What do you think?
Rate this book
Age of Revolutions: Progress and Backlash from 1600 to the Present
The CNN host and best-selling author explores the revolutions—past and present—that define the polarized and unstable age in which we live.
Populist rage, ideological fracture, economic and technological shocks, war, and an international system studded with catastrophic risk—the early decades of the twenty-first century may be the most revolutionary period in modern history. But it is not the first. Humans have lived, and thrived, through more than one great realignment. What are these revolutions, and how can they help us to understand our fraught world?
In this major work, Fareed Zakaria masterfully investigates the eras and movements that have shaken norms while shaping the modern world. Three such periods hold profound lessons for today. First, in the seventeenth-century Netherlands, a fascinating series of transformations made that tiny land the richest in the world—and created politics as we know it today. Next, the French Revolution, an explosive era that devoured its ideological children and left a bloody legacy that haunts us today. Finally, the mother of all revolutions, the Industrial Revolution, which catapulted Great Britain and the US to global dominance and created the modern world.
Alongside these paradigm-shifting historical events, Zakaria probes four present-day revolutions: globalization, technology, identity, and geopolitics. For all their benefits, the globalization and technology revolutions have produced profound disruptions and pervasive anxiety and our identity. And increasingly, identity is the battlefield on which the twenty-first century’s polarized politics are fought. All this is set against a geopolitical revolution as great as the one that catapulted the United States to world power in the late nineteenth century. Now we are entering a world in which the US is no longer the dominant power. As we find ourselves at the nexus of four seismic revolutions, we can easily imagine a dark future. But Zakaria proves that pessimism is premature. If we act wisely, the liberal international order can be revived and populism relegated to the ash heap of history.
As few public intellectuals can, Zakaria combines intellectual range, deep historical insight, and uncanny prescience to once again reframe and illuminate our turbulent present. His bold, compelling arguments make this book essential reading in our age of revolutions.
Populist rage, ideological fracture, economic and technological shocks, war, and an international system studded with catastrophic risk—the early decades of the twenty-first century may be the most revolutionary period in modern history. But it is not the first. Humans have lived, and thrived, through more than one great realignment. What are these revolutions, and how can they help us to understand our fraught world?
In this major work, Fareed Zakaria masterfully investigates the eras and movements that have shaken norms while shaping the modern world. Three such periods hold profound lessons for today. First, in the seventeenth-century Netherlands, a fascinating series of transformations made that tiny land the richest in the world—and created politics as we know it today. Next, the French Revolution, an explosive era that devoured its ideological children and left a bloody legacy that haunts us today. Finally, the mother of all revolutions, the Industrial Revolution, which catapulted Great Britain and the US to global dominance and created the modern world.
Alongside these paradigm-shifting historical events, Zakaria probes four present-day revolutions: globalization, technology, identity, and geopolitics. For all their benefits, the globalization and technology revolutions have produced profound disruptions and pervasive anxiety and our identity. And increasingly, identity is the battlefield on which the twenty-first century’s polarized politics are fought. All this is set against a geopolitical revolution as great as the one that catapulted the United States to world power in the late nineteenth century. Now we are entering a world in which the US is no longer the dominant power. As we find ourselves at the nexus of four seismic revolutions, we can easily imagine a dark future. But Zakaria proves that pessimism is premature. If we act wisely, the liberal international order can be revived and populism relegated to the ash heap of history.
As few public intellectuals can, Zakaria combines intellectual range, deep historical insight, and uncanny prescience to once again reframe and illuminate our turbulent present. His bold, compelling arguments make this book essential reading in our age of revolutions.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published March 26, 2024
1,867 people are currently reading
7,695 people want to read
About the author
Fareed Zakaria
40books1,116followersFareed Rafiq Zakaria is an Indian-born American journalist, political commentator, and author. He is the host of CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS and writes a weekly paid column for The Washington Post. He has been a columnist for Newsweek, editor of Newsweek International, and an editor at large of Time.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 437 reviews
March 29, 2024
This is a history of the path to a global “rules-based liberal order� that began with the European Enlightenment, starting with the Netherlands. Zakaria is clearly a fan, although, as he consistently does in all his journalism, he goes to great lengths to provide an objective, balanced perspective, to the extent that any human can be objective and balanced about a reading of history.
It's important to note his definitions. “When scholars speak of liberalism as an ideology in international relations, they don’t mean left-wing policies but rather a respect for liberty, democracy, cooperation, and human rights.� While democratic at heart, it is a liberalism built on faceless institutions like the World Bank, the WHO, and the WTO, which are accountable to the ideal but no electorate. It is, in the end, an institutional world order.
To the core, Fareed is an optimist. While he recognizes the duality of all history, the ebb and flow of progress and retrenchment, he seems to fundamentally believe, at least hope, that the good guys win in the end. Political parties have always changed sides from time to time. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican while president, but not one you would pick out of a lineup today. And Lyndon Johnson, perhaps the ultimate presidential champion of civil rights, had “allied with white supremacists earlier in his career.�
In the end, however, the march toward progress and the inherent ideals of global liberalism has continued and at this point, Fareed maintains, may be irreversible since the world is interconnected to an extent that is unlikely to be undone.
As one who lived and worked in China for fourteen years, I do believe Zakaria has the most objective and informed assessment of China today of any US politician or journalist, who strike me as uniformly uninformed, often ill-informed, although he still seems to share just a hint of Western bias on the topic.
He doesn’t wade far into current politics, although he acknowledges that “Where politics was once overwhelmingly shaped by economics, politics today is being transformed by identity.� That, however, largely to his credit, I think, is about as deep as he dives into the current culture wars, with religion being the one possible exception.
He does talk a lot about technology and the impact it has had on the world. And he acknowledges that “The digital economy, for all its promise, has caused inequality to spike to levels not seen since the Gilded Age.� He only uses the word greed on four occasions, however, and if I found the book wanting at all it was a light-handed approach to the growing inequity in wealth and income in America today. He references it, but seems, to my way of thinking, to underestimate how grave the issue is quickly becoming. The pitchforks will come out if we don’t act to address it.
In the end Zakaria is one of the best minds in the media today. The book is thoroughly researched, well-written, and delightfully insightful. All told, this is a delightful book and deserves to be on your shelf.
It's important to note his definitions. “When scholars speak of liberalism as an ideology in international relations, they don’t mean left-wing policies but rather a respect for liberty, democracy, cooperation, and human rights.� While democratic at heart, it is a liberalism built on faceless institutions like the World Bank, the WHO, and the WTO, which are accountable to the ideal but no electorate. It is, in the end, an institutional world order.
To the core, Fareed is an optimist. While he recognizes the duality of all history, the ebb and flow of progress and retrenchment, he seems to fundamentally believe, at least hope, that the good guys win in the end. Political parties have always changed sides from time to time. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican while president, but not one you would pick out of a lineup today. And Lyndon Johnson, perhaps the ultimate presidential champion of civil rights, had “allied with white supremacists earlier in his career.�
In the end, however, the march toward progress and the inherent ideals of global liberalism has continued and at this point, Fareed maintains, may be irreversible since the world is interconnected to an extent that is unlikely to be undone.
As one who lived and worked in China for fourteen years, I do believe Zakaria has the most objective and informed assessment of China today of any US politician or journalist, who strike me as uniformly uninformed, often ill-informed, although he still seems to share just a hint of Western bias on the topic.
He doesn’t wade far into current politics, although he acknowledges that “Where politics was once overwhelmingly shaped by economics, politics today is being transformed by identity.� That, however, largely to his credit, I think, is about as deep as he dives into the current culture wars, with religion being the one possible exception.
He does talk a lot about technology and the impact it has had on the world. And he acknowledges that “The digital economy, for all its promise, has caused inequality to spike to levels not seen since the Gilded Age.� He only uses the word greed on four occasions, however, and if I found the book wanting at all it was a light-handed approach to the growing inequity in wealth and income in America today. He references it, but seems, to my way of thinking, to underestimate how grave the issue is quickly becoming. The pitchforks will come out if we don’t act to address it.
In the end Zakaria is one of the best minds in the media today. The book is thoroughly researched, well-written, and delightfully insightful. All told, this is a delightful book and deserves to be on your shelf.
April 24, 2024
This is a well-written, astute analysis of the present state of our geopolitical reality, and a historical explanation of how it got to be that way through the examination of five separate revolutions: the first liberal revolution in the Netherlands, the “Glorious Revolution� in Britain, the failed French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution originating in Britain and the West, and the varied Social and Cultural Revolutions of 20th Century America and Europe.
Zakaria is smart, level-headed, urbane, and offers some sensible advice at the end of the book for how we as citizens can best navigate the political waters of the future. Cautionary advice is provided for both adherents of the far left and the far right. This is well worth a read. 4 stars.
Zakaria is smart, level-headed, urbane, and offers some sensible advice at the end of the book for how we as citizens can best navigate the political waters of the future. Cautionary advice is provided for both adherents of the far left and the far right. This is well worth a read. 4 stars.
![Profile Image for laurel [the suspected bibliophile].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1645808644i%2F7494844._UX200_CR0%2C6%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
July 10, 2024
Hmmm.
An overly simplified, often muddied and more Euro/American-centric book than I had anticipated, that very much treaded center of the line politics in an attempt to be "objective."
And yes, I realize that this man has far more accolades than I do and a whole team of people working for him to churn out a great product, but after reading more nuanced histories on similar subjects, this was a miss for me. Also, he references Jared Diamond and Francis Fukuyama constantly and with little criticism, which are red flags for me.
An overly simplified, often muddied and more Euro/American-centric book than I had anticipated, that very much treaded center of the line politics in an attempt to be "objective."
And yes, I realize that this man has far more accolades than I do and a whole team of people working for him to churn out a great product, but after reading more nuanced histories on similar subjects, this was a miss for me. Also, he references Jared Diamond and Francis Fukuyama constantly and with little criticism, which are red flags for me.
June 7, 2024
Zakaria is genially informative, sizing up the cumulative effects of early-modern Dutch and English “revolutions,� then the French, industrial, and informational revolutions. But that’s just the first half of the book. Then he examines the recent mounting cascades of economic, political, and social change, giving some of the most objective, insightful commentary I’ve seen.
September 13, 2024
Fareed Zakaria's Age of Revolutions: Progress & Backlash from 1600 to the Present might be considered a journalistic restatement of Sir Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion declaring that "every action has an equal & opposite reaction".
Over the course of 330 pages we encounter a survey of what the author contends are revolutions but some of which seem to be just times of extreme ferment or considerable change, with a preliminary commentary listing "Good King James" being forced to issue the Magna Carta in the 13th century, ceding some of his kingly power to the people, or at least to a parliamentary body.
When the English Civil War occurred in 1642 & Charles I was beheaded, Oliver Cromwell's iconoclastic Parliamentarians initially prevailed, at least until he abolished Parliament & transformed the movement into a military dictatorship. This in turn caused the Cavaliers or pro-monarchist forces to rise up, eventually leading to the Restoration of the monarchy in the person of Charles II & also the resurgence of music, theater & dancing, outlawed by Cromwell.
After the Industrial Revolution occurs, we have a counter-revolution, or at least an oppositional force in the face of Luddites, those who resent what they consider dehumanizing mechanization but also with industrialization causing the creation of a Middle Class but not a true democracy. Zakari reminds us that the printing press made Martin Luther's Reformation possible, while in time inviting a counter-Reformation.
Eventually the Tories became the Conservatives & the British Whigs became the Liberals, as both parties shifted positions on the place of wealth & general welfare over time. Meanwhile, John Stuart Mill began as a free trade enthusiast, later became a skeptic & eventually an opponent of free trade.
The French Revolution, prompted by the Age of Enlightenment, overthrows the monarchy, later descending into the anarchic Reign of Terror, which in time is succeeded by the rule of Emperor Napoleon, only for the monarchy to be eventually reinstated. Along the way, Zakaria lists the 3 primary factors of revolution as technology, economics & identity.
There are many references to changing political spectrums, especially transformations of liberal vs. conservative ideologies over time, with Zakaria also noting that in America Trump seems an anti-politician, forsaking ideology, while substituting self in place of a political mandate.
Here is one of my favorite inclusions:
In reading Fareed Zakaria's rather breezy book, I felt that I was being served with a review of world history, with a focus on abrupt changes, including the Copernican shift in scientific thinking and far more recently the digital transformation of the world, including the coming of the Internet.
While the Copernican revolution took the earth out of the center of the universe, A.I. may take human intelligence away from its dominant place and force mankind to make a reassessment. And, there has been a shift from religious differences to political allegiance as defining one's place within the social order.
Much of the later coverage within The Age of Revolutions casts a glance at the future and at America in particular, suggesting that while America has retained power, it has lost influence with the rest of the world, further stating that "America is no longer the only place where the future is happening." The author indicates that the loss of American prestige is the result of the Iraq War failure, the 2008 financial crisis & the rise of Trump.
That said, American strengths remain and chief among them are technological innovation, world-class universities, strong demographics & the power of U.S. currency; meanwhile, its weaknesses include the level of gun violence, drug overdoses & persistent inequality.
According to Zakaria, borrowing from the late historian Kenneth Clerk, a lack of confidence kills a civilization more than anything else. It is said that we "can destroy ourselves by cynicism & disillusion as effectively as by bombs". This is my first experience with Fareed Zakaria & while he sometimes paints things with a very broad brush, I found Age of Revolutions very engaging.
*Within my review are images of author Fareed Zakaria; Luddites destroying looms; conservative spokesman George Will.
Over the course of 330 pages we encounter a survey of what the author contends are revolutions but some of which seem to be just times of extreme ferment or considerable change, with a preliminary commentary listing "Good King James" being forced to issue the Magna Carta in the 13th century, ceding some of his kingly power to the people, or at least to a parliamentary body.
When the English Civil War occurred in 1642 & Charles I was beheaded, Oliver Cromwell's iconoclastic Parliamentarians initially prevailed, at least until he abolished Parliament & transformed the movement into a military dictatorship. This in turn caused the Cavaliers or pro-monarchist forces to rise up, eventually leading to the Restoration of the monarchy in the person of Charles II & also the resurgence of music, theater & dancing, outlawed by Cromwell.
After the Industrial Revolution occurs, we have a counter-revolution, or at least an oppositional force in the face of Luddites, those who resent what they consider dehumanizing mechanization but also with industrialization causing the creation of a Middle Class but not a true democracy. Zakari reminds us that the printing press made Martin Luther's Reformation possible, while in time inviting a counter-Reformation.
