4 ms·

Is The Economist left- or right-wing?

19 points by tomaskazemekas 12y ago

cagenut 12y ago
without even reading your answer is at the top, "sponsored by ge"
- mdda 12y ago
  And reading the first paragraph explains why left-wing/right-wing is not so clear-cut : "We like free enterprise and tend to favour deregulation and privatisation. But we also like gay marriage, want to legalise drugs and disapprove of monarchy. "
  - eru 12y ago
    That's classic European liberalism.
    - avz 12y ago
      Drop the "European". Just "classical liberalism". It's cleaner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
  - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
    Has the legalisation of drugs ever been a strict left-/right- issue? Those on the far right tend to be libertarian and, thus, pretty anti- all laws, especially those considered restrictions of an individual's 'freedom'.
    - simonh 12y ago
      >Those on the far right tend to be libertarian and, thus, pretty anti- all laws Not in Europe (genrally speaking). Ayn Rand never got any traction over here.
    - 1ris 12y ago
      The American right is pretty bizarre for Europeans, for example their stance on Israel. Same goes libertarians. Right wing here by definition requires a positive view on authory, morals and order (and implicit hierarchies/law&order politics/regulations on drugs,porn, etc.).
  - runj__ 12y ago
    In Sweden, one group everybody hates are the classic liberals, that is: economic right, social left. This is something I find quite confusing, the only group that rightful should feel that way are the economic left, social right. So basically NSDAP (Godwins law and all). I suppose it has to to with the self-righteous outlook the group tend to has.
  - 1ris 12y ago
    >favour deregulation liberal and centre right >privatisation liberal and right >gay marriage liberal >legalise drugs liberal >disapprove of monarchy Could be about every ideology. From late fascism, over bolshevism to democracy and anarchism. Neither of these are IMO (center) left wing stances. Also I'd like some example why in the world Obama is left wing. He's IMO right to european conservatives. The moral of the story: "Neither, is the answer". Not because it's left and right at the same time, but because it's simply (mainly) something different than both.
SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
The Economist had extensive coverage of the death of Margaret Thatcher in 2013, but I didn't see a single word of criticism of her in it. IMHO, case closed and subscription cancelled.
- eru 12y ago
  They shy away from criticising the recently deceased. You should read some of their obituaries of dictators. They are in general in favour of Thatcher. Why would you get a subscription in the first place, if that makes you cancel it? They don't keep their biases secret.
  - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
    "They don't keep their biases secret." ... er, except when they publish puff pieces trying to claim they're neither on the left nor the right!
    - avz 12y ago
      Which seems rather accurate. Classical liberalism is liberal on both social and economic issues. The left is liberal on social issues and the right generally on the economic ones.
      - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
        But Thatcher was on the hard-right socially and economically. Being pro-thatcher and claiming even a smidgen of a left-leaning stance is laughable.
        dagw 12y ago
        Being pro-Thatcher doesn't mean that they are an unapologetic supporter of everything she ever said or did. It just means that at the time they thought on balance that she was better than the alternative the Labour party offered. An analysis that was hardly controversial at the time.
midhir 12y ago
They present 'disapproving of the Monarchy' as if it's the exclusive preserve of the left, then link to an article where they actually imply they support the Monarchy insofar as it remains `popular`.
- simonh 12y ago
  They disapprove of a Monarchy in principle, but given the monarch doesn't actualy have any influence in politics they don't believe it's worth starting a civil war over it. I think that's fair enough. edit: This is a classic example of the pragmatism TE is famous for. Sometimes they have to hold their noses when advocating a policy or choosing a politician to back, but that's because sometimes the ideal policy is simply unrealistic to implement, or the alternative politicians are even worse. Occasionaly they get it wrong, and you can fairly disagree with some of their choices, but they always give a clear and honest appraisal of their reasons.
davidw 12y ago
Is linking to discussions of politics on HN generally off-topic? Yes: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
tragic 12y ago
"It has thrown its weight behind politicians on the right, like Margaret Thatcher, and on the left, like Barack Obama. It is often drawn to centrist politicians and parties who appear to combine the best of both sides, such as Tony Blair, whose combination of social and economic liberalism persuaded it to endorse him at the 2001 and the 2005 elections (though it criticised his government’s infringements of civil liberties)." Interesting examples, which if anything tend to reinforce the idea that left and right are more difficult to go 'beyond', even for a venerable magazine, than they'd like to think. So you vote for Margaret Thatcher - you get the big bang in the city, privatisations, the breaking of the power of the unions. You also get section 28[1], rabble-rousing about migrants, aggressive policing and strikingly illiberal drugs policies. Blair and Obama (just about) managed to gain some ground for gay rights, and I suppose this state-by-state legalisation of marijuana is happening on Obama's watch, but one could hardly call them libertarians when it comes to the secret state. What The Economist is telling us, for practical purposes, is that deregulation and so on is more important to its editorial line than personal liberties of various kinds. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

without even reading your answer is at the top, "sponsored by ge"

mdda 12y ago
And reading the first paragraph explains why left-wing/right-wing is not so clear-cut : "We like free enterprise and tend to favour deregulation and privatisation. But we also like gay marriage, want to legalise drugs and disapprove of monarchy. "
- eru 12y ago
  That's classic European liberalism.
  - avz 12y ago
    Drop the "European". Just "classical liberalism". It's cleaner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
- oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
  Has the legalisation of drugs ever been a strict left-/right- issue? Those on the far right tend to be libertarian and, thus, pretty anti- all laws, especially those considered restrictions of an individual's 'freedom'.
  - simonh 12y ago
    >Those on the far right tend to be libertarian and, thus, pretty anti- all laws Not in Europe (genrally speaking). Ayn Rand never got any traction over here.
  - 1ris 12y ago
    The American right is pretty bizarre for Europeans, for example their stance on Israel. Same goes libertarians. Right wing here by definition requires a positive view on authory, morals and order (and implicit hierarchies/law&order politics/regulations on drugs,porn, etc.).
- runj__ 12y ago
  In Sweden, one group everybody hates are the classic liberals, that is: economic right, social left. This is something I find quite confusing, the only group that rightful should feel that way are the economic left, social right. So basically NSDAP (Godwins law and all). I suppose it has to to with the self-righteous outlook the group tend to has.
- 1ris 12y ago
  >favour deregulation liberal and centre right >privatisation liberal and right >gay marriage liberal >legalise drugs liberal >disapprove of monarchy Could be about every ideology. From late fascism, over bolshevism to democracy and anarchism. Neither of these are IMO (center) left wing stances. Also I'd like some example why in the world Obama is left wing. He's IMO right to european conservatives. The moral of the story: "Neither, is the answer". Not because it's left and right at the same time, but because it's simply (mainly) something different than both.

The Economist had extensive coverage of the death of Margaret Thatcher in 2013, but I didn't see a single word of criticism of her in it. IMHO, case closed and subscription cancelled.

eru 12y ago
They shy away from criticising the recently deceased. You should read some of their obituaries of dictators. They are in general in favour of Thatcher. Why would you get a subscription in the first place, if that makes you cancel it? They don't keep their biases secret.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
  "They don't keep their biases secret." ... er, except when they publish puff pieces trying to claim they're neither on the left nor the right!
  - avz 12y ago
    Which seems rather accurate. Classical liberalism is liberal on both social and economic issues. The left is liberal on social issues and the right generally on the economic ones.
    - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
      But Thatcher was on the hard-right socially and economically. Being pro-thatcher and claiming even a smidgen of a left-leaning stance is laughable.
      - dagw 12y ago
        Being pro-Thatcher doesn't mean that they are an unapologetic supporter of everything she ever said or did. It just means that at the time they thought on balance that she was better than the alternative the Labour party offered. An analysis that was hardly controversial at the time.

midhir 12y ago

They present 'disapproving of the Monarchy' as if it's the exclusive preserve of the left, then link to an article where they actually imply they support the Monarchy insofar as it remains `popular`.

simonh 12y ago
They disapprove of a Monarchy in principle, but given the monarch doesn't actualy have any influence in politics they don't believe it's worth starting a civil war over it. I think that's fair enough. edit: This is a classic example of the pragmatism TE is famous for. Sometimes they have to hold their noses when advocating a policy or choosing a politician to back, but that's because sometimes the ideal policy is simply unrealistic to implement, or the alternative politicians are even worse. Occasionaly they get it wrong, and you can fairly disagree with some of their choices, but they always give a clear and honest appraisal of their reasons.

davidw 12y ago

Is linking to discussions of politics on HN generally off-topic? Yes: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tragic 12y ago

"It has thrown its weight behind politicians on the right, like Margaret Thatcher, and on the left, like Barack Obama. It is often drawn to centrist politicians and parties who appear to combine the best of both sides, such as Tony Blair, whose combination of social and economic liberalism persuaded it to endorse him at the 2001 and the 2005 elections (though it criticised his government’s infringements of civil liberties)." Interesting examples, which if anything tend to reinforce the idea that left and right are more difficult to go 'beyond', even for a venerable magazine, than they'd like to think. So you vote for Margaret Thatcher - you get the big bang in the city, privatisations, the breaking of the power of the unions. You also get section 28[1], rabble-rousing about migrants, aggressive policing and strikingly illiberal drugs policies. Blair and Obama (just about) managed to gain some ground for gay rights, and I suppose this state-by-state legalisation of marijuana is happening on Obama's watch, but one could hardly call them libertarians when it comes to the secret state. What The Economist is telling us, for practical purposes, is that deregulation and so on is more important to its editorial line than personal liberties of various kinds. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28