The Economist endorses Barack Obama

[her209]

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-fit-bill-which-one?fsrc=scn/rd_ec/which_one_

Mr Obama’s first term has been patchy. On the economy, the most powerful argument in his favour is simply that he stopped it all being a lot worse. America was in a downward economic spiral when he took over, with its banks and carmakers in deep trouble and unemployment rising at the rate of 800,000 a month. His responses—an aggressive stimulus, bailing out General Motors and Chrysler, putting the banks through a sensible stress test and forcing them to raise capital (so that they are now in much better shape than their European peers)—helped avert a Depression. That is a hard message to sell on the doorstep when growth is sluggish and jobs scarce; but it will win Mr Obama some plaudits from history, and it does from us too.

Two other things count, on balance, in his favour. One is foreign policy, where he was also left with a daunting inheritance. Mr Obama has refocused George Bush’s “war on terror” more squarely on terrorists, killing Osama bin Laden, stepping up drone strikes (perhaps too liberally, see article) and retreating from Iraq and Afghanistan (in both cases too quickly for our taste). After a shaky start with China, American diplomacy has made a necessary “pivot” towards Asia. By contrast, with both the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and his “reset” with Russia, he overreached and underdelivered. Iran has continued its worrying crawl towards nuclear weapons.

All these problems could have been anticipated. The Arab spring could not. Here Mr Obama can point to the ousting of tyrants in Egypt and Libya, but he has followed events rather than shaping them, nowhere more so than with the current carnage in Syria. Compared with, say, George Bush senior, who handled the end of the cold war, this aloof, disengaged man is no master diplomat; set beside the younger Bush, however, Mr Obama has been a safe pair of hands.

The other qualified achievement is health reform. Even to a newspaper with no love for big government, the fact that over 40m people had no health coverage in a country as rich as America was a scandal. “Obamacare” will correct that, but Mr Obama did very little to deal with the system’s other flaw—its huge and unaffordable costs. He surrendered too much control to left-wing Democrats in Congress. As with the gargantuan Dodd-Frank reform of Wall Street, Obamacare has generated a tangle of red tape—and left business to deal with it all.

Why the Economist didn't pick Mitt:

This newspaper would vote for that Mitt Romney, just as it would for the Romney who ran Democratic Massachusetts in a bipartisan way (even pioneering the blueprint for Obamacare). The problem is that there are a lot of Romneys and they have committed themselves to a lot of dangerous things.

Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further). At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises. Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more.

Even the Economist sees through the Romney facade.

 

[dphantom]

while a good read, I am not so concerned with what overseas people think of our choices for President but rather what I personally think is best for the country overall.

 

[PokerGuy]

From wiki:

In the 2008 U.S. election the newsmagazine endorsed Barack Obama, while using the election eve issue's front cover to promote his candidacy.

The news magazine favours a carbon tax to fight global warming.[23] According to former editor Bill Emmott, "the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative."

In other words, worthless rag is worthless. Who cares what some dimlib idiots in London endorse? "Idiots endorse fellow idiot, news @ 11."

 

[bononos]

"The news magazine favours a carbon tax to fight global warming.[23] According to former editor Bill Emmott, "the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative.""

Liberal as in the 18th century liberalism. The economist is a free market 'rag' as you put it. Obama/Romney/Clinton all support and espouse free market capitalism with some minor differences, Romney's large military spending sets him apart.

 

[sunzt]

From wiki:


In other words, worthless rag is worthless. Who cares what some dimlib idiots in London endorse? "Idiots endorse fellow idiot, news @ 11."

Just because they're overseas doesn't mean their points aren't valid.

 

[silverpig]

From wiki:


In other words, worthless rag is worthless. Who cares what some dimlib idiots in London endorse? "Idiots endorse fellow idiot, news @ 11."

Liberal is centrist in the traditional British governments. Typically, Liberals are centre, Conservatives are right, and Labour parties are left.