Eventually the Tories became the Conservatives & the British Whigs became the Liberals, as both parties shifted positions on the place of wealth & general welfare over time. Meanwhile, John Stuart Mill began as a free trade enthusiast, later became a skeptic & eventually an opponent of free trade.
The French Revolution, prompted by the Age of Enlightenment, overthrows the monarchy, later descending into the anarchic Reign of Terror, which in time is succeeded by the rule of Emperor Napoleon, only for the monarchy to be eventually reinstated. Along the way, Zakaria lists the 3 primary factors of revolution as technology, economics & identity.
There are many references to changing political spectrums, especially transformations of liberal vs. conservative ideologies over time, with Zakaria also noting that in America Trump seems an anti-politician, forsaking ideology, while substituting self in place of a political mandate.
Here is one of my favorite inclusions:
The prominent modern conservative George Will is also a classical liberal. In his book, The Conservative Sensibility, he contends that conservatism is an ideology that tries to conserve liberalism. For him, the original conception of government laid out by the American founders was a set of classically liberal ideas & principles.
Indeed, Republicans & Democrats have both traditionally been proponents of this kind of classical liberalism, though one side tends to think a less invasive government fosters liberty & prosperity, while the other thinks a more active government is needed to protect people's rights & to promote equality of opportunity. Each side can go too far but each side has its value.
In reading Fareed Zakaria's rather breezy book, I felt that I was being served with a review of world history, with a focus on abrupt changes, including the Copernican shift in scientific thinking and far more recently the digital transformation of the world, including the coming of the Internet. While the Copernican revolution took the earth out of the center of the universe, A.I. may take human intelligence away from its dominant place and force mankind to make a reassessment. And, there has been a shift from religious differences to political allegiance as defining one's place within the social order.
Much of the later coverage within The Age of Revolutions casts a glance at the future and at America in particular, suggesting that while America has retained power, it has lost influence with the rest of the world, further stating that "America is no longer the only place where the future is happening." The author indicates that the loss of American prestige is the result of the Iraq War failure, the 2008 financial crisis & the rise of Trump.
That said, American strengths remain and chief among them are technological innovation, world-class universities, strong demographics & the power of U.S. currency; meanwhile, its weaknesses include the level of gun violence, drug overdoses & persistent inequality.
According to Zakaria, borrowing from the late historian Kenneth Clerk, a lack of confidence kills a civilization more than anything else. It is said that we "can destroy ourselves by cynicism & disillusion as effectively as by bombs". This is my first experience with Fareed Zakaria & while he sometimes paints things with a very broad brush, I found Age of Revolutions very engaging.
*Within my review are images of author Fareed Zakaria; Luddites destroying looms; conservative spokesman George Will.
November 21, 2024
From open to closed
This is really quite a decent book. We get a narrow focus on a few revolutions starting in the 1600s and then finish off with a geopolitical discussion of 2024. This book may not cover the revolutions you had in mind and brings with it palpable framing. This book is firmly grounded in a classical Western perspective, so ‘revolution� in this book always means liberalization in terms of civil rights, democratic governance and an open economy.
We get a nice discussion about the revolution in the Netherlands in the 1600s. The Dutch rejected monarchy much earlier than their other European counterparts and embraced trade and classical liberalism with a decentralization. The Protestant movement also was quite influential at that time. The author also argues the unique geographical flooding over the land helped the common person have a sense of real land ownership and fostered decentralization. From this liberal revolution you get one of the first multinational companies that may have ever existed, The Dutch East India Company, as well as one of the first stock markets. All this stuff was very ahead of its time if you consider corporate market dominance a sign of enlightenment which this author certainly does. We then delve into the British revolution resulting in a constitutional monarchy and liberal economy which clearly outpaced the Netherlands in terms of mercantilism and industrialization.
The French revolution gets a decent treatise here but it’s the same take home from the vast majority of historians: it was a freaking disaster. The French revolution was certainly a rebellion against monarchical rule but it was at the behest of the aristocracy who wielded proletariat populism. The revolution turned authoritarian pretty quickly with the state ownership of churches, mass censorship and counter-revolutionary violence. The French government then thought they could use Napoleon's strongman populism and control him for their use and then dispose of him. But, that didn’t quite work out.
The biggest revelation in this book was the author’s take on the American revolution. And here it is: that it wasn� really a revolution. It was a war for independence. Nothing after the revolution actually changed the social and economic life of Americans. America never imported feudalism and so had nothing to rebel against. The American revolution was simply a war of financial independence wrought by aristocratic slavers who continued being aristocratic slavers after the revolution. The REAL American revolution was the Industrial Revolution. After stealing tons of intellectual property from the UK, the industrial revolution took off in America and kept going through the mid to late 1800s.
Here’s what’s missing: The Russian Revolution. Despite starting this book out with a quote from Marx, the author does not delve into the Bolshevik revolution which I found curious. The Russian revolution was certainly a rebellion against monarchy like the Dutch and English, so why not include it? I think it’s because Lenin and Stalin did not usher in a liberalized market economy. Stalinism became authoritarian and closed so I guess that just wasn’t thematic enough for this book? This was a misstep.
At any rate, the later half of this book was surprisingly a geopolitical analysis of modern politics in 2024. Although this surprised me, it wasn’t unwelcomed because I found the assessment to be rather spot on. The short story is that globalization is shuttering. We are going from an open liberal economy to a closed economy. There are signs of this everywhere: ending NAFTA and Biden’s ban on semiconductors to China. Biden has basically started a tech cold war with China with this act. The US has waning interest in protecting deep water navigation global trade and will continue to recede from this role which will create regional power vacuums and conflict. RUssia, China and the US are becoming more fascist and autocratic. China and Russia particularly seek the fruits of an open market economy but exert harsh cultural control over their populations.
It’s all very concerning and this closure will certainly continue with a Trump second term and will have unpredictable but, predictably violent, consequences.
This is really quite a decent book. We get a narrow focus on a few revolutions starting in the 1600s and then finish off with a geopolitical discussion of 2024. This book may not cover the revolutions you had in mind and brings with it palpable framing. This book is firmly grounded in a classical Western perspective, so ‘revolution� in this book always means liberalization in terms of civil rights, democratic governance and an open economy.
We get a nice discussion about the revolution in the Netherlands in the 1600s. The Dutch rejected monarchy much earlier than their other European counterparts and embraced trade and classical liberalism with a decentralization. The Protestant movement also was quite influential at that time. The author also argues the unique geographical flooding over the land helped the common person have a sense of real land ownership and fostered decentralization. From this liberal revolution you get one of the first multinational companies that may have ever existed, The Dutch East India Company, as well as one of the first stock markets. All this stuff was very ahead of its time if you consider corporate market dominance a sign of enlightenment which this author certainly does. We then delve into the British revolution resulting in a constitutional monarchy and liberal economy which clearly outpaced the Netherlands in terms of mercantilism and industrialization.
The French revolution gets a decent treatise here but it’s the same take home from the vast majority of historians: it was a freaking disaster. The French revolution was certainly a rebellion against monarchical rule but it was at the behest of the aristocracy who wielded proletariat populism. The revolution turned authoritarian pretty quickly with the state ownership of churches, mass censorship and counter-revolutionary violence. The French government then thought they could use Napoleon's strongman populism and control him for their use and then dispose of him. But, that didn’t quite work out.
