Liberalism at Large: The World According to the Economist

by Alexander Zevin

The path-breaking history of modern liberalism told through the pages of one of its most zealous supporters. Since 1843, the Economist has been the single most devoted and influential champion of liberalism anywhere in the world. But what exactly is liberalism, and how has the liberal message evolved? Liberalism at Large presents a history of liberalism on the move, confronting the challenges that classical doctrine left unresolved: the rise of democracy, the expansion of empire, the ascendancy of finance. Today, neither economic crisis at home, nor permanent warfare abroad, has dimmed the Economist's belief in unfettered markets, limited government and a free hand for the West. Confidante to the powerful, emissary for the financial sector, portal onto international affairs, the bestselling news weekly shapes the world its readers--and the rest of us--inhabit. This is the first critical biography of one of the architects of a liberal world order now under increasing strain.

Genres: Politics, History, Economics, Nonfiction, Journalism, Philosophy, Sociology

553 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 3, 2015

Reviews

[David Sogge · Rating 5 out of 5]

How can a magazine with such an appalling track record of bad judgements and 'learning disabilities' become so widely read and powerful? In probing that question, this book offers an abundance of clues, all thoroughly assembled and presented in clear, well-ordered prose, with plenty of 'human interest' thrown in. Even this book's footnotes, which occupy nearly a quarter of its bulk, can make for good reading. As a window onto how journalists, politicians and business people have translated self-interest into ideas and codified them as ‘common sense’, it's a highly instructive work of political sociology and of the history of ideas. Since the 19th century The Economist has helped to orient British and later American economic, social and war-making policies. Citing many dozens of cases, Zevin shows how the magazine nearly always navigates according to "a liberalism whose lodestars were two: the universal virtues of capital and...the particular necessities of empire." Paradoxically, these liberal thrusts have given rise to today’s (and yesterday’s) anti-liberalism. A backlash in political sentiment is now punching big holes below The Economist's ideological waterline. With every setback to the creed (which the IMF and even a few worried tycoons are putting in question) there are good reasons to abandon the ship. But as this book shows, The Economist has served powerful people well. In back rooms and through revolving doors, editorial suites remain connected with corridors of power. So even with icebergs ahead, the band (now amplified on the magazine's platforms for social media, tv, podcasts and so forth) continues to play on.

[Jeremy Noble · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some fifty years ago - as a sixteen year old geography student beginning A-levels - a beloved teacher told us: "If I achieve nothing else with you all over the next two years it would be that you subscribe to 'The Economist' ". I did and I still do today.

So I come to this book, which is at times a savage critique of the 'newspaper', with a strong personal bias in favour of the author's target. Perhaps in the essential spirit of this influential publication - I read the contents with a deep appreciation of the scholarship and application Mr Zevin put into the work. However, although his commentary is accurate throughout, for the most part, I found myself wondering if - in emphasising miscalls and misjudgements so much - that the whole point had been missed.

"To take part in 'a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy timed ignorance obstructing our progress" is the banner proclaimed weekly. So I feel that this bold intent is crucial to a fair assessment - and is fundamental, yet missing from this book

To run a company in the modern age is to be a mistake-maker. You don't fail fast if you don't take a position, begin an initiative or get some skin in the game. Historians and scholars thankfully have the luxury of review - and a patient eye can learn much from their work. Regrettably, it's a bit too late for me to meet next weeks payroll.

Similarly, calling for military action to redress a wrong is not wrong - if hundreds and sometimes hundreds of thousands of people are losing their lives. Is it that we stand and stare, let "them" get on with it, turn and look away at the latest Netflix hit? Breaking 'red lines' with no penalty has a poor recent history of success. Should there be no red lines, no penalties? Military action should always be a last resort. Hopefully imagination, good spirits and investments in diplomacy can do the trick - but should bad actors go unsanctioned? I don't think so.

Where the machinery to achieve the desirable endpoint is driven by outdated thinking and inadequate technology and/or led by timeservers and unimaginative rentseekers then this is unacceptable. A key principle of liberal democracy is to combine the rule of law with the necessary authority to implement a final say. The costs of law breaking needs to be greater than the benefits. It serves no one to have a costly military apparatus that is not fit for purpose.

It is true that The Economist doesn't use the passive voice. It is true that taking a position is guaranteed to spark not just a debate - but in today's world of instant communication and aggressive social media assaults - may come with a threat or even actual violence. But I believe that it is helpful to have an institution that gives an early provocation.

