I was an avid reader of the Economist in the 90s. The
articles were generally well written and informative which definitely appealed
to me. That they reflect a certain form that punches from the top is an
immediate observation and after a while one can start reproducing with ease the
magazine's trademark literary style. However I grew tired of the Economist and
by 2000 or so I ended my subscription. Part of the problem with the Economist
(as its name indicates) is that it tends to view every almost all political
issues through the prism of finance and commerce. While this can be useful at
times I find it overly reductionist, lacking in the human element and
dismissive of the complexities of history that almost always extend beyond such
a model.
I also found their cheerleading of Free Trade as a global panacea - a
position that I have very much lost sympathy with - to be tiresome and off
base. In a sense the Economist is the voice of right-of-center
internationalism. It is the ideas and thoughts of the Davos elite and it reflects
a nihilism that at times cynically and unnecessarily scoffs at the traditions
of Western Civilization find this position odious. Now this is not to say that
I won't read the magazine again as it is more palatable in smaller doses but there is only so much of its
armchair pontificating that I am willing to tolerate on a more consistent
level.
No comments:
Post a Comment