The biggest revelation in this book was the author’s take on the American revolution. And here it is: that it wasn� really a revolution. It was a war for independence. Nothing after the revolution actually changed the social and economic life of Americans. America never imported feudalism and so had nothing to rebel against. The American revolution was simply a war of financial independence wrought by aristocratic slavers who continued being aristocratic slavers after the revolution. The REAL American revolution was the Industrial Revolution. After stealing tons of intellectual property from the UK, the industrial revolution took off in America and kept going through the mid to late 1800s.
Here’s what’s missing: The Russian Revolution. Despite starting this book out with a quote from Marx, the author does not delve into the Bolshevik revolution which I found curious. The Russian revolution was certainly a rebellion against monarchy like the Dutch and English, so why not include it? I think it’s because Lenin and Stalin did not usher in a liberalized market economy. Stalinism became authoritarian and closed so I guess that just wasn’t thematic enough for this book? This was a misstep.
At any rate, the later half of this book was surprisingly a geopolitical analysis of modern politics in 2024. Although this surprised me, it wasn’t unwelcomed because I found the assessment to be rather spot on. The short story is that globalization is shuttering. We are going from an open liberal economy to a closed economy. There are signs of this everywhere: ending NAFTA and Biden’s ban on semiconductors to China. Biden has basically started a tech cold war with China with this act. The US has waning interest in protecting deep water navigation global trade and will continue to recede from this role which will create regional power vacuums and conflict. RUssia, China and the US are becoming more fascist and autocratic. China and Russia particularly seek the fruits of an open market economy but exert harsh cultural control over their populations.
It’s all very concerning and this closure will certainly continue with a Trump second term and will have unpredictable but, predictably violent, consequences.
September 9, 2024
In some ways, this is a great book but it has a few flaws that prevented 5 stars. Zakaria traces the revolutions that have created the modern world beginning with the one in the Netherlands. He is clearly an Anglophobe who fails to recognize English flaws although he does gloss over them. For this reader, he should have paid more attention to the downside of Glorious Revolution and to places where any hope of change was thwarted by the Crown due to the prejudice so prevalent in the country. The treatment of Ireland comes to mind. The French Revolution, a failed revolution is covered and the tragic consequences are adequately covered. He devotes a great deal of time to the Industrial Revolution, first in Britain, then in America and then the second Industrial Revolution.
The next flaw (in addition to the authors' Anglophobia) is that he seems to be willing to resort to including inaccurate historical facts to fit into the narrative. For example, he credits the assassinations of RFK and MLK Jr. for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill and the Voting Rights Act but those laws were passed in 1964 and 1965- the assassinations did not happen until 1968.
Finally, Zachary has a habit of preaching at his readers. He makes his arguments very well and there is no need to tell his readers what to do. Still, even with these flaws the books does a very credible job of analyzing the revolutions and their impacts.
The next flaw (in addition to the authors' Anglophobia) is that he seems to be willing to resort to including inaccurate historical facts to fit into the narrative. For example, he credits the assassinations of RFK and MLK Jr. for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill and the Voting Rights Act but those laws were passed in 1964 and 1965- the assassinations did not happen until 1968.
Finally, Zachary has a habit of preaching at his readers. He makes his arguments very well and there is no need to tell his readers what to do. Still, even with these flaws the books does a very credible job of analyzing the revolutions and their impacts.
March 24, 2024
From a few pages, I find the author needs my Freshman Composition course. I urged my students to avoid weak verbs, especially "Is-ness." But Zakaria:
"Aristotle's 'Politics,' written in the fourth century BC, is a book ...." and
"Politics is one of those rare human enterprises that hasn't changed that much over the millenia."
which I revise to eliminate its "is" verb, like a a fulcrum on an unmoving see-saw:
"Politics, rare among human enterprises, changed little over 2,000 years."
Great point later, Cicero's brother wrote advice on winning election: "Promise everything to everyone, always be seen in public surrounded by your most passionate supporters, and remind voters of your opponents' sex scandals. More than 2,000 years late, political consultants charge hefty fees to dispense the same advice."
"Aristotle's 'Politics,' written in the fourth century BC, is a book ...." and
"Politics is one of those rare human enterprises that hasn't changed that much over the millenia."
which I revise to eliminate its "is" verb, like a a fulcrum on an unmoving see-saw:
"Politics, rare among human enterprises, changed little over 2,000 years."
Great point later, Cicero's brother wrote advice on winning election: "Promise everything to everyone, always be seen in public surrounded by your most passionate supporters, and remind voters of your opponents' sex scandals. More than 2,000 years late, political consultants charge hefty fees to dispense the same advice."
June 27, 2024
I could hear Zakaria’s sonorous, somber, competent voice the whole time I read this book. I don’t know if it was his intent or not, but this book somehow reassured me that things are not as bad as they seem, as if there is a path out of the minefields of the present, if only good middle of the road liberals like Zakaria stay in charge. Be sober, industrious, and reasonable, and all will be well.
The book starts with an analysis of other revolutionary eras in the modern world: the Dutch revolution, which invented capitalism, the English Glorious Revolution, which imported aspects of the Dutch for parliamentary supremacy and more capitalism, which led to the next revolution Zakaria analyzes, the Industrial Revolution. He moves on to the French Revolution, which he sees as a failure, and the American Revolution, which was a success. Echoing Eric Hobsbawm, he gives a mostly materialist explanation, so that technical and economic change brought political change. On the other hand, liberalism, an idea, was the central feature of all the revolutions, and produced and was predicated upon openness - borders, politics, trade, freedom - and brought wealth and power. Unfortunately, it was extremely disruptive of the social status quo, so that belief systems, social networks, identities, all the things that brought comfort to people’s lives besides money and power. Thus, the inevitable backlash.
Over the long-term, I think this is a good analysis. I was glad to see somebody offering classic interpretations of these pivotal moments in the history of the West. Many academic historians have gone off into post-modernist left field, concentrating upon secondary characteristics as if those were the main features, but not Zakaria. I am not so sure, however, that, over the long-run, that the French Revolution was really a failure. In the short and medium terms in France, yes. Over the history of ideas of the past two hundred years, I would rate it a brilliant, sparking success. And I would note that the economic historian Robert Allen, in “The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective�, argued that cheap coal and expensive labor were far more important in sparking the industrial revolution than liberalism. I still haven’t made my mind up about that.
In 2024, we are living in the era of backlash from the revolutions of globalization and information technology. Both of these phenomena created great wealth and advances in material human progress, but their downsides have to be reckoned with. Globalization and automation have led to a decline in American manufacturing jobs. Much of the global architecture of trade was constructed in organizations such as the World Trade Organization or the World Economic Forum that were purposefully insulated from democracy. As inequality between countries has decreased, inequality within industrialized countries has increased. The digital revolution has not changed physical reality like the industrial revolution, but it has "change[d] the mental world, expanding information, knowledge, analytic capacity, and with it our definition of what it means to be human." These are great gains but it has also resulted in shortened attention spans and feeds resentment, loneliness, conspiracy theories, anxiety, misinformation, fake news, extremism, and censorship.
This has been accompanied by what Zakaria geopolitically calls “the rise of the rest.� Although the American economy is still over one quarter of the world economy, it no longer can tell other, self-confident, rising nations exactly what to do. China has risen to become a geopolitical rival and Russia has reemerged as a regional spoiler, but also countries like India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Brazil have become more powerful in their regions. With these countries, America cannot act as a hegemon; it needs to negotiate for and concede influence, and that is very difficult for it to do, especially given the authoritarian nature of some of these regimes. After the forever wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans seem to want to withdraw from the world and all its confusion, and American behavior in Iraq and its backing of Israel also tarnish its image abroad. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought the NATO alliance closer to together, but much of the rest of the world is happy to buy discounted Russian oil and gas. Many of these governments have become less democratic and liberal than was hoped in the 1990s and 2000s.
Politics has moved from a division between left and right into a division between open and closed. Brexist, Trumpism, the Far Right in Europe: all want to close borders to immigrants to stop demographic change. As well, the economic crash of 2008 showed the American and European financial systems protecting the rich at the expense of the rest. Covid 19 fueled the fire more. As the center left and right economic policies have coalesced, we now see a collapse in the faith of the liberal project, authorities and institutions on both extremes but especially in the working class. We see leftist yuppies versus conservative blue collar workers, Christian Republicans versus secular Democrats, very liberal young women and very conservative young men, and a racial animus towards the first Black president and immigration. The Trump presidency was the result, not the cause of these changes.
I think that Zakaria’s advice to keep the liberal project alive is mostly very sane. Firstly, those who believe in liberalism’s potential have to acknowledge the missteps that have taken place and when we have gone too far. Rather than top-down social change imposed by bureaucrats in search of perfect justice, we need more organic change from the bottom up so that the elites do not get out ahead of public feeling. This is a good Burkean instinct: change to preserve. We need to prioritize individual rights over membership in social categories. No more mistakes like the war in Iraq. And since 2008, we have to acknowledge that sometimes politics is more important than economics. Biden has kept most of Trump's protectionist economic policies in place and expanded others; rather than only prioritizing growth, there are also national security issues, a need to keep American manufacturing alive, and to try to pull the bottom up closer to the top.
I would add more. We have to prioritize our national democracies over non-elected international bureaucracies. We need to be open to ideas, but borders matter. The people who live in a country get to decide who else gets in. Free trade is better than mercantilism or autarky, but it also depends upon what everyone else is doing. To make an historical argument, when Britain opted for free trade in the 1840s, it was good for Britain. It provided cheap food, and her industries were strong. After Germany and the USA set up second generation industry behind tariff walls, it made sense for Britain, as a second-best option, to try for imperial preferences. Free trade needs to be seen to benefit those at the bottom as well as well as at the top.
We have to prioritize free speech but stop letting the social media companies profit from disinformation. When Alex Jones was recently fined $1 billion for his lies, I thought, why should we not be able to sue the social media companies, that is Youtube, who profited from his being on their platform? That is surely the way forward. On the other hand, it should be illegal for corporations to fire somebody because of their political views.
Zakaria is a good storyteller. I agree with his analysis that populism arises because of real problems but often has bad solutions. The scapegoats are just scapegoats. It is up to responsible politicians to find real solutions. But I also wonder if today is as revolutionary as he proposes. Think about the 1960s and the Weathermen and Black Panthers and the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. The riots and the Vietnam War and the election of Richard Nixon with the “Southern Strategy.� At the moment, populism and authoritarianism are challenging liberalism, but how leaders and ordinary people react to this will be crucial. As Hans Rosling said, I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist. But I am a possibilist.
The book starts with an analysis of other revolutionary eras in the modern world: the Dutch revolution, which invented capitalism, the English Glorious Revolution, which imported aspects of the Dutch for parliamentary supremacy and more capitalism, which led to the next revolution Zakaria analyzes, the Industrial Revolution. He moves on to the French Revolution, which he sees as a failure, and the American Revolution, which was a success. Echoing Eric Hobsbawm, he gives a mostly materialist explanation, so that technical and economic change brought political change. On the other hand, liberalism, an idea, was the central feature of all the revolutions, and produced and was predicated upon openness - borders, politics, trade, freedom - and brought wealth and power. Unfortunately, it was extremely disruptive of the social status quo, so that belief systems, social networks, identities, all the things that brought comfort to people’s lives besides money and power. Thus, the inevitable backlash.
Over the long-term, I think this is a good analysis. I was glad to see somebody offering classic interpretations of these pivotal moments in the history of the West. Many academic historians have gone off into post-modernist left field, concentrating upon secondary characteristics as if those were the main features, but not Zakaria. I am not so sure, however, that, over the long-run, that the French Revolution was really a failure. In the short and medium terms in France, yes. Over the history of ideas of the past two hundred years, I would rate it a brilliant, sparking success. And I would note that the economic historian Robert Allen, in “The British Industrial Revolution in Global Perspective�, argued that cheap coal and expensive labor were far more important in sparking the industrial revolution than liberalism. I still haven’t made my mind up about that.
In 2024, we are living in the era of backlash from the revolutions of globalization and information technology. Both of these phenomena created great wealth and advances in material human progress, but their downsides have to be reckoned with. Globalization and automation have led to a decline in American manufacturing jobs. Much of the global architecture of trade was constructed in organizations such as the World Trade Organization or the World Economic Forum that were purposefully insulated from democracy. As inequality between countries has decreased, inequality within industrialized countries has increased. The digital revolution has not changed physical reality like the industrial revolution, but it has "change[d] the mental world, expanding information, knowledge, analytic capacity, and with it our definition of what it means to be human." These are great gains but it has also resulted in shortened attention spans and feeds resentment, loneliness, conspiracy theories, anxiety, misinformation, fake news, extremism, and censorship.
This has been accompanied by what Zakaria geopolitically calls “the rise of the rest.� Although the American economy is still over one quarter of the world economy, it no longer can tell other, self-confident, rising nations exactly what to do. China has risen to become a geopolitical rival and Russia has reemerged as a regional spoiler, but also countries like India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Brazil have become more powerful in their regions. With these countries, America cannot act as a hegemon; it needs to negotiate for and concede influence, and that is very difficult for it to do, especially given the authoritarian nature of some of these regimes. After the forever wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans seem to want to withdraw from the world and all its confusion, and American behavior in Iraq and its backing of Israel also tarnish its image abroad. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought the NATO alliance closer to together, but much of the rest of the world is happy to buy discounted Russian oil and gas. Many of these governments have become less democratic and liberal than was hoped in the 1990s and 2000s.
Politics has moved from a division between left and right into a division between open and closed. Brexist, Trumpism, the Far Right in Europe: all want to close borders to immigrants to stop demographic change. As well, the economic crash of 2008 showed the American and European financial systems protecting the rich at the expense of the rest. Covid 19 fueled the fire more. As the center left and right economic policies have coalesced, we now see a collapse in the faith of the liberal project, authorities and institutions on both extremes but especially in the working class. We see leftist yuppies versus conservative blue collar workers, Christian Republicans versus secular Democrats, very liberal young women and very conservative young men, and a racial animus towards the first Black president and immigration. The Trump presidency was the result, not the cause of these changes.
I think that Zakaria’s advice to keep the liberal project alive is mostly very sane. Firstly, those who believe in liberalism’s potential have to acknowledge the missteps that have taken place and when we have gone too far. Rather than top-down social change imposed by bureaucrats in search of perfect justice, we need more organic change from the bottom up so that the elites do not get out ahead of public feeling. This is a good Burkean instinct: change to preserve. We need to prioritize individual rights over membership in social categories. No more mistakes like the war in Iraq. And since 2008, we have to acknowledge that sometimes politics is more important than economics. Biden has kept most of Trump's protectionist economic policies in place and expanded others; rather than only prioritizing growth, there are also national security issues, a need to keep American manufacturing alive, and to try to pull the bottom up closer to the top.
