I blogged the other day about the double meaning of the term "Little Englander" and how its two meanings are really at odds with each other:
See Wikipedia and Wiktionary for example, where the primary definition is anti-imperialist, followed by the "colloquial" usage that means xenophobic. ("An Idiot’s Guide to Little Englanders")
One recent article from the Economist seems to use the term in both ways simultaneously ("Great Britain or Little England?").
Because the magazine does not give the author’s name, I assume the piece is meant to represent the editorial position of the Economist itself, opposing drastic budget cuts while recognizing a general need for the British state to shrink and the market to grow. Who, then, are the Little Englanders according to the Economist? Euroasceptics and anti-immigrationists.
"Britain is on the way to becoming more solvent but also more insular," the Economist frets. "The trick for Britain in the future will be to combine a smaller, more efficient state with a more open attitude to the rest of the world."
Apparently, a "more open attitude" would take the form not of voluntary exchange between free individuals across international borders but rather of precisely the sort of governmental intervention that George Washington disparaged as "foreign entanglement."
One great irony is that the Economist is itself a descendent of the original Little Englanders. The magazine traces its lineage back to the Anti–Corn Law League, the early free-trade manifestation of the Manchester School.
The classical-liberal Manchester School is remembered most for its opposition to protectionism, which was rightly perceived in the 19th century as a way to tax the poor to benefit the landed aristocracy. The Economist has not remained a liberal publication in this historically libertarian sense, but it has generally honored its free-trade roots. Has it lost track of the other side of the Manchester coin — opposition to war, imperialism, and foreign entanglements?