I thought when The Economist first endorsed Barack Obama back in 2008 they were merely caught up in the hype. That human emotion had overrun The Economist's brain department and they had a "moment of weakness." I understood it, but I did not accept it. If the publication I relied upon to provide me insights was now endorsing a socialist, for whatever reason, prompting the question "how could I trust its research and its analysis?" The answer is I couldn't.
I promptly cancelled what was then an 11 year subscription.
Since then I wondered if The Economist had "seen the error of its ways" as the POTUS failed spectacularly to do the one thing he was put in charge of, which also happened to be the forte of The Economist:
Spur economic growth.
I figured with such a dismal track record and soaring deficits most sane, logical and intellectually honest publications would NOT endorse him come 2012, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT FOCUS ON ECONOMICS. And given that I believe The Economist was still a reputable publication suffering only a lapse in judgement AND was a publication that focused on ECONOMICS it was a guarantee they would come out for Romney.
Once again The Economist is endorsing Barack Obama proving it was not just a magazine that had a bad case of the OT's (Obama Tingles) back in 2008, but that the magazine itself had fundamentally and purposely changed. It confirmed to me something I suspected a while ago - that it had abandoned any attempts at being a serious publication about economics and instead had sold its soul for increased readership. And it did this in a very Paul Krugman like way.
Knowing its difficult to peddle things like "the truth" and the cold hard realities of life and economics, in order to increase its subscribership The Economist instead started peddling something that's a much easier sell - socialism. And not only a much easier sell, a sell that would pander to less intelligent people opening up much larger markets than that narrow niche of educated, intellectually honest fuddy duddies who comprised their original customer base. They immediately captured the NPR, elitist, faux intelligentsia market. They were now in contention to get egotistical college students to subscribe who weren't intelligent, but could fake intelligence by carrying a copy of The Economist around. And I bet they were even hoping to get the average, everyday blue collar liberal to buy their magazine.
But in the end, "let me be clear" as to what has happened to The Economist. The Economist went from (in my opinion) the single best publication the world had ever seen to another leftist rag solely to increase its profits. It, like Paul Krugman, doesn't really believe the stuff its spews out, but it doesn't care, that's where the money is. So I believe to reflect this change The Economist should re-title itself to something more accurate: