ECONOMIST:
TOO LIBERAL,
NOT DEMOCRATIC ENOUGH
NOT DEMOCRATIC ENOUGH
The French picnic The
Economist abhors.
(adapted from Edouard Manet’s “The Picnic”)
“The
Economist” is a prestigious British journal and a staunch defender and promoter
of liberty and Liberalism. I used to be a subscriber and still am a regular
on-line reader.
A few
reasons shifted me away from “The Economist”. The relevant one for the purposes
of this post, relates to what I view as being a fundamentalist drift on the
journal’s defence of its ideals.
It started
by The Economist’s 2008 endorsement of Barack Obama’s candidacy for the office
of President. Although the candidate espoused several views that ran counter
The Economist’s convictions, especially on trade, this journal expressed its
confidence that Obama would flip flop on these issues once elected. Besides
this odd conviction, there was the funny detail that John McCain was not
awarded the same confidence, or lack hereof.
However, it
is another election that drives me to write this post: the 2012 French
Presidential election. In fact, “The Economist” has run an interesting series
of articles and analysis of the French political and especially economic
situation, as well as the potential impact of the elections on other European
states and on the euro.
The problem
is that “The Economist” has fallen into trading
democratic accountability, loyalty and the need for a honest relationship
between the elected and the elected for the blind pursuit of its own agenda:
Many
business leaders cling to the hope that a certain worldly realism will emerge.
[….] once elected, the new president will ditch his extravagant promises and
pursue a sensible agenda of reform, [….]. But is that really possible? It would
be hard for Mr Sarkozy suddenly to propose deep public-spending cuts, given all
the things he has said. It would be harder still for Mr Hollande to drop his
75% tax rate.
Besides,
there is a more worrying possibility
than insincerity. The candidates may
actually mean what they say. And with Mr Hollande, who after all is still
the most likely victor, that could have dramatic consequences.
in “The Economist”, A Country in Denial,
So, “The Economist” recommends
and hopes that French politicians scrap everything they said on the campaign
trail and follow The Economist’s agenda, or Merkel’s, or whoever’s. Worse than
lying, the elected candidate could be tearing The Economist’s bible apart! Dear
God!
And this
was not just an unfortunate tirade by an overzealous journalist. A month later,
they were at it again:
Optimists [….] dismiss as
symbolic Mr Hollande’s flashy promises to impose a 75% top income-tax rate and
to reverse Mr Sarkozy’s rise in the pension age from 60 to 62, arguing that the
75% would affect almost nobody and the pension rollback would benefit very few.
They see a pragmatist who will be corralled
into good behaviour by Germany and by investors worried about France’s
creditworthiness.
If so, no one would be happier than this
newspaper. But
it seems very optimistic to presume that somehow, despite what he has said,
despite even what he intends, Mr Hollande will end up doing the right thing.
in “The Economist”, The Rather Dangerous Monsieur Hollande, at http://www.economist.com/node/21553446
It is amazing! Corralled, tamed,
maybe chained and enslaved to “The Economist” and to a foreign power, that is
what would make “The Economist” happy after the May runoff! How undemocratic
and arrogant!