I would add more. We have to prioritize our national democracies over non-elected international bureaucracies. We need to be open to ideas, but borders matter. The people who live in a country get to decide who else gets in. Free trade is better than mercantilism or autarky, but it also depends upon what everyone else is doing. To make an historical argument, when Britain opted for free trade in the 1840s, it was good for Britain. It provided cheap food, and her industries were strong. After Germany and the USA set up second generation industry behind tariff walls, it made sense for Britain, as a second-best option, to try for imperial preferences. Free trade needs to be seen to benefit those at the bottom as well as well as at the top.
We have to prioritize free speech but stop letting the social media companies profit from disinformation. When Alex Jones was recently fined $1 billion for his lies, I thought, why should we not be able to sue the social media companies, that is Youtube, who profited from his being on their platform? That is surely the way forward. On the other hand, it should be illegal for corporations to fire somebody because of their political views.
Zakaria is a good storyteller. I agree with his analysis that populism arises because of real problems but often has bad solutions. The scapegoats are just scapegoats. It is up to responsible politicians to find real solutions. But I also wonder if today is as revolutionary as he proposes. Think about the 1960s and the Weathermen and Black Panthers and the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. The riots and the Vietnam War and the election of Richard Nixon with the “Southern Strategy.� At the moment, populism and authoritarianism are challenging liberalism, but how leaders and ordinary people react to this will be crucial. As Hans Rosling said, I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist. But I am a possibilist.
March 4, 2024
Interesting book, two broad-minded quotes:
"...while the workers of Industrial Britain were exploited and poorly treated, they were still doing far better in material terms than their ancestors, or even their parents. The simplest proof comes from looking at the choices of ordinary peasants - and treating these choices with respect. Tens of millions of farmers, all across Europe, chose to leave rural poverty to pursue a better life in the cities."
"Fearing the perceived cultural extremism of the modern Left, Republicans have turned to political radicalism in a last-ditch effort to win elections no matter what, to arrest what they see as further cultural decline. The tragic asymmetry of contemporary American life is this: the Right often punches above its weight in politics but yearns for cultural power. The Left owns the culture but constantly pines for political power...it tries to use its cultural power to shape politics - a dangerous and often illiberal quest."
"...while the workers of Industrial Britain were exploited and poorly treated, they were still doing far better in material terms than their ancestors, or even their parents. The simplest proof comes from looking at the choices of ordinary peasants - and treating these choices with respect. Tens of millions of farmers, all across Europe, chose to leave rural poverty to pursue a better life in the cities."
"Fearing the perceived cultural extremism of the modern Left, Republicans have turned to political radicalism in a last-ditch effort to win elections no matter what, to arrest what they see as further cultural decline. The tragic asymmetry of contemporary American life is this: the Right often punches above its weight in politics but yearns for cultural power. The Left owns the culture but constantly pines for political power...it tries to use its cultural power to shape politics - a dangerous and often illiberal quest."
April 9, 2024
This book read like a history thesis. I was expecting more comparisons and conclusions drawn from the history to the current world and American situation. Instead it felt like a timeline through revolutions and a summary of college courses. I didn't feel he made the connections to current society.
December 23, 2024
Zakaria has long been my favorite cable news host because his shows always stress analysis of the subject at hand and, although he is not shy about voicing his own opinions, he takes pains to avoid the polemics, innuendo and snark that have become standard on much of cable news.
In the first half of this book the author gives his definition of revolution and provides examples from the past 400 years of what he considers successful revolutions, failed revolutions, and non-revolutions, despite their names. Such revolutions can be political, economic, cultural, or all three. Like others, he has detected a trend during past centuries towards liberalism, by which he means non-authoritarian, non-hierarchical societies based on the rule of law and individual freedoms. He also points out the backlash that is created by such revolutions and the human tendency to resist changes which are not obviously advantageous.
In the second half of the book he discusses globalization, social media, and other changes that are impacting most of the world. He suggests that those leading and benefitting from such changes be more cognizant of those being left behind, lest the backlashes created endanger the movement to more liberal societies.
Often, the backlash to cultural change is manifested in fear of the unknown. Although it is sometimes difficult to be patient with the mass hysteria of the type that has arisen in recent months over such silliness as pet-eating immigrants in Ohio and drone attacks in New Jersey, I cannot argue with the author that much societal change should be more gradual than some would like.
In the first half of this book the author gives his definition of revolution and provides examples from the past 400 years of what he considers successful revolutions, failed revolutions, and non-revolutions, despite their names. Such revolutions can be political, economic, cultural, or all three. Like others, he has detected a trend during past centuries towards liberalism, by which he means non-authoritarian, non-hierarchical societies based on the rule of law and individual freedoms. He also points out the backlash that is created by such revolutions and the human tendency to resist changes which are not obviously advantageous.
In the second half of the book he discusses globalization, social media, and other changes that are impacting most of the world. He suggests that those leading and benefitting from such changes be more cognizant of those being left behind, lest the backlashes created endanger the movement to more liberal societies.
Often, the backlash to cultural change is manifested in fear of the unknown. Although it is sometimes difficult to be patient with the mass hysteria of the type that has arisen in recent months over such silliness as pet-eating immigrants in Ohio and drone attacks in New Jersey, I cannot argue with the author that much societal change should be more gradual than some would like.
December 4, 2024
"Throughout this story, we will see two competing plotlines: liberalism, meaning progress, growth, disruption, revolution in the sense of radical advance, and illiberalism, standing for regression, restriction, nostalgia, revolution in the sense of returning to the past."
This excellent book is an exploration of revolutions past and present that for better or worse define the unsettling, polarized times in which we live. Zakaria investigates the eras from the seventeenth century Netherlands transformations, to the bloody French Revolution, and finally the Industrial Revolution which shaped the modern world. In addition he proves present day revolutions such as globalization, technology, identity and geopolitics and their effect on the US and beyond.
I have always liked Zakaria's work, but I liked this book the best, I learned so much from it and highly recommend it to all history lovers out there.
This excellent book is an exploration of revolutions past and present that for better or worse define the unsettling, polarized times in which we live. Zakaria investigates the eras from the seventeenth century Netherlands transformations, to the bloody French Revolution, and finally the Industrial Revolution which shaped the modern world. In addition he proves present day revolutions such as globalization, technology, identity and geopolitics and their effect on the US and beyond.
I have always liked Zakaria's work, but I liked this book the best, I learned so much from it and highly recommend it to all history lovers out there.
May 22, 2024
Some of my favorite books were written by Mr. Zakaria but this is not one of them. The author reminds me of Erasmus, who, like him, will admit faults in the current system but advocates reform from within. Who, like him, benefited mightily from that system and therefore can never fully appreciate the anger of those who have not.
"Look at all the wonderful things that have happened as a result of this system." Can you not see what it has provided? Why sit there and attempt to tear it down? Overlooking the corruption and abuses. Showing an inability to understand how that system has left the majority behind. Glossing over and really not even mentioning the rampant corruption that is killing that system. Finally, not understanding (or not mentioning) that this system has broken down. It has failed to have any standards or principles that got in the way of making money. The author's class forsook piece by piece every single block of the liberal tradition starting way back with the liberal education whose loss he so lamented. And now, we are supposed to appreciate what amounts to a hollow, decayed shell and the symbols of that shell such as Biden, who he repeatedly praises.
