Variations on Liberalism in The Economist Newspaper

Liberalism

1: Chapters 1-3

Introduction

The Industrial Revolution changed the rules of the game in England in the 19th century. Zevin shows that the aristocracy had ruled in the past; but by the 1840s, a new order had emerged—one in which a rising middle class now had a common voice and an interest in controlling or at least shaping markets. This paper highlights how those who started and edited The Economist were in league in terms of wanting a liberal market—a free market—one that was not pre-determined and subjected to the whims and will of the aristocracy.

Synthesis

The Economist was born out of the Anti-Corn Law League that rose up to challenge the aristocratic tariff that kept “foreign competition in wheat out of the country, and domestic prices high” (Zevin, 2019, p. 22). Its founder was James Wilson, “a Scottish hat manufacturer and author, whose powerful vision of a free trade world, first set out in 1839, gave [the League’s] campaign its winning argument” (Zevin, 2019, p. 23). Wilson founded it and argued against the Corn Law with it. He became the voice not only of the League but also of the common man in England: “In Wilson the League discovered that in pursuing its own class interests it was pursuing those of all classes” (Zevin, 2019, p. 26).

When Wilson’s son-in-law Walter Bagehot took over upon the former’s death, as editor of The Economist, it marked a shift in weekly newspaper’s scope: “In addition to money market summaries, Bagehot wrote two and often three or four leading articles a week on current events for sixteen years; in 1861 he wrote at least thirty-one just on the American Civil War” (Zevin, 2019, p. 64). Bagehot broadened The Economist to take in more of what was going on in the world. Bagehot was described by contemporaries as “the most acute observer of the political and economic society in which he lived” (Zevin, 2019, p. 65). Bagehot reflected the popular sentiment of the time—so much so that Karl Marx turned to it after the seeds of his Communist Manifesto failed to sprout fruit: for Marx, The Economist was a window on “a sector of liberal opinion with a distinct worldview and cosmopolitan wealth, so fearful of further popular upheaval that by 1851 it was ready to welcome an illiberal but orderly dictatorship in the revolutionary capital of the nineteenth century, France” (Zevin, 2019, p. 101). The Economist was a populist newspaper for those interested in capital in the wake of the Industrial Revolution.

Assessment

The strengths of Zevin’s argument are that it is soundly supported by historical context and primary sources. Zevin never makes a claim without showing why he is making that claim and why it is valid. The argument is logically arranged and illustrated by relevant details. The weakness of the argument is only that it does not give an indication of its readership in terms of size, breadth and depth. Suggestions are made that it served as an important go-to source for the most prominent thinkers of the day—but surely it was not the only newspaper providing information. The perspective of the author is colored somewhat by the iconic allure that The Economist carries today.

Questions

What was the significance of The Economist in the early days under its first three editors—did it serve a propagandist function or was it more nuanced and objective in its approach? Was it really an influential newspaper in very many respects, or has it survived because of the marketing genius that often accompanies the brands that are so popular today?

References

Zevin, Alexander. (2019). Liberalism at large: The world according to The Economist.

London: Verso.

2: Chapters 4-6

Introduction

Liberal disagreements over imperialism versus radicalism led to Conservative victories in the English government. However, through a promise of tariff reform, Liberals “rallied round the flag of free trade” in the early 20th century (Zevin, 2019, p. 122). This created the beginning of a new era for The Economist, a truly populist era that would carry it through the coming decades. This paper looks at how The Economist navigated the political issues of the 20th century leading up to World War 2 by finding an appeal to center politics.

Synthesis

Social reform was the hot topic of the day in the first years of the 20th century, so it was only natural that The Economist would adopt a perspective on these matters: “Liberals took active steps to win their historic victory, as evidenced by the widespread expectation that it was about to usher in a new era of social reform” (Zevin, 2019, p. 122). Under Hirst, the newspaper addressed New Liberalism in 1906. Like Wilson before him, Hirst was ideologically driven: his “laser focus included a commitment to peace, not just prosperity, with Hirst as adamant about the former as the latter” (Zevin, 2019, p. 128). In Hirst’s view, the British Empire “was a liberal achievement, which imperialist schemes for territorial expansion or tariffs actively threatened” (Zevin, 2019, p. 128). Yet Hirst maintained a culture where “doctrine and debate coexisted” at The Economist (Zevin, 2019, p. 129).

World War 1 crushed the liberal vision that Hirst and The Economist embodied. Anti-colonial sentiment spread far and wide. The legitimacy of imperial rule was questioned. Yet The Economist persisted in its beliefs: “preserving peace, reviving global trade, and handling demands for democratic self-determination – liberalism offered not just the best but indeed the only credible solutions” (Zevin, 2019, p. 156). In the run-up to World War 2, the editors of The Economist worked closely with the government to act as advisors, “crafting economic battle plans and post-war blueprints, whose shift leftward reflected the altered context of the new conflict” (Zevin, 2019, p. 201). Whereas in the World War 1, Hirst and The Economist broke with the Liberal Establishment, here in World War 2, The Economist was guiding it.