Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

November 2nd, 2008

Tags

,

Comments

13 Comments so far.
Add yours.

A not so wholehearted endorsement

Cover of The Economist endorsing Barack Obama

At latest tally, Obama leads McCain 240 to 114 in US newspaper endorsements. Last Friday The Economist, one of the heavies of international news, also endorsed Obama. The endorsement has spawned a deluge of negative comments. I think this reflects that The Economist cannot be pigeonholed as a “conservative” newspaper, which makes me feel warm inside.

The endorsement was heavily qualified. In fact half of it was a laundry list of McCain’s failings: his swing to the right, endorsement of the Bush tax cuts, acceptance of “theocratic culture warriors,” and worst of all the choice of Sarah Palin (who according to a NYT/CBS poll weighs down the Republican ticket). The Economist chalks these failings up to McCain being the “victim of political sorcery,” a view somewhat similar to my own.

So, head on over to The Economist and take a read. Come back and tell me whether or not you think it is “irresponsible” of The Economist to endorse “[taking] a chance with the most powerful office on the planet,” or if you think they should just keep quiet and “mind [their] own business.” Related: Obama demolished McCain 9115 to 203 in the Global Electoral College.

Comments to this entry

mihnea
November 2, 2008
3:12 pm
it would be hypocritical to criticize one candidate's pandering to his base and criticize another's. what matters most, i think, in this election, is the negative vote the republicans are going to receive from a large base of centrist voters. that such a fact coincides with obama's rhetoric to a certain degree is another story. the economist, in my view, has always tried to cater to a global audience, so in that sense it would have been foolish of them to endorse a candidate that a) wasn't popular on the world stage and b) wasn't going to win, by many accounts. they still have to sell a magazine, after all.
mihnea
November 2, 2008
4:34 pm
jeez...errata: it would be hypocritical to criticize one candidate’s pandering to his base and NOT criticize another’s.
galen
November 2, 2008
9:55 pm
I will put this simply. If you have been paying attention at all, there is no way you can endorse McCain. The man is nothing more than a sometimes charming, most often boorish, Don Quixote.
Joe Jones
November 2, 2008
10:22 pm
Be sure to review the Economist's track record on endorsements:
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12499760
Curzon
November 3, 2008
1:30 am
I read the endorsement with much cheer because The Economist basically expresses the same views as me, they just come to a different conclusion -- McCain's had a great 3 decades in Washington DC, and hopefully how he'd be president would reflect on that, not the way he's managed his campaign.

The magazine had similar words 12 years ago during the 1996 election, and it brought them to the conclusion I made thsi election, when they endorsed Bob Dole:

"We choose him on the assumption that the real Bob Dole is the one who spent three decades on Capitol Hill, not this year's dubious character; that he would be more prudent than his economic plan implies. That is an awkward basis for an endorsement. But the choice is a lousy one."

As for the Global Electoral College, it's totally retarded -- in the post-Cold War era it is always 98+% in favor of Democratic candidates, which should make every American voter think twice about voting for Democratic candidates.
Just An Australian
November 3, 2008
10:11 am
Why is it always 98% in favor of democratic candidates (other than this year, when it did not achieve such a high number)? And why would it make every American think twice about voting for democrats? Is every one the enemy?
SorinPLATON
November 3, 2008
11:03 am
Few naiv thoughts from a "global" citizen...

http://sorinplaton.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/sustainable-development-another-translation/

http://sorinplaton.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/to-a-world-wide-citizens-movement/

1=
Curzon
November 3, 2008
11:48 am
JAT: The percentage this year is 97.7% -- in 2004 the only countries that "voted" for Bush were Uruguay and Latvia.

It's an issue because of the concept of national interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_interest
Countries and citizens should be looking out for their own interest, not that of other nations, and when most other countries are backing one candidate it suggests that that candidate may not be best for the interests of the country he is looking to represent.
Joe Jones
November 3, 2008
12:52 pm
I think it's a simpler issue. Foreigners don't really care about US tax rates. That removes most of the appeal of Republican candidates right there: the only people who will remain on the red side are conservative Christians (who aren't all that numerous outside the US) and dedicated realpolitik fans.
Of course, you also have to take into account the demographic skewing that occurs in an election (a) marketed to Economist readers, (b) conducted entirely on the internet, and (c) limited to candidates selected at the whims of Iowa and New Hampshire residents.
jim
November 3, 2008
9:38 pm
The Economist is, by American standards, a center-left publication. The Economist is like New Democrats of the 90s (a breed of Democrat that has been purged by the DailyKos radical left base of Obama.)

So it's not a surprise at all that they would endorse Obama. They are doing what most center-left Americans are doing -- hoping that Obama only pretended to be a radical lefty in his Chicago years.

Personally, I believe Obama will be true to his far left roots. Which is why I find him such a morally repugnant human being.
Just An Australian
November 3, 2008
10:24 pm
> It’s an issue because of the concept of national interest.

I don't think that it's obvious that this applies. The US president makes a material difference to our lives as well because of the interconnected system of nations. I think that our interests converge more than they diverge (for Australians - and most of the rest of the world).

Agree about taxes. And in Australia, conservative Christians (I am one) are horrified by the pro-death agenda of McCain on anything but Abortion.
Curzon
November 4, 2008
1:46 am
Joe puts one face on it, which I think explains most of it. The other factor is that the world wants whoever will lead the country in a kinder, weaker way.

JAT: "conservative Christians (I am one) are horrified by the pro-death agenda of McCain on anything but Abortion"

Are you referring to capital punishment? Reality check: both candidates are in favor of it; that has not been an issue in this election; and the number of people who vote or choose their candidate on that issue is miniscule.
Just An Australian
November 4, 2008
3:20 am
> Are you referring to capital punishment?

Well, that was included, though I know both are in favour of it. It wouldn't be a small issue here. But my main focus was pro-war, and anti-proper healthcare: these are both pro-death to us. From my perspective, which many (though perhaps not all, I'm not sure) of my fellow conservative Australian Christians, the republican platform is callously taking advantage of false religion. I'm reminded often of a cartoon I saw: Bush vetoing some pro-abortion law, saying "every life is precious", and in the background, some headline saying Iraq casualty count: 100,000 and rising.