It's not an uncritical cheerleader, though. They do support free trade and globalisation, yes, but also drug legalisation, gun control, carbon taxes, gay marriage, etc.
For US presidential elections, they endorsed Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.
No, that was a second point: The Economist is often portrayed as a right-wing or libertarian magazine, and I think that's an unfair and inaccurate portrayal. The list of endorsements supports that (unstated) point.
They are a right-wing magazine (i.e. ardently pro-capitalist). Their endorsements support that idea. All of those candidates that they supported were also ardent supporters of capital.
This is kind of a weird critique though. It's like, it's not enough for a movie critic to think some movies are bad and they should have been made better. They have to hate the whole concept of movies.
If you want to call the candidates from the left party in the US right-wing, sure (when you look at it on a global scale, you might have a point there).
But as I said, while The Economist supports free trade and free markets, they are not laissez-faire, but support sensible regulation, anti-trust, action on climate, etc.
> "The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability." [1]
> Is The Economist left- or right-wing?
Neither. We consider ourselves to be in the "radical centre" [2]
For US presidential elections, they endorsed Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.