|
| The Post-American World | 
enlarge | Author: Fareed Zakaria Publisher: W. W. Norton Category: Book
List Price: $25.95 Buy New: $13.99 You Save: $11.96 (46%)
New (65) Used (24) Collectible (2) from $13.99
Avg. Customer Rating: 153 reviews Sales Rank: 141
Media: Hardcover Number Of Items: 1 Pages: 288 Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.1 Dimensions (in): 9.6 x 6.2 x 1.3
ISBN: 039306235X Dewey Decimal Number: 303.49 EAN: 9780393062359 ASIN: 039306235X
Publication Date: May 5, 2008 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com Review Book Description "This is not a book about the decline of America, but rather about the rise of everyone else." So begins Fareed Zakaria's important new work on the era we are now entering. Following on the success of his best-selling The Future of Freedom, Zakaria describes with equal prescience a world in which the United States will no longer dominate the global economy, orchestrate geopolitics, or overwhelm cultures. He sees the "rise of the rest"?the growth of countries like China, India, Brazil, Russia, and many others?as the great story of our time, and one that will reshape the world. The tallest buildings, biggest dams, largest-selling movies, and most advanced cell phones are all being built outside the United States. This economic growth is producing political confidence, national pride, and potentially international problems. How should the United States understand and thrive in this rapidly changing international climate? What does it mean to live in a truly global era? Zakaria answers these questions with his customary lucidity, insight, and imagination.
Thomas Friedman and Fareed Zakaria: Author One-to-One
Fareed Zakaria: Your book is about two things, the climate crisis and also about an American crisis. Why do you link the two? 
Thomas Friedman: You're absolutely right--it is about two things. The book says, America has a problem and the world has a problem. The world's problem is that it's getting hot, flat and crowded and that convergence--that perfect storm--is driving a lot of negative trends. America's problem is that we've lost our way--we've lost our groove as a country. And the basic argument of the book is that we can solve our problem by taking the lead in solving the world's problem.
Zakaria: Explain what you mean by "hot, flat and crowded."
Friedman: There is a convergence of basically three large forces: one is global warming, which has been going on at a very slow pace since the industrial revolution; the second--what I call the flattening of the world--is a metaphor for the rise of middle-class citizens, from China to India to Brazil to Russia to Eastern Europe, who are beginning to consume like Americans. That's a blessing in so many ways--it's a blessing for global stability and for global growth. But it has enormous resource complications, if all these people--whom you've written about in your book, The Post American World--begin to consume like Americans. And lastly, global population growth simply refers to the steady growth of population in general, but at the same time the growth of more and more people able to live this middle-class lifestyle. Between now and 2020, the world's going to add another billion people. And their resource demands--at every level--are going to be enormous. I tell the story in the book how, if we give each one of the next billion people on the planet just one sixty-watt incandescent light bulb, what it will mean: the answer is that it will require about 20 new 500-megawatt coal-burning power plants. That's so they can each turn on just one light bulb!
Zakaria: In my book I talk about the "rise of the rest" and about the reality of how this rise of new powerful economic nations is completely changing the way the world works. Most everyone's efforts have been devoted to Kyoto-like solutions, with the idea of getting western countries to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. But I grew to realize that the West was a sideshow. India and China will build hundreds of coal-fire power plants in the next ten years and the combined carbon dioxide emissions of those new plants alone are five times larger than the savings mandated by the Kyoto accords. What do you do with the Indias and Chinas of the world?
Friedman: I think there are two approaches. There has to be more understanding of the basic unfairness they feel. They feel like we sat down, had the hors d'oeuvres, ate the entree, pretty much finished off the dessert, invited them for tea and coffee and then said, "Let's split the bill." So I understand the big sense of unfairness--they feel that now that they have a chance to grow and reach with large numbers a whole new standard of living, we're basically telling them, "Your growth, and all the emissions it would add, is threatening the world's climate." At the same time, what I say to them--what I said to young Chinese most recently when I was just in China is this: Every time I come to China, young Chinese say to me, "Mr. Friedman, your country grew dirty for 150 years. Now it's our turn." And I say to them, "Yes, you're absolutely right, it's your turn. Grow as dirty as you want. Take your time. Because I think we probably just need about five years to invent all the new clean power technologies you're going to need as you choke to death, and we're going to come and sell them to you. And we're going to clean your clock in the next great global industry. So please, take your time. If you want to give us a five-year lead in the next great global industry, I will take five. If you want to give us ten, that would be even better. In other words, I know this is unfair, but I am here to tell you that in a world that's hot, flat and crowded, ET--energy technology--is going to be as big an industry as IT--information technology. Maybe even bigger. And who claims that industry--whose country and whose companies dominate that industry--I think is going to enjoy more national security, more economic security, more economic growth, a healthier population, and greater global respect, for that matter, as well. So you can sit back and say, it's not fair that we have to compete in this new industry, that we should get to grow dirty for a while, or you can do what you did in telecommunications, and that is try to leap-frog us. And that's really what I'm saying to them: this is a great economic opportunity. The game is still open. I want my country to win it--I'm not sure it will.
Zakaria: I'm struck by the point you make about energy technology. In my book I'm pretty optimistic about the United States. But the one area where I'm worried is actually ET. We do fantastically in biotech, we're doing fantastically in nanotechnology. But none of these new technologies have the kind of system-wide effect that information technology did. Energy does. If you want to find the next technological revolution you need to find an industry that transforms everything you do. Biotechnology affects one critical aspect of your day-to-day life, health, but not all of it. But energy--the consumption of energy--affects every human activity in the modern world. Now, my fear is that, of all the industries in the future, that's the one where we're not ahead of the pack. Are we going to run second in this race?
Friedman: Well, I want to ask you that, Fareed. Why do you think we haven't led this industry, which itself has huge technological implications? We have all the secret sauce, all the technological prowess, to lead this industry. Why do you think this is the one area--and it's enormous, it's actually going to dwarf all the others--where we haven't been at the real cutting edge?
Continue reading the Q&A between Thomas Friedman and Fareed Zakaria
Product Description A Prophetic Assessment of America's Changing Place in an Increasingly Global AgeFor Fareed Zakaria, the great story of our times is not the decline of America but rather the rise of everyone else -- the growth of countries such as China, India, Brazil, Russia, South Africa, Kenya, and many, many more. This economic growth is generating a new global landscape where power is shifting and wealth and innovation are bubbling up in unexpected places. It's also producing political confidence and national pride. As these trends continue, the push of globalization will increasingly be joined by the pull of nationalism -- a tension that is likely to define the next decades. With his customary lucidity, insight, and imagination, Zakaria draws on lessons from the two great power shifts of the past five hundred years -- the rise of the Western world and the rise of the United States -- to tell us what we can expect from the third shift, the "rise of the rest." Washington must begin a serious transformation of global strategy and seek to share power, create coalitions, build legitimacy, and define the global agenda. None of this will be easy for the greatest power the world has ever known -- the only power that for so long has really mattered. But all that is changing now. The future we face is the post-American world.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 148 more reviews...
Where We Are Today and Where We Go From Here April 29, 2008 390 out of 414 found this review helpful
Mr. Zakaria has written a short primer (250+ pages of text) about where the world is today and the role he sees the United States playing in the future. His assessment, for the most part, is fair, balanced and nonpartisan. And though the title of his treatise--The Post-American World--sounds pessimistic, in reality Mr. Zakaria sees the glass half full.
The principal weakness of the book is a product of its brevity: the author paints in broad strokes, providing a sweeping assessment of the dynamic changes that have unfolded on the world scene over the past twenty-five years. This invariably results in some over-generalizations and assessments that are not sufficiently nuanced. For example, in responding to concerns about China's growing power and influence, he quotes several Chinese officials who repeatedly reassure the listener that, notwithstanding its recent advances, China still lags behind the United States in so many areas; consequently, it poses no real threat to America or its neighbors. Instead of taking these sentiments at face value, Mr. Zakaria should remember, as Margaret Macmillan astutely noted in her recent book, "Nixon and Mao: The Week That Changed the World," that the Chinese are the past masters at using self-effacement to lure their adversaries into a state of complacency.
The greatest strengths of the book are explaining to the reader how much the world has changed over the past 25 years (did you know that China now exports more goods and services in a single day than it did in all of 1978?), while illuminating the course corrections the United States needs to make so that it can continue to influence the evolution of globalization. I was surprised to discover that the simple truths taught by Adam Smith have lifted more people above the poverty line in the last 25 years (400 million in China alone) than all the government assistance programs of all the countries in the world since the beginning of time. But I was dismayed to learn that the polices of free trade, liberal immigration, technological change and open government that are the source of this global revolution are no longer warmly received in the United States. Mr. Zakaria notes that in 2007 the Pew Global Attitudes Survey polled citizens in 47 countries for purposes of measuring the extent to which they have positive views about free trade and open markets. Guess where the U.S. came in? Dead last. Mr. Zakaria observes that in the five years the survey has been done, no country has seen as great a drop-off as the United States. It's as if, he says, that for the past sixty years we have extolled the virtues of free markets, immigration, technological change, competition, and democracy, and now that the rest of the world has finally decided to take our advice, "we are becoming suspicious of the very things we have long celebrated." (p. 48).
If you want to look in the mirror and see the warts and disappointments, along with the beauty and promise, of America, read this book. You and our country will be better for it.
Even better than his last book April 30, 2008 176 out of 193 found this review helpful
A lot of books have been appearing recently about the rise of China and India, the decline of the United States, and so forth. This is the one to read, and the one that will last.
Zakaria's last book was about "The Future of Freedom," a study of liberalism and democracy. This new one--which is even better, I think--is about the shape of the emerging international system. It's called "The Post-American World," but a better title would have been the one he gives his first chapter, "The Rise of the Rest." That's because Zakaria's central thesis is that the world is changing, but the change is largely for the better and caused by the benign development of other power centers, not some collapse or decline of the United States. The biggest challenge for America, he argues, is not terrorism or nuclear proliferation or a rising China, but rather our own ability to adapt successfully to the new environment. He favors confidence and openness rather than insecurity and barriers, and makes a convincing case.
The book has chapters on each of the major international players, and they're really well done: amazingly, he manages to paint a full portrait of, say, China or India that is intelligent, succinct, subtle, and comprehensive all at once. If you want to get a flavor of what the book has to offer, there's an article based on it in the new issue of Foreign Affairs, and there should be another one coming out in Newsweek too, apparently. The man might be a superachieving bigshot, but he sure can write--each page is lively and interesting.
So forget the angry neocons, the wild-eyed optimists, the gloom-and-doom pessimists, and the glib amateurs who don't really know anything. Read this instead, and get insight into what's actually going in the world and what should be done about it. Plus, there's just a ton of fun little nuggets you'll be itching to drop in every conversation you have about anything related.
Friedman with a hint of Huntington May 8, 2008 176 out of 235 found this review helpful
Zakaria is a great writer whose produced a highly readable book. Its impossible to go through the pages without feeling a great surge of hope for what the future isabout to bring, courtesy the miracle of free markets. Liberally annotated with anecdotes.
The problem is that at the heart of it, this is just more of the Thomas Friedman "Lexus and Olive Tree" rising-tide-lifts-all-boats theory with the same prescriptions so beloved by bipartisan Washington since 1988: more trade, more immigration, more outsourcing.
Zakaria's picture omits big pieces of the puzzle: devastated rural America, the loss of those jobs with nothing to replace them: what IS the unemployed American worker supposed to train for? And just who is going to buy all the products that corporations are producing so cheaply in India in China?
And what happens when those stellar immigrants (like Zakaria), or more likely, their children, become disaffected Americans and make up the "bitter" folks who live in ghettos - urban or rural - like dying Appalachian towns or the immigrant high rise projects of Bradford or Marseille?
Zakaria does try to factor in nationalism, but ignores the human implications of people who are going to lose in his Brave New World. And ultimately, his prescriptions, however entertaining and promising, are ultimately just more of the NYT/WSJ op-ed page.
GOOD WRITING & SUBJECT; VERY BAD ANALYSIS; TRUMPETS RISE OF REST 50 YEARS TOO EARLY May 18, 2008 159 out of 226 found this review helpful
Fareed Zakaria rose to prominence on account of the terrible Sept 11 tragedies, he the rare Muslim journalist at the top levels of the American press. Through this book he seeks to broaden his claim to expertise, not merely as an analyst of the war on terrorism but as a seer in every sense. For that ambition alone, this book is fatally flawed. It attempts a subject so stupendous that even a lifelong expert like Paul Kennedy came up short with his 'Rise and Fall of Great Powers.' So Fareed surely does, especially since his commentary on the Iraq war was dead wrong to begin with and has only turned critical once the country became so. Yet the writing is fluid, flowing far better and faster than any writer other than Thomas Friedman.
