Throughout the 8 years of the Bush peoples plundering of the US Constitution, I have remained baffled by the rather mild scoldings of Mr. Bush from the Economist's editorial board. Mr. Bush, one of the greatest political scoundrels, and dare I say, openly criminal near dictators in the history of the United States, was actually given tacit legitimacy by even indulging in the farce of legality of the actions of this spoiled, crude frat boy who pretended to be the "leader" of the US.
Had the Economist editorial board placed the appropriate scalpel like incisions on the Bush body of injustice - let's say something of the depth and size of incision reserved for the likes Chavez and other global "bad boys," the Economist would have retained my full respect as a legitimate reporting network for Global affairs. I think the boards nearly blind commitment to idealized capitalism for its own sake has now damaged its vision permanently; yet another victim of Mr. Bush's aggressive criminal behavior in the name of "democracy" that exists for the wealthy 5%, under the umbrella of idealized capitalism.
Even more interesting, the comment has received 24 "Recommend" ratings from other readers, far more than I would have expected. I would dearly love to know how the editorial board would respond to this criticism. I have the feeling it would be a disappointing enumeration of some little-heralded good aspects of Bush's presidency or a lamentation that hindsight is 20/20, when what I really want is to hear the Economist's editorial board get into a spirited critical theory discussion of capitalism as an ideology/rationality rather than as a reality.
Sadly, I'm pretty sure this fantasy will never be a reality either.