Conservative magazine "Economist" article about paranoid nitwits in America

more critical than US media, IMO.

(clips)
"Some of Barack Obama’s detractors content themselves with arguing that he is a bad president. Others go further. “Birthers” insist that he was not born in the United States and is therefore constitutionally barred from being president. Yet Mr Obama’s birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii, and there is not a shred of evidence to the contrary. There is even an announcement of his birth in the archive of the Honolulu Advertiser, a local newspaper. Yet the internet crackles with theories as to how all this was faked so that, 48 years later, Mr Obama could impose a socialist state on America."

"Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with a bomb in Oklahoma in 1995 because he thought the federal government was hatching various dastardly plots. Some people watch the ferment at town-hall meetings in America today and worry that another Oklahoma-style atrocity is brewing. A few protesters are waving placards wishing for Mr Obama’s death. Others are ostentatiously wearing firearms outside his rallies. A recent report by the Southern Poverty Law Centre describes an uptick in the number of “Patriot” militia groups since Mr Obama’s election and frets that some could turn violent. "

"Politicians should tone down the rhetoric. Protesters should read some history before making Hitler comparisons. Talk-show hosts should stop pretending that paranoid nitwits are asking reasonable questions. If people are continually told that their government is plotting against them, a few may decide to fight back. And as Lee Harvey Oswald showed, even one man with a violent sense of grievance can do a lot of harm. "
(end clips)

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14258768

They have lost control of their monster.

I mean, maybe in the truest sense of the word, but didn't they endorse Obama last November and Kerry in 2004?

it seems to me that the term "conservative" is pretty meaningless anymore because it is also applied to the lunatic fringe that now comprises most of the Republican party. The Republicans are not conservative; they are radical in the same sense as the Taliban. The Economist is not in that league.

right wingers in the U.S.

Kinda sad how far off the deep end the GOP has gone.

I think if Barry Goldwater rose from the grave, he'd be disgusted - and that's saying a lot.

Hell, he was pretty disgusted before he died and that was a decade before it was even more corrupted by the fringe.

Folks, w/o successful businesses we'd all be nowhere.

Economist does a good job trying to provide useful information so people, including business leaders, can make sound decisions.

the republicans and far too many democrats are pro-existing-businesses at the expense of emerging or yet to be created businesses.

the true conservative wants the economy to function properly, which means COMPETITION from smaller businesses and the THREAT of competition from as-yet-nonexistent businesses.

generally, the economist is a true conservative, although they do slip into the wacko-right-wing pro-existing-business mode from time to time.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but they endorsed Bush in '00, Dole in '96, Clinton in '92... it's a pattern, really.

Examples:

1. They do NOT support any public option for health care. They support Max Baucus'
2. They didn't support Kerry in 04
3. It wasn't until late '06, that they were willing to admit that the Iraq invasion was a mistake
4. They were big supporters of New Labour, now they are supporters of the Tories
5. They endorsed Sarkozy and Berlusconi
6. I have never seen an article in their magazine that credits the Government in Spain with anything positive

In fairness, I finally tired of them in 07. So there could be some changes

It wasn't a mega-endorsement praising him at every step, but it was an endorsement none the less.

I missed that one

on edit: I thought they didn't endorse in 04

really turns them off.

it has always taken a critical stance toward issues....it's left of center at least

and moderately hawkish on military matters - though more in the realist camp than the neoconservative camp

They would be socially liberal the way a typical young stock broker might be socially liberal.

In Europe that would make them clearly right-of-center. The range of mainstream political debate in the United States - if looked at from European standards - ranges between right-of-center and far right.

it is the United States that has veered to the right. One progressive commentator said the other day that the Democrats has moved to the right and the Republicans had moved into the mental hospital.

So now the Economist looks downright liberal. America's "conservatives" are probably causing Baroness Thatcher hives and heart palpitations. I consider myself a progressive, but if elected to most European parliaments, I'd be seated on the right. America is an odd animal. Paranoia, ignorance, and conspiracy theories have been with us since colonial days. Europeans went through hell in the 20th century and study history. Americans, even many progressives, know very little American history and less world history. For instance, anyone who has studied history knows that no one has EVER held onto Afghanistan very long. The American media look back to the Russian invasion in the late 1970s, and never say a world about Russian and British--The Great Game--attempts to control it in the 19th century and the loss of entire British armies, much less the long history back to Alexander the Great, and before him the Persians, and before that back to the beginning of history. The Economist looks at the current American scene through history. If we did more of that, we might have something wise to say too. And would be better off. Ignorance is not a virtue.