The Economist gives me the depth and intensity of coverage of world affairs each week matched to a commercial outlook and a praxis that has suited me. I find that a subscription to The Economist has kept me straight, got me thinking and consistently helped keep me ahead of the game . It also reminds me that I need to be quick to grasp the key points of an argument, but slow to dismiss others.

So thank you for your book Mr Zevin. I don't agree with many of your arguments but there is much that will stay with me as I once again renew my subscription.

[Tomas Bella]

Začína to sľubne: zakladatelia novín The Economist bojujú za voľný trh ako najvyššiu morálnu hodnotu a tento ušľachtilý princíp povyšujú nad všetky ostatné podružné hodnoty. Napríklad: nakŕmiť Írov, pretože milión zomiera počas hladomoru? Nemôžeme, bola by to štátna intervencia a tá je väčšie zlo ako nejakí mŕtvi domorodci! Kto je od Economistu v ekonomickej orientácií smerom doľava a chce Economist ešte viac neznášať, toto je kniha pre neho.
Ja som to vzdal po sto stranách, táto kniha bola pôvodne dizertačkou a tak sa aj číta, množstvo detailov o poryvoch v ekonomicko-politickej teórii na konci 19. storočia je tu väčšie ako miera, v akej ma dejiny liberalizmu zaujímajú.

[Steve Llano]

This book is nothing short of an incredible walk through the archives of The Economist. Zevin has created a masterpiece of small-scale literary history here with appropriate incursions from the social and political. The amazing thing about this book is how what is purported to be a document that reports on the economy and the government becomes the source for elected officials to determine what that relationship will be. In European and British history, and then 19th to 20th century American history, the staff of the Economist had more influence over what we might call "political economy" than pretty much any other discursive force. Elected officials had appointed Economist editors and writers to advisory positions - official and unofficial. It's hard to think of another publication that has had direct governmental influence from its founding to it's current form 200 years later.

The book is a clinic in how to turn archival material with social and political history into compelling narrative that makes a case. Not only that, it's entertaining to read and very informative. Zevin's ability to gloss major historical events such as conflict, war, economic downturn, diplomacy, and electoral politics is very high quality. It's a great read, and you'll learn a lot about British economics and definitely never look at that little red box on that masthead the same way again.

[✨ Anna ✨ | ReadAllNight]

Recommended by Adam. I've subscribed to the newspaper for 35 years and looking forward to this critique. Good writing isn't cover for horrible positions.

[Daniel Carr · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book - it's got a good pace, and is well-written. As a history of The Economist, it is detailed and informative, though this may also make it a rather niche read. So many individuals and events are referenced in the opening few chapters that those without some grounding in British history (especially political history) may find it rather impenetrable. One also gets a rich account of just how influential the publication has been, especially in a direct 'revolving door with government' sense in its early period.

As an exploration of liberalism in an applied form, it's also an interesting read. Zevin (not a liberal) takes a critical look at what policy prescriptions this 'lodestar of liberalism' has dealt out over its 175 year history. This is explored chiefly with reference to The Economist's various positions on democracy, imperialism (British, then later American), and finance. These are mostly - with a few exceptions due to 'out of character' editors - found wanting. Zevin marshals a lot of clear and persuasive evidence on these points, but at times, and especially towards the end of the book, you have a sense that the story is being rushed and that a lot is hitting the cutting room floor.

I'd recommend to anyone with an interest in the history of British liberalism, especially if they happen to be an Economist reader.

Random but interesting fact - a young Roy Jenkins MP was approached to be editor! We don't hear much on why, but apparently The Economist's board squashed this move by the then managing director before it advanced too far.

[KT · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enjoyable and informative history of liberalism through the eyes of the Economist including Walter Bagehot writing justifications in 1851 for the coup in France and Robert Moss celebrating the death of Allende and brazenly spreading the supposed threat of communism across the world

The author particularly focusses on its influential editors and how through the tripartite structure of democratic dissatisfactions, imperial conflicts and global debt-fuelled, financialised capitalism, the Economist has described the world to shaped its possibilities, more precisely its justification of liberal imperialism from the 19th century to present

The author also does a brilliant job collecting anecdotes from previous editors and material from the Economist's own archives, which are referenced throughout and paint a vivid picture of the Economist's inner workings set against the broader context of the time

[Xin Wang · Rating 3 out of 5]

Liberalism only plays a supporting role in this biography of the hundreds plus years old magazine. The doctrines that come to define the Economist's world view: free trade, free capital market, benevolent hegemon etc... are multifaceted, yet amazingly consistent throughout its history.