He defends a group of people whose only true principle is to make money. This group bulldozes each tradition, each value, each virtue; it will choke on lies and overlook anything so long as they keep making money.
What he and apparently Biden do not understand is that it is this system - which was once great - no longer works. It is this system that is causing so many groups across the political spectrum, each in their own way, to desperately attempt to find alternatives however ridiculous.
This book is further confirmation in my mind that the elites of the West truly do not understand the problems of our age. They have no solutions other than what worked in the past which cannot possibly solve the problems of our day. Tone deaf, like so many before them.
-David
"Look at all the wonderful things that have happened as a result of this system." Can you not see what it has provided? Why sit there and attempt to tear it down? Overlooking the corruption and abuses. Showing an inability to understand how that system has left the majority behind. Glossing over and really not even mentioning the rampant corruption that is killing that system. Finally, not understanding (or not mentioning) that this system has broken down. It has failed to have any standards or principles that got in the way of making money. The author's class forsook piece by piece every single block of the liberal tradition starting way back with the liberal education whose loss he so lamented. And now, we are supposed to appreciate what amounts to a hollow, decayed shell and the symbols of that shell such as Biden, who he repeatedly praises.
He defends a group of people whose only true principle is to make money. This group bulldozes each tradition, each value, each virtue; it will choke on lies and overlook anything so long as they keep making money.
What he and apparently Biden do not understand is that it is this system - which was once great - no longer works. It is this system that is causing so many groups across the political spectrum, each in their own way, to desperately attempt to find alternatives however ridiculous.
This book is further confirmation in my mind that the elites of the West truly do not understand the problems of our age. They have no solutions other than what worked in the past which cannot possibly solve the problems of our day. Tone deaf, like so many before them.
-David
June 13, 2024
At first I felt this work was merely a breezy annotation of past histories, scholarly and popular, without a strong thesis of its own. But I really came to appreciate its balanced account of our current zeitgeist—citing so many books of recent times, from Macaulay to Hobsbawm and on to Harari and Pinker, sums up the moment of reading that was as and is, my brief lifetime.
There’s also a powerful literary technique here, which is to stick closely at all times to contemporary challenges, especially populist backlash against global capitalism, connecting today’s problems to the longer arc of historical change.
Critics will no doubt decry the short shrift given to slavery, and the preppy global Southerner’s take on subalterns and exploited classes. The western narrative of progress is enriched without being denied: simply put, participatory government and free markets can bring better lives to the many, even if the examples we can cite, from the USA to China, Singapore, the modern EU, and so on, are all incomplete and risk losing ground all the time.
I’d say it’s a fair view, a mixed bag of consolation and concern as we move forward in a post-left, post-right world of populism and globalism, with cooperation advancing even as new conflicts loom.
Any reader also likely desires a set of solutions. How might the lessons of history be used to solve problems? These are largely left to the reader to think up, which is a slight disappointment. Many of us reading are of course fed up with populism and want to get on with global technocracy. Others might support limited protectionism and think of ways to capture and make use of populists, just like William of Orange exploited anti-Catholic sentiment for his own ends. I’ll read the conclusion again, but not surprisingly for such a fraught world, solution summarizing will always be the starkest challenge for historians.
There’s also a powerful literary technique here, which is to stick closely at all times to contemporary challenges, especially populist backlash against global capitalism, connecting today’s problems to the longer arc of historical change.
Critics will no doubt decry the short shrift given to slavery, and the preppy global Southerner’s take on subalterns and exploited classes. The western narrative of progress is enriched without being denied: simply put, participatory government and free markets can bring better lives to the many, even if the examples we can cite, from the USA to China, Singapore, the modern EU, and so on, are all incomplete and risk losing ground all the time.
I’d say it’s a fair view, a mixed bag of consolation and concern as we move forward in a post-left, post-right world of populism and globalism, with cooperation advancing even as new conflicts loom.
Any reader also likely desires a set of solutions. How might the lessons of history be used to solve problems? These are largely left to the reader to think up, which is a slight disappointment. Many of us reading are of course fed up with populism and want to get on with global technocracy. Others might support limited protectionism and think of ways to capture and make use of populists, just like William of Orange exploited anti-Catholic sentiment for his own ends. I’ll read the conclusion again, but not surprisingly for such a fraught world, solution summarizing will always be the starkest challenge for historians.
April 14, 2024
Listened on Audible read by the author. The book is essentially a history of political and economic development since the 17th century beginning in the Netherlands with the beginnings of capitalism and liberalism through to the present.
If you’re looking for prescriptions for solving America’s present problems of populism and identitarian politics you won’t find much here. But if you want a thoughtful, cogent, and clear explanation how we got here, then I’d recommend this book.
If you’re looking for prescriptions for solving America’s present problems of populism and identitarian politics you won’t find much here. But if you want a thoughtful, cogent, and clear explanation how we got here, then I’d recommend this book.
July 5, 2024
Vienas iš tų darbų kuriuos galima pavadinti fundamentaliais darbais. Rimtas skaitinys norint suprasti šių dienų politiką. Tačiau trūksta daugiau šių dienos skirčių analizės ir ateities projekcijos. Tikrai vertas laiko skaitinys.
April 2, 2024
A clear, well written and insightful book - that builds upon the works of others (at least the following):
Paul Kennedy - "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers"
Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman - "White Rural Rage"
Neil Howe/Bill Strauss - "The Fourth Turning (is here)"
Has great models and narrative especially about Dutch History/English and American history up to and through their respective Industrial Revolutions.
One of the books strengths is more detail and thoughtful narrative about what has happened recently - my 'take':
* During the Cold War - Americans 'material needs' were mostly met for the majority of the country.
* The collapse of Russia - change in American's political atmosphere. I don't believe it is a coincidence that just after the collapse of Russia - American politics became more strident - the Russians were no longer the enemy the "opposite party" were the enemy who needed to be destroyed - see Newt Gingrich Contract on America and his rhetoric.
* During this time the rise of racially charged rhetoric on the right - candidacy of David Duke formerly of the KKK and his racist monologue.
* Republican party's consensus around Neo-Liberalism and especially Neo-Liberal economics - see Milton/Laffer - adopted by Reagan....who in during the 1980 campaign stated assuredly that he could... cut taxes; raise defense spending and balance the budget all at the same time..." This model didn't work then; didn't work when George W. Bush tried it; didn't work when Donald Trump tried it but it remains Republican orthodoxy.
* "Forever Wars" in the Middle East - became unpopular.
* Add to this Great Recession and Covid-19 and the U.S. has deteriorated into 'tribes' through propoganda - advocating the world view that specific tribes 'are threatened with extinction' (which no reasonble inference can call this true - however) - because we're threatened with extinction - we need a strongman who will 'fight the good fight for us/against pedophile liberals.
* Enter Trump pulling directly from the playbook of the Strongman - Ruth Ben-Ghiat's book "Strongman" recognizes the signs of authoritarianism from the Republican far right and Trump - and indicates that this is a tried-and-true-playbook-because-it-works.
