HOME / chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.

The Economist (Really) Endorses George W. Bush

Timothy NoahPosted Friday, Nov. 3, 2000, at 6:03 PM ET

As the author of a previous item headlined "The Economist (Sort Of) Endorses Al Gore," Chatterbox is obliged to inform his readers that the Economist just endorsed George W. Bush. What can Chatterbox say? It doesn't make a lot of sense. As Chatterbox noted in his earlier item, the Economist pretty unambiguously pronounced Dubya a dummy in the following ad, which appeared in The New Yorker, the Harvard Business Review, the Industry Standard, and various Ivy League alumni magazines:

RSS

Bush ad

There was a sister ad mocking Gore, but the language in that one ("Spin a politician too far and he's apt to wind up where he started") was so vapory and British-understated that the intended message--that Gore's clumsy attempts to recast his wooden image never work--probably didn't get through to many people. (Even if it did, it's a pretty mild criticism compared to calling somebody a moron.)

So why is the Economist endorsing Dubya now? The likeliest explanation is that the Economist's editorial staff likes Dubya a lot better than the marketing staff does. It's also possible that the Economist has adopted the line taken by Robert Bartley, editorial-page editor of the Wall Street Journal: namely, that it's good that Dubya is a dummy because that makes him more like Ronald Reagan. (Click here to read Chatterbox's disquisition on the Bartley column, and click here to read Slate "Earthling" columnist Robert Wright's argument that the 1980s were less demanding on the presidential brainpan than the next four years will be.)

Or it could be that New York Times columnist Bob Herbert nailed it when he wrote on Oct. 19 that Dubya is himself a beneficiary of "the soft bigotry of low expectations." Certainly the Economist's praise for Bush couldn't be more condescending:

Bush-haters say that he is naïve, ignorant, inexperienced, and doesn't know the name of Chechnya's leader. That was indeed a genuine worry. But he has grown during the campaign, has shown a better grasp of his brief and, just as important, has proved to be a quick learner. Like Ronald Reagan in 1980, he has shown that he has a clear sense of where he stands on the big themes and, though hardly in the Gipper's league, that he can even communicate fairly well.

Bush supporters like to talk about how much he's grown during the campaign season. Chatterbox has no idea what they're talking about, mainly because they never cite any examples. In any event, since when is a campaign supposed to be a crash course in acquiring the qualifications to be president?

E-mail Timothy Noah at .

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.

COMMENTS

Reply from the Editor of The Economist:

Thanks for writing up our endorsement of Dubya. At the end, you pose a question: "In any event, since when is a campaign supposed to be a crash course in acquiring the qualifications to be president?" My question back to you is: since when has any presidential campaign not been exactly this? Do you think Bill Clinton had what it took at the start of the campaign in 1992? No, he learned as he went on, and grew during the campaign. Twas always thus. Life would be easier if candidates arrived at the outset with clear qualifications that we could just mark up, like a SAT. But then we wouldn't really need campaigns, would we?

--Bill Emmott
(Editor, The Economist)

(To reply, click here.)

Chatterbox answers back:

Perhaps I should have said "fundamental qualifications." Candidates certainly improve on their communications skills during a campaign, but if they're lacking fundamental smarts and knowledge at the outset, I don't hold much hope they'll acquire it (or rather, acquire enough of it) on the campaign trail.

--Tim Noah

(To reply, click here.)

Reader Comments from The Fray:

[Notes from the Fray Editor: Eric Baker, here, gave sensible, logical reasons why The Economist backed Bush--perhaps he doesn't know what the Chatterbox Fray is for. Rhona Pavis (and we really don't know whether she is serious or not) was much more in the Chatterbox spirit:]

I lost total respect for The Economist as a result of their inability to see the obvious vast superiority of Gore over Bush for any and all purposes. The only reason I can think of that they would back Bush is that they are hoping the British Empire will rise again and debilitating the USA will assist them in achieving that goal.

--Rhona Pavis

(To reply, click here.)

The only surprise is that Chatterbox was surprised at all. The Economist has always been caught in a Republican grip when it comes to American politics. It endorsed Dole in '96 and famously had 'Just Go' on its cover during the Clinton impeachment saga. I think that it doesn't like Bush but on principle has to go with the GOP. Its editorial endorsing him is so weak in terms of argument and reasoning that it almost defies belief. As an avid reader of that magazine, editions like the current one are always a disappointment but tend to be rare in occurrence.

--Tom Wright

(To reply, click here.)

If you read this endorsement closely enough, it reads like a stealth endorsement of Gore amid a lot of wishful thinking about Bush by people who are too cowardly to upset expectations that they should, of course, endorse the small government Republican candidate.

--Cheryl Guttman

(To reply, or to read a more detailed version of this post, click here.)

(11/6)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES