The choice

All elections get called the most important for decades. This one really is: two very different paths for the future are on offer

See article

Readers' comments


Severus Dumbledore

Election 2012 The Choice- Will Americans vote out the man who risked his presidency to put an end to Bin Laden, or will they vote for the guy who couldn’t stand up to Rush Limbaugh because he feared losing the nomination?

I am astonished that my fellow Americans are actually arguing over who to vote for.
Here is my understanding of the choice. It is a little long, but please read this.
Upon the tragic deaths of the Norwegian teenagers in Utoya island, at the hands of a deranged right wing extremist, instead of sympathizing with a traumatized nation, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others compared the dead and wounded youth activists – to the “the Hitler Youth”. These dead Norwegian kids were dedicated to the common humanity that is supposed to bind us all, whether we are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, agnostic or atheist, white, black, brown or yellow. They were anything but disciples or brainwashed followers of the “Aryan race”. I thought we, as Americans, are supposed to be on the side of those who yearn for peace, regardless of whether they are liberal, social democrat [which most Scandinavians are] or conservative. Yet instead of condemning the terrorist, they condemned the people of Norway. I want to ask-are Limbaugh’s and Beck’s behavior any better than those fundamentalist Muslims who rejoiced after 9/11? Is it American to celebrate the killing, maiming and traumatizing of children just because they are not American conservatives? Because the Norwegian Labor Party is slightly critical of Israel? Because some of its youth members believe that Israel should face boycotts in protest for the treatment of the Palestinians, which any sane person could see is overly harsh. True, they are wrong to call for a total boycott of Israel in academic terms because dialogue of the enlightened communities is what’s needed to change the world. But they are right to talk about boycotting companies that help sustain the occupation of Palestine- just as some American Presbyterians and Episcopalians and even some American Jews recently proposed. These are our fellow human beings Limbaugh was mocking. To me, it is clear who embodied Hitler on that day. It wasn’t the Norwegian Labour Party Youth [who are the Scandinavian social democratic equivalent of Young/Teenage Republicans].
Upon mounting evidence of increasing child poverty and malnourishment in Great Recession America, Limbaugh said that starving children –who are almost as likely to be white as they are Latino or black- should “dumpster dive” for food. These are our American children that Limbaugh was mocking.
Upon the row over contraception coverage in employer and university provided health care plans, Limbaugh basically called every female college and grad school student in America who disagreed with him, “Sluts”, “prostitutes”, and demanded they uploaded videos of themselves. These are our American sisters, daughters, cousins, friends that Limbaugh was degrading.

Upon the appearance of an opinion piece in the New York Times by serving US soldiers opposed to the strategy being applied in Iraq- in effect exercising the very freedom of speech at home that we were trying to plant in Baghdad- Limbaugh labeled anti-war veterans and serving military men “phony soldiers”. A couple of those soldiers came back to America in flag draped coffins. He claimed he wasn’t talking about them, that he was talking about someone who was kicked out of the military who had never touched a gun. But the transcript and audio recording of the conversation he had with a caller on his show [which he released] didn’t seem authentic. It seemed edited. Limbaugh never offered conclusive proof he was not degrading genuine American soldiers who had private and public doubts about the mission, even as they were fighting under the flag-regardless of whether they were Democratic, Republican or Independent. The fact that this controversy emerged a week after it was reported that two of the authors of the opinion piece had died, throws suspicion. He may have never aimed at them, but did he ever personally reach out to the families of those soldiers whom people thought he was offending? Did he ever say he values the freedom of speech and the valor of all of America’s uniformed men and women who do their duty, regardless of political affiliation? No, he didn’t. He went on to compare a wounded, anti-war Iraq veteran to a brainwashed suicide bomber.
Upon Michael J Fox’s endorsement of pro-stem cell research candidates in the 2006 election, Limbaugh mocked him and other Parkinson disease sufferers by claiming that the symptoms can be easily faked.
Upon the Haiti earthquake and cholera epidemic, he said that America shouldn’t help the Haitian people as they [US] had already given Haitians plenty of money in “income tax”. In other words, he was saying “let them die”.
Upon Obama’s decision to send 100 military advisors to Uganda to help take out a known war criminal- one whose militia, the Lords’ Resistance Army has committed rape, abduction, massacres, mass torture and mutilation, and the enslavement of children as child soldiers or sex slaves, Limbaugh took the issue out of context, claiming that Obama was waging a war on Christians fighting against Muslim fundamentalists in the Sudan and Uganda. Actually, to show how much Limbaugh distorts the facts, or how truly ignorant he is, the very same Muslim fundamentalists sometimes outsource their dirty work in South Sudan to the LRA

Upon the opening of the London Olympics, Limbaugh labeled the whole opening ceremony part of a global socialist conspiracy to re-elect Obama. All because they expressed pride in the NHS in general, and the Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital in particular. The British people may justifiably criticize the NHS at times, but they are still proud of it, and the hospital featured in the Opening Ceremony is a beloved institution that provides some of the best care imaginable because it receives the proceeds from the estate of the author of Peter Pan. Limbaugh saw such community spirit as the subjugation of a free people. He was attacking the oldest children’s hospital in the United Kingdom which happens to be partners with one of Britain’s best [almost entirely public] universities, the University College London. Here is what Wikipedia says “The hospital works with the UCL Institute of Child Health, and is the largest centre for research into childhood illness outside the United States and Canada, and a major international trainer of doctors and nurses. It has the widest range of children's specialists of any UK hospital, and is the largest centre for children's heart or brain surgery, or children with cancer, in the UK. Recent high profile breakthroughs include successful gene therapy for immune diseases, following a decade of research”. Is that socialism? Is that what Limbaugh and Palin call “death panels”.

Great Ormond Street Hospital is a member of the UCL Partners academic health science centre.
Limbaugh has said dozens of things that are offensive and odious throughout his career. He has even claimed that Bin Laden’s death was staged so that Al Qaeda would have an easier time to attack the United States. He has “called Obama a ‘halfrican American’ has said that Obama was not Black but Arab because Kenya is an Arab region, even though Arabs are less than one percent of Kenya. Since mainstream America has become more accepting of African-Americans, Limbaugh has decided to play against its new racial fears, Arabs and Muslims. Despite the fact Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law school, Limbaugh has called him an ‘affirmative action candidate.’” He recommended giving a medal of honor to Martin Luther King’s assassin. He called Mandela a communist. He even stereotyped Jews as Wall Street bankers [a group he claimed he was defending]. He even launched a verbal assault on Chelsea when she was a twelve year old. He expressed joy that Ted Kennedy died before the health care bill. He said that gun crime reduction could be achieved by taking away liberals’ freedom of speech.
Moreover, Limbaugh displays ignorance proudly. He calls liberalism “communism”, “socialism” and “Nazism”. Liberalism is not any of those things, as anyone who will read the Economist knows. Its about expanding the political and economic liberty of all, and ensuring that people have access to the opportunity to enjoy those things. Socialism, while it sprang from communism, is essentially a more humanitarian ideology that accepts liberalism-meaning political liberty- and whose variations, such as Blairism or Scandinavian Social Democracy, aim to live with, and flourish alongside capitalism. When Limbaugh calls the entire spectrum outside of the American Hard Right communist and Nazi, he is disrespecting everyone who died fighting these ideologies. Stalin purposefully caused famines that were so severe, children were driven to cannibalism. He and his ilk attack Britain’s Conservative Party for daring to suggest that Obama’s worldview is close to the moderate One Nation Conservatism of their founders, and for refusing to force Thatcher to suffer the indignity of meeting Palin. And by the way, why should the Cameron’s’ themselves meet Palin, when she made specific mentions of the NHS using death panels to screen out disabled children, when the NHS fought for six years to keep their severely ill son alive? He was one of those right wingers who clearly took the climate-gate emails out of their proper context and manipulated the scientific advantage to suit their anti-environmentalist agenda- so as to doom the Copenhagen conference. In fact, he even went so far as to encourage his audience to send hate mail to a climate scientist at the University of Oregon.

The point of the matter is : “WHERE WAS ROMNEY?” Why didn’t he say “enough is enough” and stand up to this polarizing figure [and his fellow travelers] whose sole purpose is to profit [38 million dollars a year] and gain indirect political power as he tears apart the country? Did Romney stand up to the far right of his party once in his eight year bid for the presidency? No. He offered a tempered response to the Sandra Fluke controversy and said he wouldn’t “light his hair on fire” to get support in the primaries. Where was he when Donald Trump was spreading lies about Obama’s birth certificate? Where was he when Palin- partially out of sheer spite- called the NHS an “evil” organization equipped with “death panels” whose purpose is to deny lifesaving care to the elderly and disabled children, when she possessed full knowledge it was not true, and the Republican Party knew about David Cameron’s severely disabled son and father, and Gordon Brown’s sick child, and the NHS was constantly at their side? She didn’t just do it to gain political points. She did it to hurt. The so called death panel is NICE “the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence” a board that is meant to screen out the best and most efficient ways of providing care in the interests of the patients and the economy. Its job is to rule on what procedures, practices and drugs are best for patients and the country overall. It is not without flaws, it makes mistakes, but it is not a forced euthanasia clinic, Where was Romney when Bachmann called Hilary Clinton’s longtime aide- who is of Indian descent- a Muslim Brotherhood infiltrator of the US government? Where was Romney when Gingrich and Palin were calling the so called Ground Zero mosque a sign of a conspiracy to impose Islamic conquests on America? Where was Romney when Palin called the criticism of her heated rhetoric [ in the wake of the Arizona shooting] a “blood libel” ? Blood libel is the term given to lies spread about the Jews sacrificing innocent children and the death of Christ- lies that were used to justify pogroms in the Middle Ages, in 18th and 19th century Europe, and eventually, the Holocaust; Lies that lead to threats made against Jews today. When Bachmann was implicitly labeling a bill, aimed at expanding voluntarism amongst American young people, the Edward Moore Kennedy Serve America Act, a fascist law aimed at establishing “re-education camps”, where was Romney? When Bachmann and others were basically calling the Kennedy creed of “ask yourselves what we can do for our country” a form of Nazism, why didn’t Romney stand up and say “I ran against Ted Kennedy and lost. I worked with Ted Kennedy when I was Governor of Massachusetts. Although he made many personal mistakes, and Republicans tend to disagree with the Kennedys’ brand of liberalism, we should recognize their love of America and their genuine goodness.” Where was Romney when the TEA PARTY launched a malicious assault on one of America’s most internationally respected elder statesmen and Republicans- Senator Dick Lugar- just because he and Obama happened to be friends and both happened to be committed to preventing nuclear proliferation?
I’ll tell you where Romney was. He was sniveling in the corner, biding his time to the Republican Nomination, waiting to get their support, and their donors.
Obama has the courage to risk his reputation and his entire presidency on a raid to kill Bin Laden- a raid that could have gone disastrously wrong. Romney can’t stand up to Limbaugh and the far right. Who do you want to be America’s President?


The Economist is by any standard a left leaning publication. Regarding the "read between the lines' of Mr Romney projected policies, including the cutting of the benefits to the "poorest" the cost of which is at the tune of $1.065T of the annual budget, largest combined expenditure for Welfare than Defence, or funded retirement plans for the elderly. No Economist, America is not ready to turn into a mega Sweden, Denmark or Norway, too many of the of the so called poorest have standard of living funded by those that still work like me, that far exceed the incomes of many countries middle class. While in N. Europe is an unwritten rule of not abusing the system, here it is a game to do so, shamelessly helped and openly promoted by those employed in the Welfare programs. Recently, a friend working in a travel agency told me that a welfare receipient wanted to pay for a Caribbean cruise with a debit card funded by Welfare. We the working stiff in America CANNOT afford another term of this president, sorry for its Economist apologists.


It is unbelievable that TE, a magazine that questions, analyzes and verifies all the important economic issues of the day, is giving the Republicans a free ride on their fiscal policy platform. You report others saying the math doesn't work but you need to provide your view on the financial credibility of both platforms. Your analysis could provide useful information for "The Choice", where is it?


I agree that this is a consequential election. We have three choices:
1) elect a highly pragmatic president who has shown good judgment in foreign policy and has correctly applied Keynesian economics;
2) elect an extreme John Birch like Republican Party that stands for economic nihilism, government involvement in intimate decisions, and a foreign policy dominated by neoconservatives;
3) elect an intensely cynical pair of demagogues who will literally do and say anything in order to be elected.
I wanted to vote for Romney, but his gross cynicism and inability to level with the American people about his beliefs has totally put me off. That is sad because he is obviously a bright man who was a competent governor for the first two years of his time in Massachusetts. I'm not sure which is worse:
that the old Romney could not have been nominated by the Republican Party or that the new Romney was.

indiesmart in reply to guest-ijseoja

Do you live in the USA? Have you noticed any of the HOPE and CHANGE PROMISED IN 08'? I haven't, my business is down 30%, opposite to the only change in the deficit, up 30%. Will you libetards ever come down your hubris saddled high horses and see the economic devastation to small business that obama has brought? Joe Birch Republicanism? You need a full reality brain re-wiring!


The Romney/Ryan ticket changes position faster than a couple of yoga instructors on speed. Do they stand for anything other than getting elected? Manifest Destiny as foreign policy fell out of fashion a long time ago. The Republican party used to be a source of new ideas, some good, some bad; now it seems hostile to the very idea of ideas.
The US population is forward looking, and as the baby boom fades from the political scene, I have hopes that a less science denying, less theocratic and less immigrant bashing Republican party will emerge. There was a strain of libertarian leaning western Republicanism which captured the live and let live attitude nicely. Hope something like evolves.

JJ Hantsch

The key moment of the first debate occurred when Obama challenged Romney on the future of Medicare for individuals younger than 55 years of age. Obama said that government runs the most efficient health care system. Romney said that competition insures that private companies do, while acknowledging a couple of kickers to bring that about. This distinguishes the bases of the two parties, a great many voters and even most of the readers here. The two paths offered are seldom as divergent. The Economist has elucidated clearly where they stand.


What cool aid do your analysts drink?

What happened at the debate: The president and his administration, which have spent hundreds of millions demonizing a good and honorable man BECAUSE he is rich, were shown up as liars. 67M Americans watched. Not only did Obama perform like a weak AND limp rag, the entire case against Romney was blown away.

Further, this exposed charade comes ON TOP of Libya and the Obamacare debacle.

Romney is not and did not look slippery. Where do you get your opinions anyway?


You yourself at the Economist have just detailed all that disqualifies Romney from the Presidency: his chopping of the Food Stamp program, his naive and jingoistic foreign policy, his hatred of illegal immigrants, and his refusal to do anything about the biggest policy problem humanity has ever faced, climate change. You need to take that last step, and formally endorse Barack Obama for re-election. I can even propose a headline: "Steady as she goes".


After a certain point, you realize that to some, facts, logic, and empirical data just aren't persuasive. Citizens United has shown that if you lie often and loud enough - even if the lies are easily proven false - and have enough money behind you...eventually people will start to believe the lies.

You could note that free nationalized education and healthcare are highly correlated with countless positive externalities for a nation - a more intelligent, more productive workforce, less crime, a stronger economy and a stronger nation. But some feel richer when everyone else has less.

They have their health care and they don't want anyone else to get it. They have their education and don't want others to have it too...because in their mind that would diminish them. They also don't want gays to get married because in their mind, that would somehow diminish their already messed-up marriage. Interesting huh?

