
• The Union, led by Romano Prodi (Italian general election, 2006) "Basta, Berlusconi" [41]
• The Democratic Party, (United States midterm election, 2006) "Whichever way you look at it, the Republicans deserve to get clobbered next week" [42]

Some of these might not be considered official endorsements, but seem to obviously express The Economist's view on the matter.

[edit] Obituaries

In its December 23, 1999 edition, The Economist controversially published an obituary for God. [43]