Is The Economist left- or right-wing? | Hacker News Reader

Is The Economist left- or right-wing?

economist.com

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.

I just went back and re-read some of them. They were pretty damning of her imperious style and sytematic undermining of colleagues in her later years as PM, and her handling of the poll tax debacle. Her disastrous market inspired reforms of the NHS were also pointed out. She made plenty of mistakes.

As for her overall economic policies, the thing is she's been pretty comprehensively proved right. Britain was a basket case in the 1970s, crippled by a decade and more of misrule. The alternative at the time was the Foot Labour Government. Who honestly thinks they would have been a bettter choice for Britain? By the end of her reign Britain was an economic and financial powerhouse. Even on the issues she lost power over, refusing to support Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson's desire to shadow the Deutschmark and join the single currency, it took more than a decade for her to be vindicated but she was finally proved absolutely right. Who now thinks joining the Euro would be a good idea?

When Tony Balir and Gordon Brown took over in 1997 they inherited a Thatecher economy and they didn't touch a single one of her landmark reforms. That's because it's a system that works, and they knew it. The mistake they made was to overindulge in debt because they misread the timing of the economic cycle, but fundamentally the british economic engine is pretty strong. That's why we're powering ahead of Europe again despite the ongoing effects of all that debt.

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.

"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!

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.

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.

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.

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/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spect...

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Liberal-Class-Chris-Hedges/dp/15...

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.

Well some of us do respond emotionally sometimes.

Is linking to discussions of politics on HN generally off-topic?

Yes: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"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

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`.

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.

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

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. "

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.

That's classic European liberalism.

Drop the "European". Just "classical liberalism". It's cleaner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

>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.

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'.

>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.

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.).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com