You could point out that tax cuts on the wealthy and on corporate earnings are highly correlated with increased debt and recessions while high taxes on the wealthy and on corporate earnings are correlated with prosperity, balanced budgets and stability. But everyone is "gonna be rich...someday...and damn'ed if the government is gonna increase my marginal tax rate when I'm among the 1% by wealth."

You can point out www.presidentialdebt.org and note the impact certain parties have on the national debt - but true believers don't care about facts.

We could look at the numbers and note that one party likes to start wars and then cut the programs that care for veterans and their families when / if they come home. But that party likes to look patriotic? Funny...what about starting a war, letting others fight it, helping your buddies get richer from it, and then throwing your vets under a bus when they return is "patriotic?"

Facts don't matter to true believers. They are terrified to hear actual data - not political smear campaign BS - actual empirical facts about their candidate - what he stood for, what he did in his prior office, his steadfastness or lack thereof - because they are desperately clinging to their identity as a member of "their" party. They are like religious folks who can't stand to have their religion questioned...terrified because they are desperately clinging to the need to believe in something. Clinging to being right - even if they can't even begin to explain why - other than repeating some platitudes spoken by their friends.

Watching this has really started to bore me - really bore me. Whether you're voting for the "every man for himself...as long as he looks and thinks like us party" or for the "We're all in this together" party...how you explain your decision says volumes about you as a person and little about the party itself. Perhaps it is just the direction this nation is going. All great empires fall eventually - usually because their people become too selfish and too greedy for too long. Nothing new...but sad.

Let's see the chain of thought here: you say, (1) Romney lies non-stop and loudly enough; (2) his lies are easily proven false; (3) but he has enough money behind; (4) so the stupid folks start to believe his lies.
If that is true, it totally disqualifies O'Bambi from the position of the US president. When Romney repeated his lies during their debate (at least that's what the pinko media wants us to believe), the President didn't demolish him but just swallowed like a special needs schoolboy.
There are only two possible explanations for that: he is either unable to see through this "easily proven falsehoods", to use your statement; or his silence has been bought by Romney's money.
I don't know what's worse, but both are enough to exclude Mr Obama from the position he applies for, huh?

Reluctant Polluter

Using TE's own words, "the gulf that separates the policies of the two candidates and their parties seems wider than in any election in living memory", and it shows the speed with which Dems move to the Left, since Republicans are moving to the center. Actually, Republican party chases the Dems but cannot catch up with their thrust to join Chavez.

You think a private equity frat boy who changes policy positions as a matter of political expediency as often as most change socks and an Ayn Rand fan girl, whose policies consist of tax cuts for the rich and corporate, more war, and the evisceration of all safety nets, social programs, and tax deductions for nonprofits (other than churches) are in any way centrists?

Wow...tells me your coordinates on the political spectrum.

Well, now you know just everything what's worth of knowing, dontcha?
And you recite the groupie nonsense just fine. If the Chicago Boys make it to the Treasury for four years more, they could even cough up couple of (other people's) dollars to the fan base... though I somehow doubt it.




Whats interesting is that the two are so polarised in their value systems that one can judge their own personality types without taking the MBTI, solely on the basis of how they react to the visions of the two presidential candidates. Whats even more interesting is that they are at 'whisker's length" as mentioned to each other in public opinion. For whatever its worth, this could actually be a blanket test for America as a country personality.


I cannot find this "print edition" article in the print edition. Is it only in the US version of the paper?? Why does the Economist think that we in Europe are not interested in the US election?


I think the choices have become, using oil reserves & funding wars vs continuing current policies.

"Consumption led growth" and wars are hurting the U.S economy. The U.S should focus more towards wise investment to solve the problems.


