United States | Lexington

Peter David

Our Washington bureau chief died last week in a car crash in Virginia. This is our tribute

BY TRADITION, departing Lexington columnists write a valedictory reflecting on the state of the nation. Had Peter David come to pen his parting thoughts, he might well have reflected on American exceptionalism. Sadly, this column must now celebrate his own.

To begin with there was his range. From leaders to book reviews, Peter spread himself thick. He joined The Economist in 1984 to write about science, then became a specialist writer on the Middle East, ran the paper's business sections, turned Bagehot columnist as political editor, took over as foreign editor (“the job I'm told I've always wanted”) and in 2009 moved to Washington, DC. He wrote special reports on everything from Islam to international banking.

Some great journalists venture boldly into war zones. Peter did that occasionally, but his forte was to stride fearlessly across minefields of ideas. Politicians who dabbled in demagoguery—a shameless attempt by William Hague, then Britain's opposition leader, to exploit the killing of an intruder, or Newt Gingrich's bluster over plans for a mosque near the site of the twin towers in New York—quickly found themselves under fire. Peter's two-page cover editorials, such as on the eve of the first Gulf war (“Don't save this face”, January 12th 1991) or on the latest crisis between Arabs and Jews (“The hundred years' war”, January 10th 2009), were models of mind-clearing prose. He shunned the limelight and left behind no great tome—indeed, he was fond of mocking the one volume he did write, a coffee-table book on the first Gulf war called “Triumph in the Desert”—yet few people did more to shape this newspaper's views on the great issues of geopolitics over the past quarter-century.

Out of Africa

If his self-effacing manner was quintessentially British, the residual twang in his accent was South African. Born in Johannesburg to a family of Lithuanian Jewish origin, he had to leave the country in a hurry at the age of eight because his mother, a member of the anti-apartheid Liberal Party, was under threat. The family settled in Liverpool. Peter studied sociology in London, and would later joke that he was a London University graduate who bossed about Oxbridge types. His first job in journalism was for a magazine on pot plants. He was working in Washington as a science writer when our talent-spotters found him.

He wrote wonderfully. His prose was clear, his wit dry (a fine example was his Bagehot column on Alan Clark's diaries in 1999) and his flourishes a delight (when it came to exporting terrorism, he wrote in 1986, Syria was “a different kettle of piranhas”). Beneath the effortless style, there was plenty of hard work. Avid reading—his trademark Tesco bags full of books—ensured that, though a generalist, he became as knowledgeable as most specialists. And a meticulous professionalism never left him; he was the only Economist journalist ever to write a cover story and have double bypass surgery in the same week.

Above all, though, he brought to journalism a rare elegance of spirit. In tackling really hard questions, he carefully weighed opposing arguments before the application of reason, guided by strong liberal instincts, led him to a crisp conclusion. The approach, and his personal style, were gentle. But gentleness should not be confused with softness. On some issues, such as Iraq, you could knock against a surprising toughness, like an underwater rock. He stoutly defended his support for George Bush's invasion in 2003, based on the information that was available at the time, but never shrank from cataloguing the disasters that followed.

His affection for Israel ran deep, but he was sharply critical of some of its government's policies, particularly over settlements. Those who reduced the conflict to the “terrorism” of one side or the “colonialism” of the other were just stoking their prejudices, he wrote: “at heart, this is a struggle of two peoples for the same patch of land.” All his arguments—even on this touchiest of subjects—were conducted with courtesy. For years he shared a taxi home to Hampstead on press nights with a colleague who held equally strong but opposing views on the Middle East.

He was a gregarious man who liked being in the intellectual swim of things. At Davos, he particularly enjoyed going to sessions on topics he knew nothing about. He had no interest in socialising with celebrities. He helped countless junior colleagues and mocked his alleged superiors: “you have to grant editors small victories,” he announced once when overruled. He had infectious enthusiasms for gadgets, good wine and gossip, a subtle, teasing humour that brought him many friends and a deeply happy family life.

America was another abiding enthusiasm. He loved the time he spent in Washington in the early 1980s before joining The Economist. Preparation for his latest stint included a road trip across the country with his wife Celia. He claimed to be struggling a bit at first as Lexington, but his columns soon found a familiar confident voice. As his final column last week illustrated, he offered a perceptive semi-detached perspective on American politics, far above the partisan fray. He was fundamentally optimistic about the country's prospects: it might be in an awful mess, he wrote in what will have to serve as his valedictory verdict, “and yet America of all countries still has plenty of grounds to hope for a better future, despite its underperforming politics, and no matter who triumphs in November.”

He was looking forward to covering the election. A collision while he was being driven back to his hotel after speaking to the Charlottesville Committee on Foreign Relations deprived him of the chance, and us all of an exceptionally kind man with an unusually clear mind.

You can see a selection of Peter David's writing here

This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline "Peter David"

The Greek run

From the May 19th 2012 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

Discover more

Do undocumented immigrants have the right to own guns?

A federal court in Chicago decides that some do. Republicans are outraged

Chicago wants to stop Glock pistols being turned into machineguns

The city is suing the manufacturer


Georgia’s black Republicans have a battle plan for 2024

Joe Biden will have to work harder to win the state’s black voters this year