I have subscriptions to both the New York Times and the Economist. It was no surprise that the NYT would come out in favor of Barack Obama, which they did recently.
However, one endorsement I was anticipating a lot less was from the Economist. It tends to be a little more on the conservative side, at least when it comes to the economy.
Details after the jump.
So I was a little unsure whether the Economist would just refrain from giving an endorsement or do a wishy-washy "both guys have their strengths" kind of piece. So you can imagine how I felt when I picked up my mail this afternoon and saw this:
Though they mentioned a few concerns they had about Obama, they nonetheless gave him a very strong, full-throated endorsement.
I'll give you a couple of my favorite excerpts:
For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence.
While the article discusses his qualifications, it also mentions how electing Obama would be such an important symbolic moment in the history of the nation.
Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.
More substantively, though, the endorsement looks very closely at some of the decisions that have been made by the two campaigns over the course of the election and reaches the conclusion that despite the fact that his experience in national office isn't as extensive as some candidates, that he's shown his mettle and intelligence.
Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.
To me, that last sentence is one of the most powerful the often understated Economist, a magazine that values intelligence and pragmatism, can make. The strongest contrast this endorsement makes between Obama and McCain on this point is to point out the poor decision-making that McCain has made over the course of the campaign, including McCain's about-faces on so many issues, his indecision during the financial crisis, and most pointedly, his selection of Sarah Palin as his running-mate. I strongly encourage you to read the entire article: it might make good reading for any last minute holdouts.
For, as The Economist concludes,
In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.