Honestly, I'm a little confused about this article. It's probably one of a few fun little fluff pieces commemorating the anniversary.
I don't even read it much and I've always understood, and think most readers understand, that The Economist has a somewhat undogmatic mixed left/right stance endorsing both liberals and the occasional Neo Fascist, at once backing universal healthcare (which they acknowledge in this article) and destructive warfare (which they do not).
I don't even read it much and I've always understood, and think most readers understand, that The Economist has a somewhat undogmatic mixed left/right stance endorsing both liberals and the occasional Neo Fascist, at once backing universal healthcare (which they acknowledge in this article) and destructive warfare (which they do not).