The Economist editorial stance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section resembles a fan site. Please help improve this article by removing excessive trivia and irrelevant praise, criticism, lists and collections of links.(May 2008)

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.

The newspaper defines its point of view as classically liberal. Therefore, its editorial stance tends to take positions that are socially liberal and economically liberal; it generally advocates free markets and the minimum governmental regulation necessary, and then only where unfettered free markets would clearly lead to negative results (such as monopolistic practices).

Contents 1 Support 2 Opposition 3 Endorsements 4 Obituaries 5 References

[edit] Support

In policy terms, it has supported:

• free trade
• globalisation
• genetically modified crops
• Abolishing all nuclear weapons from the world in the long run^[1][2]and support (perhaps somewhat paradoxically) for Britain's nuclear programme^[3].
• Israel's "right to exist" as a Jewish state
• eliminating agricultural subsidies in developed nations^[4][5]
• turning Britain into a republic, (October 1994)
• 2003 war in Iraq, although subsequent articles have been critical of the aftermath, it still insists that the invasion was the right course of action at the time.
• immigration into western countries^[6]
• stronger gun control laws in the United States^[7]
• expansion of the European Union, including Turkey's application for membership^[8]
• space tourism and exploration by private organisations such as Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne instead of government funding through NASA^[9][10]
• regulation by governments where an efficient market cannot or does not exist (e.g. environmental). Frequently they recommend that such regulation is achieved through the creation of appropriate markets and other economic methods, such as - in the environmental case - carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes. This ties with their belief in minimal, targeted regulation to avoid inhibiting markets.
• charitable donations by private individuals and governments but condemns most financial charity by companies as "borrowed virtue" (e.g. they support the fact that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, not Microsoft, is the world's most charitable non-governmental body)^[11][12]
• education vouchers:^[13] "This newspaper has long subscribed wholeheartedly to the idea of school vouchers."^[14]
• the abolition of all forms of corporate tax^[15]
• deregulation of health care markets, ending subsidies to insurance companies, and a mandated insurance system^[16]
• the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld^[17]
• the principle of a European Constitution in theory while opposing the current version^[18]
• President Clinton's impeachment.^[19]
• gay marriage: "Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have?"^[20]
• Legal prostitution: "People should be allowed to buy and sell whatever they like, including their own bodies."^[21]
• Legalization of all drugs^[22]
• Limiting the American welfare state, including the 1996 Republican welfare reform efforts (signed by President Clinton)
• Legalising the sale of human organs for transplantation.^[23]
• The Copenhagen Consensus conference ^[24]
• The “Republic of Macedonia” name for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the Macedonia naming dispute^[25].
• A “praline divorce” of Belgium, separation of the country into Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels.^[26]
• Nationalisation of Northern Rock by the British government^[27]
• Inclusionism in Wikipedia ^[28]

In one of its more light-hearted pieces, the newspaper also supported voluntary human extinction at an unspecified future time.^[29]

[edit] Opposition

It has opposed:

• the death penalty ^[30]
• affirmative action ^[31]
• the 35-hour workweek^[32]
• the establishment of a minimum wage in Britain ^[33]
• private healthcare instead of some form national healthcare system, though it is not opposed to people choosing private health instead of that offered by the state^{[citation needed]}
• the policies of Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez
• the election and policies of Silvio Berlusconi
• the policies of Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's president
• control of abortion by anyone other than the pregnant woman
• the form of the European Constitution as drafted
• torture of any kind in any circumstance ^[34]
• gerrymandering of political districts ^[35]
• "windfall" taxes ^[36]
• Laws prohibiting Holocaust denial in Europe
• America's nuclear deal with India
• Israeli intervention in Lebanon & Gaza
• Arab rejectionism (a policy stance expressing a desire to destroy the state of Israel "push them into the sea")^[clarify]
• Communist North Korea and leader Kim Jong II
• Environmentalism; while cautiously advocating limited environmental action on the part of governments, The Economist has disagreed with and often ridiculed environmentalist organisations such as Greenpeace.^{[citation needed]}
• The ASEAN policy of "constructive engagement" with Myanmar

[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” ^[37]
• George W. Bush, Republican (U.S. presidential election, 2000), after John McCain was defeated in the Republican primaries. At the time, the newspaper hoped 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”^[38]
• Labour Party, led by Tony Blair (United Kingdom general election, 2001): “Vote conservative” ^[39]
• Christian Democratic Union, led by Edmund Stoiber (German legislative election, 2002): "Time for a change" ^[40]
• Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican (2003 California recall), though the magazine was strongly opposed to the recall itself^[41]
• Ken Livingstone, Labour (London mayoral election, 2004) "Why Londoners should vote for Ken Livingstone, despite his many flaws"^[42]
• Liberal-National coalition, led by John Howard (Australian federal election, 2004); had opposed Howard's bid for a third term in 2001 ^[43]
• John Kerry, Democrat (U.S. presidential election, 2004): “The incompetent George W. Bush or the incoherent John Kerry” ^[44]
• Labour Party, led by Tony Blair (United Kingdom general election, 2005): “There is no alternative (alas)” ^[45]
• Conservative Party of Canada, led by Stephen Harper (Canadian general election, 2006) "Those daring Canadians: And why they should vote Conservative this time" ^[46]
• The Union, led by Romano Prodi (Italian general election, 2006) "Italians have a rotten choice to make, but it is time to sack Silvio Berlusconi" ^[47]
• The Democratic Party, (United States midterm election, 2006) "Whichever way you look at it, the Republicans deserve to get clobbered next week" ^[48]
• Nicolas Sarkozy, (French presidential election, 2007) "After a quarter-century of drift Nicolas Sarkozy offers the best hope of reform"^[49]
• Recep Tayyip Erdogan, (Turkish parliamentary election, 2007) "The best result would be the re-election of Recep Tayyip Erdogan"^[50]
• Walter Veltroni, (Italian general election, 2008) "Silvio Berlusconi has failed to show that he is any more worthy of leading Italy today than he was in the past"^[51]

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 ^[52] published an obituary for God.

[edit] References