> My problem is that the Economist, whose tone for me has always been one of cool reason, whose founding goal was "to take part in 'a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress,'" is letting the crazy leak in.
I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. It honestly makes me wonder if you've actually read The Economist in the past 7 years.
The Economist is very critical of Boris Johnson - their latest articles on him include "The tragedy of Boris Johnson", "Boris Johnson should go immediately" and "Clownfall: Britain after Boris".
Recent pieces on Jair Bolsonaro include "The enduring threat of Jair Bolsonaro", "Win or lose, Jair Bolsonaro poses a threat to Brazilian democracy" and "President Jair Bolsonaro is bad for Brazil's economy".
On Viktor Orban they say "Viktor Orban's victory is a triumph for illiberal nationalism", "How Viktor Orban hollowed out Hungary's democracy".
On Trump I won't even begin. Almost no publication has been more harshly critical of Trump.
So your claim that The Economist is determined to "both-sides" every discussion doesn't hold any water at all to me. The Economist has always had an open and transparent editorial position and they write to that position. They are not interested in promoting the views of extremists or crazies on either side. If you have such an example I would be keen to hear it.