Thursday, May 22, 2008

Thomas Friedman Seems to Agree With Hasslington

Thomas L. Friedman, columnist for the New York Times and author of "The World Is Flat" (a book not about physical geography but about the challenges the United States will face in an increasingly competitive twenty-first century, among other things), seems to agree with me and a growing chorus of others that Fareed Zakaria's new book, "The Post-American World," is a clear-eyed analysis of the present geo-cultural and geo-political landscape, as well as America's role in the rapidly-shifting, dynamic world of the twenty-first century.

I wrote a post on Mr. Zakaria's book a few weeks ago, at which point I acknowledged that I had read only portions of it. I have since completed the book, and what I've read since posting my initial thoughts on it (in my "Newsflash..." post, below) has only reinforced my opinion that it needs to be read by anyone who wishes to help, in whatever way they can, to better position the United States to deal with the various challenges that it will face (and, unbeknownst to many, is facing at present) in increasing levels of intensity in the coming years.

On Wednesday (May 21, 2008), Mr. Friedman also referenced Mr. Zakaria's book in his column titled "Imbalances of Power." In this post I will provide some snippets from Mr. Friedman's column, because it dovetails with my own ideas, and as a prelude to these snippets I will say only that Mr. Zakaria's book, despite the title, is ultimately a celebration of what it means to be American, and a roadmap to a successful American integration to the world we are now entering. If our leaders read carefully what Mr. Zakaria, an American citizen who was born in India, has to say, the United States may indeed continue to lead the world in relevant and necessary ways, though ways that are often different from those espoused at present. (Fierce partisans beware: Mr. Zakaria makes approving statements regarding both Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, amongst others....)

Here's a bit from Mr. Friedman's column. First, what he has to say about a growing problem at present:

"More and more, I am convinced that the big foreign policy failure that will be pinned on this [Bush] administration is not the failure to make Iraq work, as devastating as that has been. It will be one with much broader balance-of-power implications--the failure after 9/11 to put in place an effective energy policy....

"The failure of Mr. Bush to mobilize the most powerful innovation engine in the world--the U.S. economy--to produce a scalable alternative to oil has helped to fuel the rise of a collection of petro-authoritarian states--from Russia to Venezuela to Iran--that are reshaping global politics in their own image.

"If this huge transfer of wealth to the petro-authoritarians continues, power will follow...."

Now, how Mr. Friedman presents Mr. Zakaria's book:

"For too long, argues Zakaria, America has taken its many natural assets--its research universities, free markets, and diversity of human talent--and assumed that they will always compensate for our low savings rate or absence of a [comprehensive] health care system or any strategic plan to improve our competitiveness.

"'That was fine in a world when a lot of other countries were not performing,' argues Zakaria, but now the best of the rest are running fast, working hard, saving well, and thinking long term. 'They have adopted our lessons and are playing our game,' he says. If we don't fix our political system and start thinking strategically about how to improve our competitiveness, he adds, 'the U.S. risks having its unique and advantageous position in the world erode as other countries rise.'"

Friedman goes on to discuss another author's similar conclusions. (And as I've previously stated, Mr. Zakaria's book examines how the United States can overcome the above challenges.)

Now, Americans can act taciturn about the conclusions regarding the present scenario listed above (which, given the nature of the issues, would be an indication of cultural insularity and myopia), or we can accept the overwhelming evidence for them (ask Americans who work abroad, in Europe, the rising Asian countries, Brazil, etc., what they think about these issues, and you will most likely see what I mean). If we choose to accept, at least broadly, these conclusions, we can act in a pragmatic manner in order to better position ourselves to more smartly use our leadership status as the inevitable economic--and therefore political--rise of China, India, Russia, the European Union, Brazil, South Africa, etc., occurs.

Among other things, such a pragmatic mindset would better position us (both Americans and, in a broader sense, people from Western nations) to retain a high standard of living at home, and it would help to forge powerful partnerships that could counter-balance the rise of potentially troublesome regimes.

