I've been thinking about your question and find it strangely hard to answer.
I think it's because The Economist is so far to the "right" that it doesn't really fit in the traditional left/right spectrum at all. Really, this is a good illustration of why that spectrum is false in the first place.
I have on occasion toyed with extending the left/right line into a circle, with liberal democracy at the north pole and fascism/stalinism at the south, but that isn't much more satisfactory.
To answer your question, when I made the remark, I was thinking about the newspaper's economic and political stances far more than I was its social liberalism.
As for Canada, until recently even our Conservative Party would have fit quite comfortably in the middle of your Democrats (I would now place them on the left-wing of the Republicans, at least in so far as their public face is concerned).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: Maybe So ...
Date: 2006-08-26 06:23 pm (UTC)I think it's because The Economist is so far to the "right" that it doesn't really fit in the traditional left/right spectrum at all. Really, this is a good illustration of why that spectrum is false in the first place.
I have on occasion toyed with extending the left/right line into a circle, with liberal democracy at the north pole and fascism/stalinism at the south, but that isn't much more satisfactory.
To answer your question, when I made the remark, I was thinking about the newspaper's economic and political stances far more than I was its social liberalism.
As for Canada, until recently even our Conservative Party would have fit quite comfortably in the middle of your Democrats (I would now place them on the left-wing of the Republicans, at least in so far as their public face is concerned).