I used to look to The Economist for levelheaded, solid articles and a defense of actual economic principles. Lately, their decline to the levels of the rest of the mainstream media in terms of anti-GOP bias has become more and more evident. Captian Capitalism, a great econo-blogger in Minnesota I have been following lately has been chronicling this quite effectively.
The economist’s latest cheap shot at the GOP is their echoing of the mainstream media’s attempt to minimize the impact of the freedom promoting, Anti-Tax teaparties recently executed across this country but regular citizens fed up with the tax and spend ways of the Democrats who are in power. The Economist states:
“OVER the weekend Politico attempted to quantify what everyone in Washington knows—the Republican Party is hamstrung in its attempts to come back from the defeats of 2008 by an angry grassroots and base that want the party to move right.”
The GOP hate is palpable.
Republicans don’t want the party to “move right”, they want Republicans to be Republican. To stand up for the free-market belief’s of the party that they are apart of. For too long their has been too many compromises on taxes, spending and not enough actions.
We as grassroots Republicans are not angry, we are passionate about our freedoms and we want change that will improve the country, not irresponsible change that will drive us deeper into debt and despair like President Barack Obama has in his first 100 days.
Last 5 posts by Brandon- The Graphic Effect of High Taxes and Spending, Move on out! - June 16th, 2010
- Live from the 2010 Wisconsin GOP Convention - May 22nd, 2010
- Republican Party of Wisconsin State Convention 2010 - May 21st, 2010
- Charts: Artificial American Recovery? - April 15th, 2010
- Liberal Professor to Teach FUELMilwaukee "Government 101" - April 14th, 2010
Tags: Barack Obama, economist, GOP, grassroots, media bias, republicans
I am sorry Brandon, but when you accuse the Economist of holding a liberal perspective, you truly have lost it. I read the economist regularly and I consider them to be an important magazine that counters liberal economic paradigms. In fact, the opposite of what you claim. This magazine is the most popular, consistently read magazine by politicians, economists, and statesman. To claim the analysis of the Economist has declined is BS. My very pro-free market econ professor claims it is still top notch and highly advanced in its analysis of markets, businesses, and politics. I completely agree and have no idea what anti-GOP bias you speak of. I call it objective reporting. Only the WSJ comes close to the depth, perspective, and quality of the writing.
In general, if you’re relying on the “mainstream media bias against GOP”, you’re doing something wrong.
If the Republican party is unable to do some critical self reflection and adjust accordingly, it’s not going to fare well in 2010.
. . . and yes, there is a very loud and very angry subset of the party right now. Did you watch the teabag parties? That was not reasoned political discourse. That was anger.
i’m curious to hear other bloggers opine about their political perspective of The Economist (and if/how that has changed). I have an economics undergrad degree and a master’s in nursing and have been reading/enjoying the mix of conservative and liberal editorials and articles for over a decade.
my husband and i just got into a debate about The Economist’s political lens: moderate conservative (my vote), “liberal!!” (my hubs vote), or other? “you decide..”
thanks in advance, katie
To clear things up – the Economist magazine has always worn its editorial stance on its sleeve – it is “classical liberalism”.
Classicial liberalism is a coupling of both economic and social liberalism.
Economic liberalism is a philosophy that supports free-markets, minimal government interference on business, and pro-free trade. It is against prevlidge, statism, and other such measures that interfere with individual preference. Probably the most famous early “economic liberalism” thinker would be Adam Smith. In America, “economic liberalism” is termed “fiscal conservatism”.
Social liberalism is a philosophy that supports freedom of choice in human action. It is secular humanism. This is a philosophy that governments (and other “moral” authorities such as organized religions) should strive towards the least amount of interference or restriction on individual choice. Social liberalism support of drug & prostitution legalisation, gay marriage, and against any unecessary intrusion of authority on an individual’s freedom to live their life as they choose.
As such, it isn’t surprising the the Economist wouldn’t be in favor of the current direction the Republican part is taking. The republican party is a marriage of “economic liberalism” (aka fiscal conservatism) and social conservatism. The economist party is very socially liberal. Thus, obviously, the anti-abortion, anti-gay rights segement of the republican party would be contrary to their position.
In short, political stances are often more complicated than the black/white, republican/democrat, “liberal”/”conservative” labels that we have in the US. It is a real shame that some many people can’t recognize this fact.