Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Economist Endorses Kerry, Reluctantly

Posted by michael on from the throw-caution-to-the-wind dept.

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."

4 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Re: Info by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful


    > 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 The "tax and spend" Democrats have been replaced by "tax cut and spend" Republicans.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
  2. Re: Info by lastninja · · Score: 4, Informative

    Increases in non-defense discretionary spending over the past six administrations:

    Nixon/Ford: 6.8% per year

    Carter: 2.0% per year

    Reagan: -1.3% per year

    Bush 1: 4.0% per year

    Clinton: 2.5% per year

    Bush Jr: 8.2% per year

    Source
    And here is a nice graph.

    --
    John Carmack fan, browsing at +5 since 1999.
  3. Kerry Republicans by Alomex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is yet another case of a Kerry republican. In all, there have been over two dozen publications which endorsed Bush for president in 2000 and this time around are behind Kerry. In contrast, half a dozen newspapers have gone the opposite way, that is, from endorsing Gore in 2000 to endorsing Bush in 2004.

    I believe history won't be kind on the 43rd president of the USA. He had the support of the entire world post-9/11, plus the largest fiscal surplus ever and he blew away both of them in less than three years.

  4. Re:Not much... by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The Economist is a magazine which carries a lot of weight in certain circles. It is the indispensible, must-read weekly magazine of international politics and business. If you had one subscription while working at the State Department or the Federal Reserve, it would probably be this one. Though based in London, their US readership is three times their British readership and 45% of their world readership.While it has a great sense of humor (when Clinton referred to the beginning of WWII in 1941, the Economist noted that this was a "peculiarly American take on things") it is a very serious magazine full of graphs and figures of economic data. It's the type of thing you're likely to find scattered around at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Government rather than the dentist's office.

    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.