I have just read The Economist’s endorsement of President Obama. As I read this I found their reason for endorsing President Obama is more about the devil they know versus the devil they don’t know. The Economist is fiscally and politically conservative, for the most part, but, just like four years ago, it is endorsing Obama.
The article in which they discuss this starts with the following, “Four years ago, The Economist endorsed Barack Obama for the White House with enthusiasm.” Then it goes on to describe President Obama’s handling of the campaign for this election. They describe his campaign as woeful and negative, and they describe his presidency as patchy. The article goes on to explain that America was in a “downward spiral when he took over, with its banks and carmakers in deep trouble and unemployment rising at the rate of 800,000 a month.” The Economist then mentions how his policies helped avert a depression. The Economist also discussed foreign policy, and how Obama refocused the war on terror “more squarely on the terrorist.” The Economist also discussed how 40 million people without health care is a travesty, and how Obamacare will correct this problem. “but, Mr. Obama did very little to deal with its flaw – hug and unaffordable costs. Obamacare has generated a tangle of red tape – and left business to deal with it.”
After making statements that point out the positives of Obama’s administration, the change in tone was interesting to say the least, the Economist states, “It is here that our doubts about Mr. Obama set in.” The magazine praises Clinton for his understanding of Capitalism, and criticized people around Obama who are willing to bash business at the drop of a hat. The White House is said to lean to the left and is insular.
At this point the Economist attacks Romney, “there are a lot of Romneys and they have committed themselves to a lot of dangerous things.” The Economist then goes on to express their concerns about the Republican party in general.
The last section of the article though, is quite telling. It is entitled “The devil we know.” I recognize the concerns the Economist has identified, and it is in line with my concerns with the yahoos we have elected into the service of this country. “We very much hope that whichever of these men wins office will prove our pessimism wrong.” Now that is an interesting endorsement. “Once in the White House, maybe the Romney of the mind will become reality, cracking bipartisan deals to reshape American government.” Or maybe, “A re-elected President Obama might learn from his mistakes, clean up the White House, listen to the odd businessman and secure a legacy happier than the one he would leave after a single term.” Then the Economist makes an interesting point that illustrates the true condition of our political environment, “Both men have it in them to be their better selves, but the sad fact is that neither candidate has campaigned as if that is his plan.”
So there you have it, an endorsement that is really an indictment. It is an indictment against our evolving political system. If I were an Obama supporter I would not be so quick to use the Economist as validation for my candidate. The choice in their estimation the lesser of two evils.
And that is my thought for the day!