Reply #33: You're wrong about that right wing stuff. But don't let that stop you. [View All]

[NYCGirl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist

When the newspaper was founded, the term "economism" denoted what would today be termed fiscal conservatism in the United States, or economic liberalism in the rest of the world (and historically in the United States as well). The Economist generally supports free markets and opposes socialism. It is in favour of globalisation and free immigration. It also supports social liberalism, which is often seen as left-wing, especially in the United States. This contrast derives in part from The Economist's roots in classical liberalism, disfavouring government interference in either social or economic activity. According to former editor Bill Emmott, "the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative."<11> However, the views taken by individual contributors are quite diverse.

The Economist has endorsed both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in recent British elections, and both Republican and Democratic candidates in the United States.

A history of The Economist by the editors of Economist.com puts it this way:

What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when former Economist editor Geoffrey Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage.<12>

The Economist has frequently criticised figures and countries deemed corrupt or dishonest. In recent years, for example, it has been critical of World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's former Prime Minister (who dubbed it The Ecommunist<13>); Laurent Kabila, the late president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and Robert Mugabe, the head of government in Zimbabwe. The Economist also called for Bill Clinton's impeachment and later for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation after the emergence of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse.<14> The Economist supported George W. Bush's election campaign in 2000 and initially was a vocal supporter for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, but it has since called the operation "bungled from the start" and criticized the "almost criminal negligence" of the Bush Administration’s handling of the war, while maintaining, as of April 2008, that pulling out in the short term would be irresponsible.<15> In the 2004 U.S. election, the editors backed John Kerry.<16><17> The paper has also supported some left-wing issues such as progressive taxation, criticizing the U.S. tax model in a recent issue, and seems to support some government regulation on health issues, such as smoking in public areas. The Economist consistently favours guest worker programmes and amnesties, especially in 2006 when one article was titled "Sense not Sensenbrenner."<18>