A round-up of past presidential endorsements by The Economist
By The Economist online
THE ECONOMIST does not have a vote in America's presidential election, but since 1980 we have cast a ballot in spirit. Despite our London home, much of our readership lives in the United States, so we believe it useful to say how we would think about our vote—if we had one. Looking back, we tend to dislike incumbents, but favour no party—we have endorsed nearly equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. We are not unlike America's swing voters in that we value competence and moderation. More often than not we are disappointed with our options. This year we have many complaints about Barack Obama, but choose him nonetheless because Mitt Romney's failings are graver. So as Americans ponder how to vote, we share the thinking that led us to our current and past endorsements.
2012: Barack Obama
“A man who once personified hope and centrism set a new low by unleashing attacks on Mitt Romney even before the first Republican primary. Yet elections are about choosing somebody to run a country. And this choice turns on two questions: how good a president has Barack Obama been, especially on the main issues of the economy and foreign policy? And can America really trust the ever-changing Mitt Romney to do a better job? On that basis, the Democrat narrowly deserves to be re-elected....
Mr Obama’s shortcomings have left ample room for a pragmatic Republican, especially one who could balance the books and overhaul government. Such a candidate briefly flickered across television screens in the first presidential debate. This newspaper would vote for that Mitt Romney, just as it would for the Romney who ran Democratic Massachusetts in a bipartisan way (even pioneering the blueprint for Obamacare). The problem is that there are a lot of Romneys and they have committed themselves to a lot of dangerous things.”
“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. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama's inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead....
There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama's résumé is thin for the world's biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and out-fought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.”
“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....
In the end, the choice relies on a judgment about who will be better suited to meet the challenges America is likely to face during the next four years. Those challenges must include the probability of another big terrorist attack, in America or western Europe. They must include the need for a period of discipline in economic policy and for compromise on social policy, lest the nation become weak or divided in the face of danger. Above all, though, they include the need to make a success of the rebuilding of Iraq, as the key part of a broader effort to stabilise, modernise and, yes, democratise the Middle East.”
“[D]uring the primaries, The Economistfelt more inspired by John McCain than by either of the eventual candidates, for he stood for a shake-up of campaign finance and for a clear-eyed view in foreign affairs. On the ticket, we have more sympathy with Mr Gore's running mate, Joseph Lieberman, than with his boss, for Mr Lieberman combines an upright stance on moral issues with a welcome willingness to experiment in areas such as education. Yet that is either in the past, or irrelevant. Now, it is Al or Dubya....
The Economist, if it had a vote, would choose George W. Bush. It prefers his small government, pro-market philosophy. And, on the simple test of the two crises, he wins on points: behind on a foreign crisis, but well ahead in a domestic one. The tenor of his presidency would depend crucially on Congress: to restrain the social illiberalism and occasional isolationism of other Republicans, the best outcome would be a divided one, with the Democrats back in control of the House of Representatives. Let's see.”
“He [Bill Clinton] has, to be sure, learned from his mistakes. His foreign-policy touch has grown sharper. Brought to his knees by the 1994 mid-term congressional elections, he recast himself as a moderate Republican, keen to balance the budget by 2002, to declare that the “era of big government was over” and, at last, to begin reforming welfare. It is on that ticket that he has run this year, making many small pledges but no new big ones. If he sticks to that position, his second term might not be at all bad. Such a president would be a good balance to a Republican Congress, if (as is to be hoped) that party retains its control of it. Many of the ideas that such a Congress would stand for, including tax reform and further reform of the government safety net, are good ones; President Clinton could usefully restrain the Republicans' social-policy extremists.
But will he stick to that position? That is the question that will always surround him. If he does, this newspaper will congratulate him in 2000 when he retires. But the risk is that he will not. He will face financial constraints imposed by the bond markets, but none of the constraints of re-election. He may be beset by ethical problems, whether over campaign finance or Whitewater indictments, even conceivably of his wife. These might lead him in all sorts of new directions, especially if he has been re-elected on a landslide, and if the Democrats were to regain control of one or both of the houses of Congress. No one can be sure what he would do in such circumstances. And that is why The Economist feels unable to endorse him. We would not know what we were backing.
Would we know with Bob Dole? It is hard to be sure. We choose him on the assumption that the real Bob Dole is the one who spent three decades on Capitol Hill, not this year's dubious character; that he would be more prudent than his economic plan implies. That is an awkward basis for an endorsement. But the choice is a lousy one.”