The book covers the rise of India, China, and the 'rest.' It never really focuses on other countries though, but gives a lot of hard evidence of how and why the world has speeded up its growth and how and why the US is falling behind. Not because Americans are doing something wrong but because the rest of the world is doing so much right.
The book is well written and likely to be popular and in all probability will end up on college curriculums, much like Thomas Friedman and Howard Zinn and Niall Ferguson have. Yet it is flawed to the point of being dangerous and is so for the following reasons.
1. It stands to teach political economy to millions of people who shall never take a class in political economy. So they would never realize that the author lacks the big picture thinking which the great historians and political economists usually have. Fatally, he compares the 'Rise of the Rest' with the 'rise of the United States' and the 'rise of the Western World.' There is a problem here. The US rose upon a stunning technological revolution which it itself produced, at home, starting with the telegraph, telephone, airplane, the radio, the TV and the Internet. Neither China nor India nor Egypt has ever produced any substantial technology except body shopping. Some have cited about how mathematics was invented in India but so was much invented in Rome. There is no reason to go back thousands of years to prove a country's genius. All that matters is what they do today.
To this date, there is no evidence that a power can rise without such innovative intrinsic achievements. AND IT MUST DO THAT ON ITS OWN AT HOME. In that sense then, China and India are more like Spain, building palaces out of the gold of the New World, and headed to become like Japan, rich and capable but rarely a leader in any domain. That is a lesson of political economy Fareed Zakaria should have read before embarking on this book.
2. Fareed Zakaria obviously reads vigorously and cuts newspaper articles voraciously. That is obvious in his sources and anecdotes. But those are really clumsy ways to attempt a subject so significant as the rise and fall of nations. Here may I recommend Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of Great Empires for the historical perspective and if one must know about the Rise of the Rest then all the books on 'Chindia,' any one of which is better than this one. Those books focus on what the ground reality is, which is impressive, without jumping to strategic insights which are off the mark.
3. The author lacks perspective. Yes China's Macao is bigger than America's Las Vegas, but who but the poor of the world ever go to Macao. Yes India has the world's largest refinery, but the machinery and technology is all bought from the West. Yes Dubai is building the world's tallest building, but who cares, Silicon Valley has no building taller than 20 stories! Yes Singapore has the largest Ferris Wheel, but they are copying American culture. Yes a Mexican is the world's richest man but his cell phone empire has never produced a half way decent cell phone or transmission technology. Yes India has more billionaire's than any country outside the US, and no Fareed, you have it wrong, few if any are self made. I read it in Forbes. A large number of Chinese successes are kids of communist party officials and a large number of Indian successes are kids of very corrupt families, which have had a history of intellectual property theft and bribing governments.
In sum thus, both for its historical misjudgments and its static economic analysis, Fareed's book should be avoided. Centralized systems like China and India, which have a strong culture of corruption, and which are growing fast only because they are just getting around to provide food and water to their people, can never take command. That is not to say that the Rest can never rise, but they must innovate and develop and build something of their own before doing so. VS Naipaul the Nobel Prize Winner, and who is ethically Indian, has just released a book that there is no domestic intellectual artistic community in India, and he did not mean how many movies are being produced in India, or books written, but the lack of independent creative production.
In sum, what Fareed Zakaria's book does is to add fuel to a fire that should have been put out long ago. Simply because the stock market is silly enough to value America's Dupont less than India's Reliance, or Mexican cell phone companies more than American ones, or value Bombay more valuable than New York City, is no reason to believe that is the reality for the next fifty years. And if the argument is that in a hundred years they would overtake the US, then again the reader has no reason to read this book for the next fifty years.
The Future from an Articulate Globalist August 7, 2008 82 out of 104 found this review helpful
I purchased this book in large part based on the good and bad reviews, deciding to see what the author had to say. Unfortunately, my money was poorly spent as I could not get beyond the first 48 pages due to the many "duh" statements, banalities, poor historical analysis, and an evinced lack of knowledge concerning the American people, our history, and our culture. Even though the book was supposed to be not about the fall of the US but the rise of the others, the author needed to possess more knowledge of America than he showed.
