
Is The Economist left- or right-wing? - tomaskazemekas
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-0?fb_ref=activity
======
SideburnsOfDoom
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
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
"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
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
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
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.

~~~
Umn55
Please gentleman try to read something. If you are playing at electoral
politics, you understand very little.

[http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-
Inverte...](http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-
Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/)

[http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-
Spect...](http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-
Spectacle/dp/1568586132)

[http://www.amazon.com/Death-Liberal-Class-Chris-
Hedges/dp/15...](http://www.amazon.com/Death-Liberal-Class-Chris-
Hedges/dp/1568586795/)

Anyone in north america lives in a hard right fascist state. Both canada and
the US are completely fascist, and the "liberal wing" isn't. The liberal wings
of USA and canada are hard right conservative.

------
davidw
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
"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)

------
midhir
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
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.

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

~~~
mdda
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. "

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
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
>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.