As a final note, I will provide the final three paragraphs of Mr. Zakaria's book. After laying out the framework necessary to deal with a complex world, and, among other things, writing approvingly of Senator Obama's thoughtful initial (though not his revised) response regarding how to deal with international terrorism (which did not use fear-mongering as an inducement to voter agreement, as most of the other presidential candidates have), Mr. Zakaria ends the book by praising both a conservative icon and a liberal giant, and hearkening back to 1982, when he (Mr. Zakaria) first came to the United States:

"In the fall of 1982, I arrived here as an eighteen-year-old student from India, eight thousand miles away. America was in rough shape. That December, unemployment hit 10.8 percent, higher than at any point since World War II. Interest rates hovered around 15 percent. Vietnam, Watergate, the energy crisis, and the Iranian hostage crisis had all battered American confidence. Images of the helicopters on the roof of the American Embassy in Saigon, of Nixon resigning, of long lines at gas stations, and of the hostages blindfolded were all fresh in people's minds. The Soviet Union was on a roll, expanding its influence far beyond its borders, from Afghanistan to Angola to Central America. That June, Israel invaded Lebanon, making a volatile situation in the Middle East even more tense.

"Yet America was a strikingly open and expansive country. Reagan embodied it. Despite record-low approval ratings at the time, he exuded optimism from the center of the storm. In the face of Moscow's rising power, he confidently spoke of a mortal crisis in the Soviet system and predicted that it would end up on 'the ash heap of history.' Across the political aisle stood Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill, the hearty Irish-American Speaker of the House, who personified the generosity and tolerance of old-school liberalism. Everywhere I went, the atmosphere was warm and welcoming. It was a feeling I had never had before, a country wide open to the world, to the future, and to anyone who loved it. To a young visitor, it seemed to offer unlimited generosity and promise.

"For America to thrive in this new and challenging era, for it to succeed amid the rise of the rest, it need fulfill only one test. It should be a place that is as inviting and exciting to the young student who enters the country today as it was for this awkward eighteen-year-old a generation ago."

Far be it for me to attempt to add too much to Mr. Zakaria's closing statements. So let me simply add this: the whole world is watching the United States as it carries onward in its extraordinary process of selecting its new chief executive. The world is watching the candidates, yes, but in particular the world is watching the attitude of the American people as they respond to the messages of each candidate. I will not tell anyone who to vote for--be it for local offices, statewide offices, or national offices. (You know who my presidential vote would be for, anyway.) I would only humbly suggest that, in order to better deal with the complexities of this world, Americans first ought to select whichever leader we think embodies the spirit of the United States in such a manner that both we and people around the world know that America is up to the challenge of an altered and updated form of global leadership, and ready to engage in a way that is energized, realistic, optimistic, and inspiring.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

The United States, the European Union and China increasingly act like 'frenemies': friends and enemies at the same time. In a world of alignments, not alliances, a superpower has to be irresistible to succeed in a marketplace where non-engagement is tantamount to abdication of influence. But even then, the petro-authoritarian states of Russia, Venezuela and Iran -and others- will continue to focus on building ties among themselves as with Washington, Brussels, or Beijing.

Hasslington said...

Russia will struggle with Brussels, because Western Europe has bristled with its belligerent oil policy of late (shutting off the oil to former Soviet Republics is hardly a path to better alignment). So that is a potentially huge problem.

But China, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc., are learning how to integrate themselves into the global-market game quite well of late, particularly considering where they were a decade ago. And they've managed to make themselves integral to the West (and the West, of course, is similarly integral to them).

For the West to better position itself in this new era and offset "petro-authoritarian states," it needs to be savvy and engaged in the world market; it needs to focus on research and development (as well as education); and it needs to immerse itself in a study of the cultures that are on the rise. (That would include a study of mindset and language.)

That, when applied to the already considerable strength of the Western market, would better help position countries such as the United States to deal more smoothly with an emerging multi-polar world.

Anonymous said...

Open Memo to Barack Obama
=========================

Hey Barack ... if you haven't done so yet, please please cross Hillary off the short list for VP. Ok, thank you.

Sheriff Buford