The Economist has come out with their choice for the Nov. 5 American elections. While Kamala Harris is “underwhelming,” they write, she is far preferred over the danger represented by Donald Trump. They call those planning to vote for Trump “recklessly complacent,” and write that if Trump is again put into the White House, “Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace.”
Given The Economist’s role as the mouthpiece for the City of London—the financial “Square Mile” that most clearly embodies the intention to destroy any anti-imperial potential in the U.S.—it’s relevant to what they claim to be most “concerned” about in a second Trump administration. These include his “contempt for alliances” such as NATO, his desire to “return to the 19th century,” using tools such as tariffs, thereby ruining the model of creative destruction which is the “foundation of America’s prosperity,” and lastly the fact that “many of the sober, responsible people who reigned in his worst instincts during his first term have been replaced.”
The endorsement by The Economist follows that of other luminous examples who have apparently recently discovered their love of “democracy,” such as Liz Cheney and her father, former President of Vice Dick Cheney. In an Oct. 31 interview with the “New Yorker Radio Hour” on Nov. 1, Liz Cheney even called for former President George W. Bush to take the plunge and endorse Harris as well. “I can’t explain why George W. Bush hasn’t spoken out but I think it’s time, and I wish that he would,” she proclaimed. Indeed, President George W. Bush’s daughter Barbara has already begun campaigning for Harris in Pennsylvania. In addition to winning the endorsements of Liz and Dick Cheney, another GOP Harris backer is Gerald Ford’s daughter Susan Ford Bales, who prominently put out her endorsement statement on Oct. 21.
