FOR THIS, THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS

I feel sick. The Economist has endorsed John Kerry.

I've been looking forward to The Economist's endorsement for a long time now. The reason? The East Coast and Western European elite despises Bush and likes to pretend that no intelligent person can approve of him. The Economist is a source they respect. The Economist had to support Bush. Kerry's platform is anathema to them: protectionism, middle class entitlements, soak-the-rich tax policy, opposition to the war in Iraq, three decades of liberal politics. Bush, meanwhile, reversed the steel tariffs, is proposing much-needed Social Security reform, has proposed little new spending, and led two Economist-endorsed wars. Weirdly The Economist even supported the prescription drug bill at one point. The inevitable (so I thought) Economist endorsement of Bush would have blown out of the water the notion that intelligent people were united behind Kerry, and driven the East Coast snobs crazy! It would have been so delicious.

Instead, they caved.

I saw Bill Emmott speak at Harvard two years ago. I was fairly impressed. The high point was when a student asked what he thought of the claim that the Iraq war was fought for oil. Emmott's answer: "I don't quite understand this argument. Would the purpose be to lower the price of oil or to raise it? What constituencies in the United States would this serve?..."

But there was a revealing comment in his answer. "I'm not at all sure I'd win a vote within my own staff" on the Iraq war, he said.

The Economist's support for the Iraq war was surprising. The journal hobnobs with, and represents the interests of, a global elite. Elites, by definition, are doing well out of the status quo, so they generally don't like to change it. The Iraq war was a challenge to the global status quo, with its "sacred" borders and Hobbesian conception of sovereignty. International bureaucrats and ivory-tower types despise Bush.

At the end of the day, Emmott probably faced a revolt from his staff. And he was afraid that the publication couldn't afford to alienate its global-elite audience anymore. So he sold out.

I'm going ad hominem because the arguments are so bad that we can rule out the possibility that they're the real basis for the endorsement. But I'll go through the motions.

[The Iraq war was right but...] changing the regime so incompetently was a huge mistake.

Oh, brilliant. Journalists call the invasion incompetent; military people (who actually know) are with Bush (see here, here, and here) and terrified of a Kerry presidency.

So has America's reputation in the Islamic world, both for effectiveness and for moral probity.

"America's reputation in the Islamic world?" A lot of Iraqis and Afghans liked us, which by itself is more Islamic world-ers than liked us before.

In Iran the conservatives have become stronger

And this is Bush's fault? When you have to use "arguments" like this, you're desperate.

Of Mr. Kerry, they say

His record and instincts are as a fiscal conservative,

What?!! Kerry has proposed $2 trillion. Write that on the blackboard a hundred times. Then wash your mouth out with soap.

They remark hopefully that

He has failed to offer any set of overall objectives for American foreign policy, though perhaps he could hardly oppose Mr Bush's targets of democracy, human rights and liberty.

I beg to differ. Kerry has been thunderously silent about supporting liberty or democracy in Iraq, or even Afghanistan. All the signs are that he doesn't care. Nixon and Reagan both backed a host of dictatorships. Pro-democratic foreign policy by a US presidential administration cannot be taken for granted. Kerry shows bad signs.

They then add helpfully

If Mr Bush is re-elected, and uses a new team and a new approach to achieve that goal, and shakes off his fealty to an extreme minority, the religious right, then The Economist will wish him well.

No thanks. The line is drawn. The curse is cast. This is the time to choose: are you for the forward strategy of fredom, or for relativism and retreat; for the transformational power of liberty, or the ancien regime, where freedom is for the few? If The Economist doesn't have the guts to defy the journalistic consensus for the sake of its principles, what's it good for?

"Our confidence in [President Bush] has been shattered," says the editorial.

And my confidence in The Economist is shattered. For this, there is no forgiveness.