What’s more, if a publication started infusing its business-oriented news coverage with rightwing politics would an Economist writer even notice? ~Matt Yglesias

Well, since The Economist‘s news and editorial departments are both about as “right-wing” as Tony Blair when he is in a particularly gushy, humanitarian mood, I would say that their writers would notice.  For instance, here’s some rampant right-wingery from their book reviews this week:

In Europe’s own history Islam has often been a more tolerant, civilising force than, say, the Roman Catholic church [bold mine-DL]. Today’s Turkey offers a current example: devout Muslims with a passion for secular democracy.

Set aside for now just how absurdly, painfully wrong that is.  (These would be the tolerant, civilising forces that had their chief influence in Europe in the Balkans and Spain, and most of their time in both places was neither terribly tolerant nor civilising, while Catholicism created the basis for all western European high culture, literature and art, among other things.)  A critic might object and say, “But neoconservatives say this sort of thing all the time about Islam, and about Turkey, too.  Do you mean to say that they aren’t right-wing?”  Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.  Even so, the skepticism of an Economist reviewer of the Eurabian thesis–a popular one in many different conservative circles nowadays–underscores just how much less “rightwing” Economist writers tend to be compared to their American counterparts in the pro-corporate, globalised hegemonist set.  I could cite example after example showing just how ‘wet’ the (British) liberalism of The Economist is, I could argue why it is rather farther to the left of the WSJ on those points where they don’t readily agree, and I could go into some detail to explain why shameless propagandising for globalisation, corporate interests and interventionist wars (which both the WSJ and The Economist do all the time) has nothing to do with what most right-wingers I know actually want or believe, but there is only so much time in the day.