Slashdot Mirror
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."
> 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 The "tax and spend" Democrats have been replaced by "tax cut and spend" Republicans.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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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 ...
it's in my head
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.
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.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
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.
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.
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.