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.
The newspaper defines its point of view as classically liberal. Therefore, its editorial stance tends to take positions that are socially liberal but fiscally conservative; 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 |
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 “Republic of Macedonia” name for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the Macedonia naming dispute[24].
- A “praline divorce” of Belgium, separation of the country into Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels.[25]
- Nationalisation of Northern Rock by the British government[26]
- Inclusionism in Wikipedia [27]
In one of its more light-hearted pieces, the newspaper also supported voluntary human extinction at an unspecified future time.[28] Several articles have also expressed support for the establishment of a flat tax in several countries, and in particular, for reform of the complex American tax system.
Opposition
It has opposed:
- the death penalty [29]
- affirmative action [30]
- the 35-hour workweek[31]
- the establishment of a minimum wage in Britain [32]
- 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 [33]
- gerrymandering of political districts [34]
- "windfall" taxes [35]
- 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
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” [36]
- 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”[37]
- Labour Party, led by Tony Blair (United Kingdom general election, 2001): “Vote conservative” [38]
- Christian Democratic Union, led by Edmund Stoiber (German legislative election, 2002): "Time for a change" [39]
- Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican (2003 California recall), though the magazine was strongly opposed to the recall itself[40]
- Ken Livingstone, Labour (London mayoral election, 2004) [41]
- Liberal-National coalition, led by John Howard (Australian federal election, 2004); had opposed Howard's bid for a third term in 2001 [42]
- John Kerry, Democrat (U.S. presidential election, 2004): “The incompetent George W. Bush or the incoherent John Kerry” [43]
- Labour Party, led by Tony Blair (United Kingdom general election, 2005): “There is no alternative (alas)” [44]
- Conservative Party of Canada, led by Stephen Harper (Canadian general election, 2006) "Those daring Canadians: And why they should vote Conservative this time" [45]
- The Union, led by Romano Prodi (Italian general election, 2006) "Basta, Berlusconi" [46]
- The Democratic Party, (United States midterm election, 2006) "Whichever way you look at it, the Republicans deserve to get clobbered next week" [47]
- Nicolas Sarkozy, (French presidential election, 2007) "After a quarter-century of drift Nicolas Sarkozy offers the best hope of reform"[48]
- Recep Tayyip Erdogan, (Turkish parliamentary election, 2007) "The best result would be the re-election of Recep Tayyip Erdogan"
Some of these might not be considered official endorsements, but seem to obviously express The Economist's view on the matter.
Obituaries
In its December 23, 1999 edition, The Economist controversially [49] published an obituary for God.
References
- ^ America's nuclear deal with India | From bad to worse | Economist.com
- ^ Nuclear disarmament | The long, long half-life | Economist.com
- ^ Britain and the bomb | Keep on cutting | Economist.com
- ^ What happened to free trade? | Economist.com
- ^ The EU's agricultural policy | Europe's farm follies | Economist.com
- ^ A Survey of the United States
- ^ One victim every minute | Economist.com
- ^ The European Union | Why Europe must say yes to Turkey | Economist.com
- ^ Lift-off for enterprise | Economist.com
- ^ SpaceShipOne | Up, up and away | Economist.com
- ^ Corporate social responsibility | Two-faced capitalism | Economist.com
- ^ The union of concerned executives | Economist.com
- ^ America's schools | Hands up for vouchers | Economist.com
- ^ Milton Friedman's legacy | Unfinished business | Economist.com
- ^ Corporate tax | Time to hiss | Economist.com
- ^ Health care | America's headache | Economist.com
- ^ Lexington | Time for him to go | Economist.com
- ^ Europe's proposed constitution | Where to file it | Economist.com
- ^ And so to trial | Economist.com
- ^ Equal rights | The case for gay marriage | Economist.com
- ^ Prostitution | Sex is their business | Economist.com
- ^ The drug “war” in Latin America | Next steps in Colombia | Economist.com
- ^ Organ transplants | Psst, wanna buy a kidney? | Economist.com
- ^ Europe.view | Macedonian mess | Economist.com
- ^ "Time to call it a day", The Economist, 6 September 2007. Retrieved on 9 December 2007.