America is thankfully, not Europe. We Americans (the VAST majority) really do not give a damn what Europeans think about us, we know they have contempt for us and you know what, we get it. We have no desire to be a screwed up Welfare State that goes broke. American was built on initiative, self-reliance and independence. The VAST majority of Americans do not trust government and are proud of disliking government. Obama is a socialist. We do not like socialism. Obama only started living in the continental USA when he went to college at age 18. That said, it is important to realize that Obama does not have a grounding in his background of how and what the average American is and believes. God help us and let us get rid of this empty suit and his socialist supporters.

i2syYKvxLd in reply to PolecatMtn

By all metrics, the European Union is a success. It has relatively high standards of living compared to the rest of the world. I have lived in Europe before and many many people leave for work in the wee hours of the morning and return late at night. It's why they have so many illegal immigrants, they have jobs. They are socialists, we are too, just less so with people and more so with private industry. If Europeans did not matter, then their economic crisis would have no effect on our markets, but we know that's not the case. Like Mark Twain said: " travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and NARROW-MINDEDNESS!"

Yankee Kid

This total artical to the end is full of lies and vindictive puting words into the mouth of both Obama and Romnney like a pevert to gain control. Obama agrees with everybody. and does nothing. Romney is vage and tries to please everyone by how he looks. The big problem is who will conthol the goverment, the outsiders, or the insiders, and this is something new. The answer is nobody, and we will stay divided. This is not a good thing. Please stop stiring it up.


"The gulf that separates the policies of the two candidates and their parties seems wider than in any election in living memory."

Really? Wider than Nixon vs. McGovern? How old are you folks?


Is there anything more damning then Obama's efforts to get votes from special interest groups by giving them goodies? Low cost loans for students, free healthcare for poor, no enforcement of illegal immigration policy. Let's divide up the country into different parts, and then promise them all goodies, let's get them dependent on the government.

Not that I'm a fan of Mitt, but this is horrible.

Brett Zink in reply to Kroneborge

How different is this than repealing DADT and banning gay marriage or getting hard on immigration for the Christian/cultural conservatives? Shutting down the EPA for the oil companies and cutting taxes for the rich?

You think that Obama acts only to get votes but Romney(and other conservative contenders) acts out of genuine goodness?

That's silly. They both act to get votes. They both give away "goodies"

It's seen by the predictable move-to-center by Mitt at the debate. During the primary he was a staunch conservative. Now he's touting moderate policies. Both personalities required to win that particular stage in the race.

Kroneborge in reply to Brett Zink

Oh I see you confused me with a conservative, I'm actually a libertarian, I don't want the government to be giving goodies to anyone, except ensuring the goodie of liberty of course.

But no, I don't think the republicans are "quite" as bad about giving goodies, especially the monetary kind.

You try to equalize gay marriage with the socialist health care system? All the homosexuals that inhabit the planet are less by nth power than illegal aliens in California, not to speak about the rest of this administration's clients.
I don't think it's anybody's problem if baby Zacharia calls Elton John 'mum' or 'dad', but it's everybody's problem if the Chicago boys have free access to the US Treasury for another four years.


I really wish the Republican sloganeers would stop treating the electorate with such contempt. "Restore our future" How do you restore a house that hasn't yet been built? Your can't restore what hasn't happened. "Trickle down government", what the hell can that possibly mean? It is a representative government. The idea that if your candidate didn't win, then it is not a legitimate government is the petulance of a 6 year old. The electorate deserves better than the sham of throwing red meat to one group and pouring balm on another. Video cameras are everywhere and the spectacle saying one thing to one group and something else to another is no longer good politics (both parties are guilty).

teacup775 in reply to FlownOver

Trickle down government, if its anything like trickle down economics, means that only the rich get access and influence to it, and the rest can hope for the left overs. The transition to it has already happened. The staffing budget for members of Congress has blossomed over the last decade, as members increase staff to service favors from the more wealthy and connected of their constituency. Just to help them with the bureaucracy mind you.

teacup775 in reply to FlownOver


teacup775 in reply to FlownOver

Spam filter? TE please try making your site more responsive on small devices, the posting lag is so bad, I can't tell if I hit the post button. Get rid of that hot topic graphic for one. Load times are 10 seconds or more for your pages.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

