The Economist editorial stance

It has been suggested that this article be merged with The Economist.

This article or section resembles a fansite. 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).

[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]
• Legal trade in transplant organs
• Laws against monopolies and anticompetitive behaviour

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 of 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]}
• Global Warming denialism
• 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:

[edit] For British general elections

The Economist has endorsed a party at British general election since 1955, having remained neutral in the few before that, on the grounds that "A journal that is jealous of its reputation for independence would, in any event, be foolish to compromise it by openly taking sides in a general election."^[37]

• 1955: Conservative Party, led by Sir Anthony Eden, "[I]n the election of 1955 an elector who tries to reach his conclusion by reason based on observation has no choice. He may not like voting Tory. But there is nothing else he can do." ^[38]
• 1959: Conservative Party, led by Harold Macmillan, "The Tories deserve a vote, if not of confidence, then of hope."^[39]
• 1964: Labour Party, led by Harold Wilson, "It does seem to The Economist that, on the nicest balance, the riskier choice of Labour - and Mr Wilson - will be the better choice for voters to make on Thursday."^[40]
• 1966: Conservative Party, led by Edward Heath, "On their record in the past decade, as in the past weel, on the central issues of British policy the choice must be for Mr Heath."^[41]
• 1970: Conservative Party, led by Edward Heath, "But the Conservatives provide the better hope on at least three grounds: restoring some incentives to risk-taking, not destroying savings through Mr Crossman's pension scheme, and making some overdue advance towards trade union reform."^[42]
• February 1974: Conservative Party, led by Edward Heath, "If they want the resolution that they will win through one day ... then there is no alternative to Mr Heath."^[43]
• October 1974: Conservative Party, led by Edward Heath, "[A]lthough a good Liberal contribution would be essential to the formation, and the success, of any coalition, it is the Conservatives who will provide the strongest and toughest opposition to a majority Labour government next week." While expressing a preference for the Conservatives, they also hoped for the "reinforcement of the sensible centre wherever it can be managed: that includes social democratic Labour men, who may yet have a decisive part to play, as much as it includes Conservatives who would rely on unemployment as their main policy"^[44]
• 1979: Conservative Party, led by Margaret Thatcher, "We are not confident that it will be proved, but we would like to see it tried. The Economist votes for Mrs Thatcher being given her chance." This year they recognized the risk of Margaret Thatcher, and supported the Liberal Party, led by David Steel, as "the choice for the timid" ^[45]
• 1983: Conservative Party, led by Margaret Thatcher, "We believe Mrs Thatcher and her colleagues should be given a second chance to deliver them, with the fewest possible Labour (as distinct from alliance) MPs elected against her."^[46]
• 1987: Conservative Party, led by Margaret Thatcher, "The Tories may not succeed; the Thatcher revolution may stall, unfinished. But to end its chances now would be folly, grand scale"^[47]
• 1992: Conservative Party, led by John Major, "Mr Ashdown's best long-term hope for a Liberal revival lies in overturning the past 92 years, so that the Labour Party and the Liberals rejoin each other. For that to happen, Labour must lose this election, and the bigger its loss the better. And that, given the depressing state of British politics, is the best reason for wanting the Conservatives to win next week."^[48]
• 1997: Conservative Party, led by John Major, “Labour doesn't deserve it” ^[49]
• 2001: Labour Party, led by Tony Blair, “Vote conservative” ^[50]
• 2005: Labour Party, led by Tony Blair, “There is no alternative (alas)” ^[51]

[edit] For United States presidential elections

• 1980: Ronald Reagan, Republican Party, "That, perhaps, is the most pressing reason why so many of America's friends want, unusually in a presidential election, to see a change at the top, even one laden with risk. We agree with them."^[52]
• 1984: No endorsement^[53]
• 1988: No endorsement, "Oh dear!"^[54]
• 1992: Bill Clinton, Democratic Party, "Despite the risks, the possibilities are worth pursuing. Our choice falls on him."^[55]
• 1996: Bob Dole, Republican Party, "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."^[56]
• 2000: George W. Bush, Republican Party, 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."^[57]
• 2004: John Kerry, Democratic Party, “The incompetent George W. Bush or the incoherent John Kerry” ^[58]
• 2008: Barack Obama, Democratic Party, "He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency."^[59]

[edit] Others

• New York City mayoral election, 2001: Michael Bloomberg, Republican “The Economist would shudder and pull the lever for Mr. Bloomberg”^[60]
• German federal election, 2002: Christian Democratic Union, led by Edmund Stoiber "Time for a change" ^[61]
• 2003 California recall: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican , though the newspaper was strongly opposed to the recall itself^[62]
• London mayoral election, 2004: Ken Livingstone, Labour "Why Londoners should vote for Ken Livingstone, despite his many flaws"^[63]
• Australian federal election, 2004: Liberal-National coalition, led by John Howard ; had opposed Howard's bid for a third term in 2001 ^[64]
• Canadian general election, 2006, Canadian general election, 2008: Conservative Party of Canada, led by Stephen Harper "Those daring Canadians: And why they should vote Conservative this time" ^[65]
• Italian general election, 2006: The Union, led by Romano Prodi "Italians have a rotten choice to make, but it is time to sack Silvio Berlusconi" ^[66]
• United States midterm election, 2006: The Democratic Party, "Whichever way you look at it, the Republicans deserve to get clobbered next week" ^[67]
• French presidential election, 2007: Nicolas Sarkozy, "After a quarter-century of drift Nicolas Sarkozy offers the best hope of reform"^[68]
• Turkish parliamentary election, 2007: Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ("The best result would be the re-election of Recep Tayyip Erdogan"^[69]
• Italian general election, 2008: Walter Veltroni, "Silvio Berlusconi has failed to show that he is any more worthy of leading Italy today than he was in the past"^[70]
• Canadian general election, 2008: Conservative Party of Canada, led by Stephen Harper, "Why Stephen Harper does not deserve to be dumped" ^[71]

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 ^[72] published an obituary for God.

[edit] References