The incompetent or the incoherent?
Oct 28th 2004
From The Economist print edition


With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd

YOU might have thought that, three years after a devastating terrorist attack on American soil, a period which has featured two wars, radical political and economic legislation, and an adjustment to one of the biggest stockmarket crashes in history, the campaign for the presidency would be an especially elevated and notable affair. If so, you would be wrong. This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago. But on November 2nd, Americans must make their choice, as must The Economist. It is far from an easy call, especially against the backdrop of a turbulent, dangerous world. But, on balance, our instinct is towards change rather than continuity: Mr Kerry, not Mr Bush.

Whenever we express a view of that sort, some readers are bound to protest that we, as a publication based in London, should not be poking our noses in other people's politics. Translated, this invariably means that protesters disagree with our choice. It may also, however, reflect a lack of awareness about our readership. The Economist's weekly sales in the United States are about 450,000 copies, which is three times our British sale and roughly 45% of our worldwide total. All those American readers will now be pondering how to vote, or indeed whether to. Thus, as at every presidential election since 1980, we hope it may be useful for us to say how we would think about our vote—if we had one.

The case against George Bush

That decision cannot be separated from the terrible memory of September 11th, nor can it fail to begin as an evaluation of the way in which Mr Bush and his administration responded to that day. For Mr Bush's record during the past three years has been both inspiring and disturbing.

Mr Bush was inspiring in the way he reacted to the new world in which he, and America, found itself. He grasped the magnitude of the challenge well. His military response in Afghanistan was not the sort of poorly directed lashing out that Bill Clinton had used in 1998 after al-Qaeda destroyed two American embassies in east Africa: it was a resolute, measured effort, which was reassuringly sober about the likely length of the campaign against Osama bin Laden and the elusiveness of anything worth the name of victory. Mistakes were made, notably when at Tora Bora Mr bin Laden and other leaders probably escaped, and when following the war both America and its allies devoted insufficient military and financial resources to helping Afghanistan rebuild itself. But overall, the mission has achieved a lot: the Taliban were removed, al-Qaeda lost its training camps and its base, and Afghanistan has just held elections that bring cautious hope for the central government's future ability to bring stability and prosperity.

The biggest mistake, though, was one that will haunt America for years to come. It lay in dealing with prisoners-of-war by sending hundreds of them to the American base at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, putting them in a legal limbo, outside the Geneva conventions and outside America's own legal system. That act reflected a genuinely difficult problem: that of having captured people of unknown status but many of whom probably did want to kill Americans, at a time when to set them free would have been politically controversial, to say the least. That difficulty cannot neutralise the damage caused by this decision, however. Today, Guantánamo Bay offers constant evidence of America's hypocrisy, evidence that is disturbing for those who sympathise with it, cause-affirming for those who hate it. This administration, which claims to be fighting for justice, the rule of law and liberty, is incarcerating hundreds of people, whether innocent or guilty, without trial or access to legal representation. The White House's proposed remedy, namely military tribunals, merely compounds the problem.

When Mr Bush decided to frame his foreign policy in the sort of language and objectives previously associated with Woodrow Wilson, John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, he was bound to be greeted with cynicism. Yet he was right to do so. To paraphrase a formula invented by his ally, Tony Blair, Mr Bush was promising to be “tough on terrorism, tough on the causes of terrorismâ€

What do the BRITS know about OUR ELECTIONS?? They should shut their STUPID mouths and keep their FOREIGN OPINIONS to their stupid selves. WE don't vote in their ELECTIONS, so they should just SHUTUP like the DIXIE CHICKS.

i was about to get pissed at you ... until i saw the arrow.

i think it's a huge statement for such a conservative publication as the economist to endorse kerry... yay!

I, New York Streets, endorse John F. Kerry as well.


yay for the Economist! I was recently reading about a bunch of Repub politicans and organizations that are endorsing Kerry as well.

In what way is John Kerry or George Bush for that matter Fiscally Conservative.

If you are a Fiscal Conservative and Socially liberal, you are a Libertarian certainly not a Democrat nor a Neo Conservative.

They're moderate and this isn't a surprise. Does anyone here read the Economist? They've been blasting Bush's fiscal policies the past 2 years. I subscribe. Great read. But they're really not being nice when they endorse Kerry when they admit to picking the lesser of two fiscal dolts.

exactly 0 ways, with the exception of bush's tax cuts.



which is why i'm certainly not a democrat and not a neo-conservative. i'm proud to be a libertarian.

I subscribe too. 40% student reduction and all.

Actually I was surprised. True, the Economist has been very critical of Bush's fiscal excesses. But, they have been highly supportive of his administration on the big questions: the recognition of the "new threat" and Iraq.

Yes they have been highly critical on Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, but how could you not be?

Note also that they aren't exactly showering Kerry with praise either. They simply think he'd be more competent than Bush - which honestly - isn't that much of an endorsement. (a point you make)

Moderate is a good way to describe them. Fiscally conservative, big believers in free markets and trade, and socially quite liberal (supporters of gay marriage, stem cell research)... actually come to think of it: this wasn't much of a surprise was it? His political scavenging for protectionist votes aside, he's actually fairly in line with their ideals.

I was still surprised though.