We, as the readers of the magazine should resist the temptation of being mesmerized by its glamorous facade, and be aware of the ideological, geographical and historical baggages (bias) it carries. Nevertheless, as it provided food for thoughts in Marx's study of capitalism in spite of, or maybe precisely because of those baggages a hundred years ago, it still deserves a spot in today's media landscape in helping people understand and make sense of a ever more fluid and complex world.

[Jakob Myers · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't enjoy the prolonged sections on economics, but this book's treatment of the Economist's anti-democratic and pro-Imperialist project and its continuities today is very valuable. Also sprinkled with entertaining personal anecdotes about the intersection of the personal with the political for the editors.

[Paul Crider · Rating 5 out of 5]

Liberalism at Large is an intellectual biography of The Economist with a special emphasis on how the ideology of the 175+ year old liberal newspaper has evolved—and failed to evolve—with the times. Alexander Zevin argues that this history provides a special insight into liberalism itself, as The Economist has expressed the dominant strain of liberalism, warts and all. For Zevin, these warts are imperialism, resistance to democracy, and financial capitalism.

I write this review as a liberal and a longtime subscriber to The Economist, one who in recent years has had sharp criticisms of the paper. Liberalism at Large offered a lot of fascinating material that made me see the paper in a new light. The first example is the founding period under its first editor, James Wilson. Few who read The Economist nowadays could fairly describe the paper as laissez faire, yet at its founding in 1843, the newspaper favored free trade and a gold standard and opposed virtually any regulatory interference in markets, especially in favor of workers. It opposed government-provided public education and the creation of a public health board. The Economist equated private profit with public interest. “Where the most profit is made, the public is best served … limit the profit, and you limit the exertion of ingenuity in a thousand ways.”

As a newspaper founded specifically for the purpose of defending free trade and advocating against the Corn Laws, The Economist was backed initially by the liberals of the Anti-Corn Law League, John Bright and Richard Cobden. These radical liberals were animated, along with Wilson, by a vision of free trade, peace, and goodwill among nations. But Wilson and The Economist split from the radicals by endorsing Britain’s involvement in the Crimean War and mounting a liberal defense of the British Empire that has only rarely wavered ever since.

The Economist would come to look somewhat more recognizable to today’s readers under the editorship of Walter Bagehot, whom the paper honors to this day with an eponymous column (about British politics). Under Bagehot, The Economist softened its laissez faire stances, renouncing its support for a gold standard, favoring a graduated income tax, reversing its opposition to any and all factory regulations as assaults on free trade, and even endorsing state ownership of the railways.

Bagehot also gives some of the most colorful representation of 19th century right wing liberal antagonism toward democracy. Bagehot, even more so than the Liberal parliamentarian founder Wilson, was a blunt advocate of the elites. He argued the secret of the English constitution was that some ten thousand educated and propertied elite men held the reins of power and must retain that power regardless of democratic pieties the lower classes may be led to believe. Extension of the franchise to the lower orders would be a disaster. It was under Bagehot that The Economist engaged in perhaps the most inglorious defense of free trade in its history. In a great “We abhor slavery but—” moment, The Economist suggested the South had the marginally better case in the American Civil War owing in part to its gentility and in part to getting their trade on the cheap.

Since its founding in 1843, The Economist was a strictly Liberal paper, backing the party in politics and supporting imperialists against radicals in intra-party squabbles. This all ended when the paper endorsed Conservatives against Gladstone over the issue of Home Rule for Ireland in 1885. Given the choice between liberalism and empire, The Economist didn’t hesitate to plump for the latter.

But The Economist did engage in a brief fling with Cobdenite pacifism under the leadership of Francis Hirst, who helmed the paper from 1906 and argued in Liberalism and Empire that imperialism was the greatest threat to liberalism, offering governments excuses to erect tariffs and raise taxes and spending. Hirst steered The Economist to keeping Britain out of the Great War, and for his trouble was sacked in 1916. The Economist would never again waiver from imperialism, except to replace the British with the American variety mid-century.

Hirst’s tenure did augur some lasting changes, including bringing on the first female editor (Mary Agnes Hamilton) who was not only a suffragette (in contrast to Hirst himself, who thought women’s suffrage was “anti-liberal”) but would go on to join the Labour Party in Parliament. The intellectual diversity of The Economist’s staff would flower, even including socialists and critics of liberal imperialism. A glance at the current staffing reveals that at some point that diversity began to spread to race and ethnicity, with the ranks of women swelling as well.

Whatever the internal partisan makeup, the editorial voice took another rightward turn during the Cold War years, when the paper did more than just provide rock steady ideological support for America and the West. In some cases its writers—especially Robert Moss and Brian Crozier—worked in direct consultation with the CIA. The paper endorsed virtually every American led destabilization of left regimes in the Americas and Asia and endorsed both Reagan and Thatcher for their muscular foreign policies, if not their domestic agendas. (Reagan’s “Lafferesque faith” in the power of tax cuts combined with increased spending, and his Supreme Court appointments that risked “making America a less liberal society” were particularly worrying.) As Johnny Grimond (foreign editor at the turn of the 21st century) remarked on his retirement, The Economist “never saw a war it didn’t like.”

Zevin makes no attempt to hide his ideological opposition to The Economist, yet whether this was his intention or not, he also humanizes the paper. The reader gets to know individual editors and writers during the course of the book far better than even devoted readers can with the anonymous weekly alone. Zevin regularly points out ideological foibles and opinion howlers, but he also presents internal disagreements with human faces. The unlikely result, in this subscriber’s case at least, is a rekindling of enthusiasm for following The Economist. I root for the elements of my kind of liberalism to prevail and prosper.

What are these elements, and what hope do they have? I share Zevin’s major concerns about The Economist’s liberalism: “democratic dissatisfactions, imperial conflicts and debt-fuelled financialized capitalism as far as the eye can see.” The Economist seems to have come to terms with democracy, at least in the rich world, but it continues to view democratic outcomes it disapproves of—usually those bringing leftists of any kind into power—with its old imperial disdain. It’s all too ready to back up this disdain with force, usually outsourced to the Americans. It is as hard to see the liberal newspaper forswearing war as it is to see it renouncing financial capitalism. And yet for a brief spell under Francis Hirst it did just that.

Even The Economist’s views of financial capitalism have evolved. It is now much more likely to prescribe Keynesian fiscal remedies. This was achieved over stiff resistance. Zevin recounts a long debate between The Economist and J.M. Keynes in the interwar years over government stimulus and the role of moderate inflation; Keynes seemed to enjoy needling The Economist with frequent letters, to which the paper felt obligated to reply. As the economics profession evolves, The Economist seems to follow suit. Current editor Zanny Minton Beddoes made this clear with her successful audition for the top job. In her special report, Beddoes argues that the rich world must confront inequality at the top—making sure the ultra-wealthy are adequately taxed—the bottom—secure access to education and healthcare—and the middle—eliminating politically popular subsidies, like mortgages.

The Economist is even at the leading edge of certain issues, including carbon taxes, drug legalization, and housing abundance policies. The paper is in my view ahead of the curve in taking the environmental risks of high meat consumption as an environmental risk seriously. It occasionally suggests decriminalizing sex work. Perhaps these are all small issues compared to imperialism and the dominance of global financial capitalism, but they nonetheless give reason to cheer.

Though the topics are mostly neglected by Zevin, racism in America and trans rights are subject to the most retrograde treatments to this day at The Economist. While acknowledging “racial wounds” and even offering decent policy advice to lessen racial inequality, The Economist often maliciously interprets antiracist thought as intrinsically a threat to liberalism and too often indulges anti-antiracists. Yet the current Lexington columnist, James Astill, has to his considerable credit taken American racial injustice seriously enough to suggest the country is due for a “Third Reconstruction”. Nothing fundamentally stands in the way of The Economist apprehending racism—rather than antiracism—as the powerful threat to liberalism that it is.

On the surface there appears to be less reason for hope in resolving transphobia at The Economist. The paper seems to take every opportunity to mischaracterize or cast doubt on medical and psychiatric best practices; to dehumanize and exploit deceased trans persons; and to defend anti-trans activists. Yet much of the obsession with trans people likely owes to a certain editor who moonlights as an anti-trans activist. Mainstream feminism has grown increasingly intolerant of trans-exclusionary perspectives. One can reasonably hope that the basic classical liberal impulse to respect the lifestyles of individuals and to assume they understand their own lives and circumstances—and identities—better than bureaucrats and busybodies will prevail at the liberal newspaper in the end.

[Jarno Mehtiö · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kirja

Hommasin kirjan aikanaan samalla kun ostin Lionel Barberin päiväkirjat. Ajattelin saavani kaksi myötäsukaista opusta talouslehdistä, etenkin kun nyt käsiteltävää kirjaa suositteli kannessa Gideon Rachman. Olisi pitänyt aavistaa palaneen käryä, kun takakannessa oli Adam Toozen suositus.

Zevin ei lähtenyt kirjoittamaan Economistin ylistyslaulua. Eikä edes liberalismin. Tämä on toki luonnollista, kun minulle selvisi, että kirja oli alunperin artikkeli Diploon ja kirjoittaja on paitsi tutkija myös New Left Review’n toimittaja.

Kirja käsittelee Economistin kautta liberalismia ja sen (aatteen ja lehden) voittokulkua. Asia perataan kolmen suhteen kautta: suhde demokratiaan, suhde finanssitalouteen ja suhde imperiumiin/imperialismiin.

Lehti tarjoaa hyvän keinon purkaa tätä, koska nousihan sekä liberalismi että nuo kolme teemaa kirkkaimpaan valoon aikaisimmin. Lehti itsessään oli aikanaan kaikkea sääntelyä vastaan, siis kaikkea. Pikku hiljaa vapaus ja sääntely tulivat hyväksytyksi eri alueilla. Esimerkiksi demokratia ei ollut täysin ongelmaton, koska ajattelevia ihmisiä oli korkeintaan 10 000. Esimerkiksi Intiaan liberalismia oli turha ylettää.

Kirja käy läpi kolmen teeman avulla eri vaiheita historiassa. Pääpointti tuntuu olevan, että lehti ja idea olivat yleensä varsin taipuvaisia vallassa olevien näkemyksiin sekä tukemaan heitä. Poikkeukset olivat harvinaisempia, esimerkiksi ensimmäisen maailmansodan aikainen päätoimittaja, joka vastusti sotaa ja joutuikin eroamaan 1916. Samainen päätoimittaja joutui toki eroon myös vaimostaan, koska vaimosta tuli suffragetti ja mies vastusti naisille äänioikeuden antamista.

Mitä lähemmäksi nykypäivää tullaan, etenkin toisen maailmansodan jälkeen, kirjoittaja näkee lehden olleen varsin jenkkien vallassaolijoita myötäilevä, heidän imperialismia tukeva ja suorastaan osa lännen (ymmärrettynä USA ja UK) propagandaa paikoitellen. Oli kyse USAn sodista, uusliberalismista tai muista perinteisesti heihin liitettävistä kritiikeistä, lehti oli syyllinen kaikkeen ja tuki tätä. Zevin perustelee näkemystä ennen kaikkea päätoimittajien ja muutamien muiden vaikutusvaltaisten toimittajien näkemyksillä ja jutuilla. Tässä kohtaa jäin kaipaamaan ehkä jonkinlaista määrällisempää analyysia kirjoitetuista jutuista, en yksittäisten juttujen siteeramista. Jälkiviisaana kirjan sananvalinnat lehden käyttämistä kommenteista Putinista ja Venäjästä kallistuvat enemmän Economistin kuin Zevinin kannalle. Tai ehkä olin jo tässä vaiheessa tympääntynyt.

Yhteenvetoluvusta kirjassa uhrataan puolet Economistin toimittajan liberalismin historiaa käsittelevään kirjaan, joka lytätään. Minkä jälkeen kirjassa kerrataan aatteen haasteet ja ongelmat sekä vääryydet.

Kirja on kyllä hyvä kuvaus ajanjaksostaan. Ja hyvin kirjoitettu. Hieman välillä tunnuin katoavan milloin kenenkin toimittajan juttuihin, miettien miten tämä käsittely kuvaa koko lehteä ja miten yhtä toimittajaa. Loppua kohti tulee kyllä selväksi, mitä kirjailija haluaa sanoa ja miksi mitäkin käsitellään.

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

Paraphrasing Fawcett from his LIBERALISM: THE HISTORY OF AN IDEA, Zevin remarks that "liberalism's great achievement and grounds for congratulation was to force democracy to accept capitalism." That might be the loose thesis threading this charting of the stewardship of The Economist's editorial staff down through the last 180+ years of its history.

In showing how The Economist has pretty consistently found ways to justify imperialism, the restriction of democracy, and the unqualified good and unchecked ascendancy of finance, Zevin paints a picture of a slippery, adaptable ideology that has been as hypocritical as it has been successful. But as a sometimes remedial survey of a clearinghouse of hegemonic thought it gets a little boring, especially all the way until it gets to WWI (the whole first third feels like a slog).