- ^ "Pulling the plug", The Economist, 22 November 2007. Retrieved on 9 December 2007. , described in later editions as the "least worst" option.
- ^ "The battle for Wikipedia's soul", The Economist, 6 March 2008. Retrieved on 12 March 2008.
- ^ Sui genocide | Economist.com
- ^ The cruel and ever more unusual punishment | Economist.com
- ^ Scrap affirmative action | Economist.com
- ^ France and the 35-hour week | Change on the way? | Economist.com
- ^ Labour’s wage policy | Minimum sense | Economist.com
- ^ Fighting terrorism | Is torture ever justified? | Economist.com
- ^ Congressional redistricting | How to rig an election | Economist.com
- ^ Windfall taxes | An oily slope | Economist.com
- ^ Labour doesn’t deserve it | Economist.com
- ^ New York city's election | Goodbye, Rudy Tuesday | Economist.com
- ^ Britain’s election | Vote conservative | Economist.com
- ^ The German election | Time for a change | Economist.com
- ^ California's recall election | Has it come to this? | Economist.com
- ^ London mayoral election | A capital choice | Economist.com
- ^ Australia | John Howard reconsidered | Economist.com
- ^ America's next president | The incompetent or the incoherent? | Economist.com
- ^ Our British election endorsement | There is no alternative (alas) | Economist.com
- ^ Canada | Those daring Canadians | Economist.com
- ^ Italy's election | Basta, Berlusconi | Economist.com
- ^ America's mid-term elections | The vultures gather | Economist.com
- ^ The French presidential election | France's chance | Economist.com
- ^ Unknown: "God Obituary". The Economist, Dec 23, 1999.
- Nicolas Sarkozy, (French presidential election, 2007) "After a quarter-century of drift Nicolas Sarkozy offers the best hope of reform"[48]
- The Democratic Party, (United States midterm election, 2006) "Whichever way you look at it, the Republicans deserve to get clobbered next week" [47]
- The Union, led by Romano Prodi (Italian general election, 2006) "Basta, Berlusconi" [46]
- Conservative Party of Canada, led by Stephen Harper (Canadian general election, 2006) "Those daring Canadians: And why they should vote Conservative this time" [45]
- Labour Party, led by Tony Blair (United Kingdom general election, 2005): “There is no alternative (alas)” [44]
- John Kerry, Democrat (U.S. presidential election, 2004): “The incompetent George W. Bush or the incoherent John Kerry” [43]
- Liberal-National coalition, led by John Howard (Australian federal election, 2004); had opposed Howard's bid for a third term in 2001 [42]
- Ken Livingstone, Labour (London mayoral election, 2004) [41]
- Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican (2003 California recall), though the magazine was strongly opposed to the recall itself[40]
- Christian Democratic Union, led by Edmund Stoiber (German legislative election, 2002): "Time for a change" [39]
- Labour Party, led by Tony Blair (United Kingdom general election, 2001): “Vote conservative” [38]
- "windfall" taxes [35]
- gerrymandering of political districts [34]
- the establishment of a minimum wage in Britain [32]
- the 35-hour workweek[31]
- affirmative action [30]
- the death penalty [29]
- Inclusionism in Wikipedia [27]
- Nationalisation of Northern Rock by the British government[26]
- A “praline divorce” of Belgium, separation of the country into Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels.[25]
- The “Republic of Macedonia” name for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the Macedonia naming dispute[24].
- Legalization of all drugs[22]
- Legal prostitution: "People should be allowed to buy and sell whatever they like, including their own bodies."[21]
- gay marriage: "Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have?"[20]
- President Clinton's impeachment.[19]
- the principle of a European Constitution in theory while opposing the current version[18]
- the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld[17]
- deregulation of health care markets, ending subsidies to insurance companies, and a mandated insurance system[16]
- the abolition of all forms of corporate tax[15]
- education vouchers:[13] "This newspaper has long subscribed wholeheartedly to the idea of school vouchers."[14]
- space tourism and exploration by private organisations such as Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne instead of government funding through NASA[9][10]
- expansion of the European Union, including Turkey's application for membership[8]
- stronger gun control laws in the United States[7]