1992: Bill Clinton
“What choice between these two [Bill Clinton and George Bush]? On past occasions The Economist has sometimes joined in with American elections and stated its preference; and it has sometimes opted out. In 1988, when George Bush faced Michael Dukakis, we felt we could recommend neither. Four years on, Mr Bush has done nothing to prove himself. The man is spent, and his party with him. The Republicans, tired to distraction, out of ideas, have become prey to a far right whose economic nostrums run to demonising taxes, and many of whose social ideas would rub salt in the country's wounds.
The issue of ideas is central. The Democratic Party, to be sure, has not yet proved that its new look goes beyond Mr Clinton and his circle. But it has been working for 12 years on how to become a plausible modern party of government, and should be given a chance to try. During the campaign, Mr Clinton has proved himself to be far more than a token candidate. He is intelligent; he is diligent; he is energetic; he has grasped most of the issues, and found persuasive solutions to some. He could mark an end to divided government and could, if he used the presidency well, begin to bring Americans, black and white, rich and poor, closer together. Despite the risks, the possibilities are worth pursuing. Our choice falls on him.”
1988: No endorsement
“The Economist would sometimes like to vote in American elections. In 1980 we saw the arguments for Mr Ronald Reagan and made them: he seemed to offer better solutions to the problems that then faced America, and the West generally, than did Mr Jimmy Carter. This year neither candidate has persuaded us that he has either the policies or, more important, the qualities that the times demand.
It is not that Mr Bush and Mr Dukakis are rapscallions. At the end of the primary season we wrote that they were "responsible, upright and experienced in their different ways". They still are. But what they are not, it seems, is presidential. Since the primaries, during which candidates can be forgiven some excesses, neither has once shown that he understands the threat that the budget deficit poses. Not once on this—or any other— issue has either shown one scrap of political courage.”
1984: No endorsement
“In the four years since America elected Ronald Reagan, the voters have felt their country change. Most think the change has been for the better. A new spirit of self-assurance and optimism prevails. As Mr Walter Mondale has sensibly acknowledged, Mr Reagan deserves some credit for this. The president whom America elects on November 6th will be able to build on the achievements of the past four years. He will also have to make good some shortcomings....
This is not to deny that Mr Mondale could make a fine president. Nothing he has said or done in the campaign suggests that, if Americans wanted him, the rest of the world would not find him acceptable too. He shows greater recognition of certain problems ahead. Although Mr Reagan's ultra-Keynesian America is barrelling along towards full employment, all its trading and budget accounts are frighteningly out of balance. A sound international economic order cannot be built on the assumption that the rumbustiously richest country will go on borrowing unprecedented amounts at enormous interest rates from everybody else for ever.”
1980: Ronald Reagan
“Are these the signs of a flexible man, a pragmatist rather than an ideologue? Or is Mr Reagan just empty, an actor who can speak the lines that go down best with the audience he happens to be addressing? The question will not matter if Mr Reagan has sound advisers and knows how to use their advice. This, surely, is the key to the whole choice. Many, though by no means all, of his current advisers are indeed sound, and the evidence from his time governing California and from what the more impressive of them say is that his greatest quality is to be a good listener—though not to the legislature, which he treated with disdain. Mr Carter is generally a bad listener. There can be no certainty that Mr Reagan, victorious at the age of nearly 70, would pick well, cut through his competing lieutenants and have the agility of mind to see the critical issues. If he did, however, he would probably be a more successful leader of opinion than Mr Carter, who has so often taken his cue from the latest poll.
There is a choice in this election: the two main candidates are not clones, and thoughtful Mr John Anderson, with no prospect of winning and no party to run congress if he did, is no real escape from the poverty of choice. Another four years of Mr Carter would probably be much like the past four—for there is nothing in the president's make-up to lead one to believe he is likely to change his ways. Mr Reagan brings with him some heavy ideological baggage. Some of that, though not all of it, will need to be quickly shed. But Mr Reagan also holds out the promise of a firmer line abroad, based on a sounder structure of advice. He would almost certainly bring in more new ideas, for the Republican party now shows more signs of intellectual vitality than the Democrats.
The justification of a Reagan gamble is the prospect that the Republican governing establishment available from four years ago is, at almost every level, more impressive and more reassuring than the central coterie and the usually powerless cabinet generals Mr Carter has used these past four years in Washington. That, perhaps, is the most pressing reason why so many of America's friends want, unusually in a presidential election, to see a change at the top, even one laden with risk. We agree with them.”