I had been hoping for some editor room gossip and mechanics about how the publication maintains its consistent authorial voice with its staff all writing as if they were one hive mind, hidden by the absence of bylines. But you're just left with the common economic and educational backgrounds of senior staff to allow you to assume they all simply think along similar lines. I guess I wanted this to be more granular and when some of the debates about finance popped up, I wanted there to be a more technical examination of the economic thought brewing in the in-house debates. So maybe this book wasn't boring enough for me? Took me entirely too long to read and I only finished it because I didn't even bother to look at the end notes. The book is fine, it's not bad. I just don't think using this publication as a lens into the development of liberal thought over the last almost 200 years ("really existing liberalism") got the author much in the way of surprises or insight (though it was interesting seeing how much of its Cold War coverage was pretty much a psy-op).

But it does paint an ugly picture. It also goes to show how far liberals have fallen when you hold the figures showcased here against the current fallen world of libertarian know-nothing loonies you have to deal with now. I couldn't help think of Leo Strauss in a remark he made in his correspondence to the effect that, to really give a contemporary justification for liberalism, to put it on solid ground and give it a chance against its critics, it would take someone with the intellect of a Heidegger... Well that ain't happening because, as this book makes it clear: that would be a fool's errand.

I should mention that you should have a pretty solid understanding of economics going into this because Zevin does not make asides to really explain anything - he assumes you've got a basic understanding of the theories involved. So caveat emptor.

[Zinegeist · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent and piercing survey of the Economist. I enjoyed how this book serves as a kind of tripartite history: the history of British and US imperialism; the intellectual history of liberalism beginning with its ill-defined 19th century purveyors, with a strong focus on 'liberalism in practice' rather than discussing the philosophical musings of a smargasbord of highly varied thinkers - ranging from Bastiat and Constant to Keynes and Rawls - as these thinkers are woven into the history rather than being analyzed in excruciating detail; and finally, a history of the paper itself, complete with sharp but entertaining portraits of a motley crew of economists, bankers, businessmen, and journalists who all reaped more from free trade, finance and even at times anti-democratic sentiments than one would imagine, given the seeming innocuousness of the paper's free-speaking, data-driven ouvre.

I did, however, miss a deeper discussion on the origins of the Economist's rabid but unmistakable transition to being a stalwart defender of democracy. While much of its economic stances and some of its political stances have remained relatively adamant throughout 175 years, its views on democracies have indeed shifted, though that transfiguration is not well-explored here. Otherwise, highly recommended for any aficionado of intellectual histories of capitalism, and indeed, anyone - like me - who has had an abiding interest in the Economist itself.

[Viral · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book, because its such an interesting deep dive into "actually existing liberalism", as shown through the evolution of the Economist as a magazine. Through this book, we see as the magazine grows with and debates with issues like the growth of empire, tariffs and free trade, democracy, decolonization, WW1 &2, the Cold War, unions, social change, the welfare state, and many more. We see how different EIC's brought different perspectives and challenged or embraced different approaches within liberalism and how the Economist has left its mark, largely for the worse, on the world. Highly highly recommend.

[Differengenera · Rating 4 out of 5]

comprehensive study of some of the worst human beings who ever drew breath. could have done with a bit more explanation at times, though it didn't bear any of the marks you'd usually see in a work that developed out of a thesis I didn't always know exactly what was at stake in a given historical moment. the high points are definitely when Zevin allows some moral indignation to the cut through the Andersonian NLR house style and I think it could have done with a bit more of that

[Iang95ify . · Rating 5 out of 5]

A comprehensive history of the Economist from the Victorian ages to the Trump-Brexit era. Zevin takes us through the biography of each of the editors and the key journalists, and how the magazine has influenced world events. A consistent thread in the book is that the Economist's brand of liberalism has been pro-capital, pro-imperialism throughout time.

[Jay · Rating 3 out of 5]

A history of British liberal thought as presented in the Economist magazine, from inception to the present. Shocking, shocking finding: the Economist supports classical liberal principles unless Britain's primitive capitalist accumulation is threatened, in which case it supports war and repression.

[DJ Quezada · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely incredible book, I never expected to read 400 pages of history about a British magazine, but has permanently altered my view of a fixture in “high brow” political publishing. Could not put this book down.

[Olivia Funk]

whoa

[Ed Venables · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beautifully written.

[Greg Florez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great overview and eye opening account of the horrors of British Liberalism.

[Salem · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not quite what I was expecting, but I still don’t think it lived up to its promise.

[Bernardo · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a crucial book that sheds light on the media-state nexus through the history of one of the most influential media institutions of modern times.