As so often among young people the author makes liberal use of adjectives such as "great" and many words ending in "est" to prove that he is living in history's greatest and most important age. Yes, China and India possess 2.5 billion people and the US only 300 million. Since population is power, and with all other things being more or less equal, world leadership will pass to those nations. Hardly a seminal conclusion. In addition, the US is likely to fracture into five countries before half of the twentieth-first century has passed, and jingoistic statements by Americans today will seem foolish in retrospect. But the author doesn't know enough US history to understand that.
I was put off by the author flights of fancy as early as page 2. Here he states; "Soon after it became industrialized, the United States became the most powerful nation since imperial Rome...", this supposedly taking place in the closing years of the nineteenth century. I know of no serious historian who would make such a claim. On page 17 the author states; "If this is 1938, as many conservatives argue, then Iran is Romania, not Germany." Gee, in 1938, Romania possessed a larger army than the US, but was still subject to domination by its larger neighbors. The King still ruled, and the Iron Guard and Antonescu did not assume power until 1940. And in 1940 Romania was forced to give up Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the Soviet Union, much of Transylvania to Hungary, and southern Dobruja to Bulgaria. Where's the parallel other than to propagandize?
On page 33 the author states; "Nationalism has always perplexed Americans." Wow! Only if Zakaria limits his Americans to his globalist elite friends in New York and Washington can this statement have any validity. This entire paragraph on page 33 is a figment of the author's uninformed imagination. But the end came on page 34, when Zakaria simply insulted the intelligence of Americans. "Given mainstream US historical accounts from Stephen Ambrose to Ken Burns, Americans could be forgiven for believing that Russia played a minor part in the decisive battles against Hitler and Tojo." I agree that Ambrose writes popular and fluffy books and that Burns is by no stretch of the imagination an historian, but obviously Zakaria has met few Americans in the hinterland. My first book on WWII was "Life's Picture History Of World War II" that my parents gave me in 1951, but my second was Walter Goerlitz's "The History Of The German General Staff" in 1954, and the third was "Lost Victories (Verlorene Siege) by Erich von Manstein in 1958. But no mind, for Zakaria, all Americans other than his cherished globalists are ignorant.
Yes, the US is training more scientists, engineers and PhDs in its elite universities who are foreigners than native Americans. A white American lad from the hinterland who achieves a maximum on his SATS, is valedictorian of a graduating class of 700, letters in golf, and wins many honors in high school, has absolutely no chance of being accepted at Harvard, Princeton, Yale or Stanford unless he clearly states he wants to become a leader in global politics or economics. But that's not the fault of Middle America or the stock that brought the US to its short period of global dominance. Nor will that change until the US partitions into multiple countries since our elites are busy selling us out for their own profit and greater grandeur.
Interestingly enough, Zakaria seems to cheerlead the rise of nationalism in Third-World countries, but nationalism in the US is deplored as xenophobia. The US must sacrifice itself on the alter of the one world order. No doubt when the time comes, Zakaria will return to his native country to live in unrivaled splendor. For the Americans left behind who were ridden hard and put away wet, there will be no place to go.
All this drove me to perform some research on Zakaria, an individual about whom I knew little. I found he is an Indian Muslim who grew up in India in substantial wealth and attended a private British school. He was accepted at Yale (of course) then, not having to worry about supporting himself, earned a PhD at Harvard under professors Huntington and Hoffman, interesting characters in their own rights. He rose rapidly after 9-11 as a supposedly moderate Muslin voice among the US media and is now editor of the ultra-left Newsweek International. His globalist credentials are impeccable by his being on the board of Yale, the Trilateral Commission, the Council On Foreign Relations, and Columbia University's International House. The only thing missing is being a member of the Bilderbergs, but my sources on the Bilderbergs only went to 2002, and no doubt he is a member now.
In short, the author is one of the legion of foreigners who have come to the US for various reasons since WWII (George Soros comes to mind) and are working to move the US into globalism and their concept of a one world order. Having gained that intelligence, there was no reason to subject myself further to propaganda of this type. If you have not previously grasped the motives behind such clever propaganda, you might read this example. It is easy to read and short, but don't allow yourself to be denigrated and used for cannon fodder. And if my references to the Trilateral Commission, The Council On Foreign Relations or the Bilderbergs are unknown to you, it's past time for you to do some research on these organizations and their impact or control of world trends and events.
|
|
| Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |