Yep, have been reading for 15 years and it has only got really bad over the past few years (imo, it started before Trump). I actually wouldn't say it is about

Yep, have been reading for 15 years and it has only got really bad over the past few years (imo, it started before Trump). I actually wouldn't say it is about having an official position either. The OP really isn't about liberalism vs illiberalism...politics/finance are inseparable and the US is the guarantor for an open financial system. The article ends up arguing for the position of Iran/Russia/China (and the illiberal voices within the EU like Juncker) who extract from the system without paying in. You can't respond to illiberalism with liberalism. Imo, this is a fairly obvious aspect of international relations that, in the past, the Economist rarely missed. But since the switch in editor, it has become: our goal is Trump bad, let's write an article that shows this so we will get there any way we can. It isn't only Trump though. In other areas, writers dispense with liberal values whenever it suits (which is increasingly common these days).