It's never too late

My ongoing war against The Economist in respect of its mostly lamentable coverage of U.S. politics ebbs and flows. Lexington in particular, for the most part, was for a long time spectacularly (if not conveniently) obtuse. I charted The Economist's various crimes against rational analysis throughout the Bush years and still believe a hint of contrition is in order - given their role as enablers of the great Bush/Blair con job. But . . . life's too short.

For the most part things have improved since the departure of their previous editor, but every now and then The Economist reverts to its bad old ways. Lexington's column last week is a case in point: its suggestion that 'Dubya's "radical" plans to democratise the middle east may have been "right" in light of Tunisia, Egypt, etc., showed shades and echoes of its former gloriously shameless pandering to the extreme right in America, but although Lexington gamely tries to prostitute itself convincingly, its pandering comes off as decidely muted and half-hearted: while Lexington still ascribes to Bush the noblest of intentions (conveniently ignoring the influence of the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz axis), the reality of the results of the neocons' "democracy agenda" do not go unremarked:

"So Mr Bush is vindicated? Not so fast. Yes, those who mocked his belief in the Arab appetite for democracy were wrong; he is to be admired for championing reform and nudging autocrats towards pluralism. But keep things in proportion. The big thing Bush did in the Arab world was not to argue for an election here or a loosening of controls there. It was to send an army to conquer Iraq. Nothing that has happened in Tunisia or Egypt makes the consequences of that decision any less calamitous.

"The war poisoned the Arabs’ reaction to everything America later said or did. Iraq is now a fragile democracy, but precious few Arabs (and rather few Europeans) believe that Mr Bush invaded Iraq for democracy’s sake. Many think the non-existent weapons of mass destruction were a pretext, too. In Cairo in 2009 Lexington let a pro-reform academic, Nader Fergany, still seething six years on. “The Americans are the Mongols of the 21st century,” he said, “and now Barack Obama is trying to put the icing on this dirty cake.” Whatever they think of the freedom message, most Arabs utterly reject the messenger."

The reality for the neocons is that some in the media have developed a little with the times. Analysis these days from The Economist occasionally stumbles towards being balanced, thoughtful, even - dare I say - informed. For example, this recent entry from Lexington's blog, as shockingly naive as it is in many respects . . .

"In other words, for all its many missteps of the past two decades, America is remarkably well placed to win the war of ideas now unfolding in the Middle East. This is not because Arabs are fond of America. Most aren't, right now. But thanks to globalisation, education, satellite television and the palpable failure of the local alternatives, most Arabs (and Iranians) are fully aware of what sort of societies the Western democracies are, and they would like some of the same fresh air for themselves."

. . . seems counterbalanced - somewhat at least - by consideration of the actual facts on the ground:

"Arabs (and Iranians) look around them and see many different political systems claiming ascendancy. These range from Shia theocracy (Iran and Hizbullah), Sunni Islamism (Saudi Arabia, Hamas, al-Qaeda), secular dictatorship (Syria, Libya) and traditional monarchy (Morocco, Jordan, the Arab Gulf). But guess what? By far the strongest of the ideas currently on offer—and the one for which most Egyptians seemed to be clamouring these past few weeks—is none of the above. It is liberal democracy."

A definite improvement, but I'm not quite ready to renew my subscription just yet.