* In both Macro Great Power Politics (threat in Ukraine/Taiwan) and Israel-Gaza and U.S. Domestic Politics (America First) - I see great similarities to the 1930's - with the building of tariff walls and isolationism.
Zakaria's unique history/perspective provided me with at least the following 'take aways':
* He continued with his "Rise of the Rest" - models indicating that America is still growing - but other countries are growing faster.
* Zakaria - originally from India - can credibly state that some of the now rising stars and economic elite countries ARE NOT ENAMORED with Western Enlightenment Thinking. Representative democracy and the attendant rights of the individual - do not seem to be as important as macro growth to these populations. This is a very important point as some models see a future with a West Plus+/Russia-China-N. Korea/Iran// Unaligned - led by India - with many countries not accepting Western Enlightenment Ideas.
* The U.S. is powerful - but is losing influence - within the world. Forever wars in the Middle East, endless budget squabbles/mismanagement do not credibly suggest democracy and the U.S. Government "work" at all well and should be emulated.
* The U.S. has its own polarization with 'N' reports of an upcoming U.S. Civil War (Red America versus Blue America) - as above this is not an advertisement for the U.S. -its society or its governing model to be emulated.
A clear book - builds on interesting and relevant history - does a good job of describing what has happened since the fall of Russia and the rise of U.S. "Tribes" - where individuals, wishing to belong "buy into the whole agenda" - versus "being alone"....
Helped my understanding of the context for these larger events.
Should be of interest to those who read history, foreign policy and politics.
Carl Gallozzi
[email protected]
Paul Kennedy - "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers"
Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman - "White Rural Rage"
Neil Howe/Bill Strauss - "The Fourth Turning (is here)"
Has great models and narrative especially about Dutch History/English and American history up to and through their respective Industrial Revolutions.
One of the books strengths is more detail and thoughtful narrative about what has happened recently - my 'take':
* During the Cold War - Americans 'material needs' were mostly met for the majority of the country.
* The collapse of Russia - change in American's political atmosphere. I don't believe it is a coincidence that just after the collapse of Russia - American politics became more strident - the Russians were no longer the enemy the "opposite party" were the enemy who needed to be destroyed - see Newt Gingrich Contract on America and his rhetoric.
* During this time the rise of racially charged rhetoric on the right - candidacy of David Duke formerly of the KKK and his racist monologue.
* Republican party's consensus around Neo-Liberalism and especially Neo-Liberal economics - see Milton/Laffer - adopted by Reagan....who in during the 1980 campaign stated assuredly that he could... cut taxes; raise defense spending and balance the budget all at the same time..." This model didn't work then; didn't work when George W. Bush tried it; didn't work when Donald Trump tried it but it remains Republican orthodoxy.
* "Forever Wars" in the Middle East - became unpopular.
* Add to this Great Recession and Covid-19 and the U.S. has deteriorated into 'tribes' through propoganda - advocating the world view that specific tribes 'are threatened with extinction' (which no reasonble inference can call this true - however) - because we're threatened with extinction - we need a strongman who will 'fight the good fight for us/against pedophile liberals.
* Enter Trump pulling directly from the playbook of the Strongman - Ruth Ben-Ghiat's book "Strongman" recognizes the signs of authoritarianism from the Republican far right and Trump - and indicates that this is a tried-and-true-playbook-because-it-works.
* In both Macro Great Power Politics (threat in Ukraine/Taiwan) and Israel-Gaza and U.S. Domestic Politics (America First) - I see great similarities to the 1930's - with the building of tariff walls and isolationism.
Zakaria's unique history/perspective provided me with at least the following 'take aways':
* He continued with his "Rise of the Rest" - models indicating that America is still growing - but other countries are growing faster.
* Zakaria - originally from India - can credibly state that some of the now rising stars and economic elite countries ARE NOT ENAMORED with Western Enlightenment Thinking. Representative democracy and the attendant rights of the individual - do not seem to be as important as macro growth to these populations. This is a very important point as some models see a future with a West Plus+/Russia-China-N. Korea/Iran// Unaligned - led by India - with many countries not accepting Western Enlightenment Ideas.
* The U.S. is powerful - but is losing influence - within the world. Forever wars in the Middle East, endless budget squabbles/mismanagement do not credibly suggest democracy and the U.S. Government "work" at all well and should be emulated.
* The U.S. has its own polarization with 'N' reports of an upcoming U.S. Civil War (Red America versus Blue America) - as above this is not an advertisement for the U.S. -its society or its governing model to be emulated.
A clear book - builds on interesting and relevant history - does a good job of describing what has happened since the fall of Russia and the rise of U.S. "Tribes" - where individuals, wishing to belong "buy into the whole agenda" - versus "being alone"....
Helped my understanding of the context for these larger events.
Should be of interest to those who read history, foreign policy and politics.
Carl Gallozzi
[email protected]
November 14, 2024
man fuck this guy and his CNN-ass outlook on “modernity.� i’ll keep this short and just say my biggest gripe which is that in his (comparatively extremely long) discussion of the present day, he clearly has never considered the end of our social/governmental system, and only desires to go “forward� within it, completely ignoring the fact that capitalism is a great detriment to humanity and community.
this is yet another case of my bad for neglecting to read the summary before going in, but let me spare you all the frustration of reading this book by just telling you: it sucks. 1 star for having revolution in the title but only using the word “revolt� once.
this is yet another case of my bad for neglecting to read the summary before going in, but let me spare you all the frustration of reading this book by just telling you: it sucks. 1 star for having revolution in the title but only using the word “revolt� once.
February 22, 2025
"Today, the task for those who embrace the Enlightenment project, celebrate the progress we have made so far, and want to continue to move society forward is to learn from the struggles of the past." (p. 321)
I think this quote aptly captures the thrust of the book - which is to advocate, in a way, for the continued pursuit of the "modern" world order embracing principles like freedom and equality despite the headwinds against it.
The thrust was elusive for a lot of the book, but through the layerings of thoughts (that read like a pastiche of essays) the repeated sentiments come through. The structure is why I don't give five stars - but the drive to synthesize history and help a reader understand the cognitive dissonance of the current political moment earns full recognition.
I think this quote aptly captures the thrust of the book - which is to advocate, in a way, for the continued pursuit of the "modern" world order embracing principles like freedom and equality despite the headwinds against it.
The thrust was elusive for a lot of the book, but through the layerings of thoughts (that read like a pastiche of essays) the repeated sentiments come through. The structure is why I don't give five stars - but the drive to synthesize history and help a reader understand the cognitive dissonance of the current political moment earns full recognition.
December 23, 2024
An in-depth exploration of transformative periods in history that explain the ‘why� behind today’s global challenges. Zakaria connects the dots between historical revolutions and the rise of populism, illiberal democracies, identity politics, technological upheaval, and shifting geopolitical dynamics. A fascinating and timely read that deepened my understanding of today’s complex world.
June 26, 2024
I take for granted how much the world has changed in such a short time. Insightful perspective on not only political revolutions. This was a great read for me because the theme of my student’s AP Euro essay this year was “revolutions�.
October 20, 2024
This was a fine starter into these revolutions, but the whole book came with a strong focus on Euro/American history.
June 4, 2024
As always, Fareed blends his intellectual prowess with pragmatic theory. I recommend this book to anyone seeking answers about the ebb and flow of populism throughout the Western world.
August 3, 2024
It is relative deprivation and not absolute deprivation that leads to revolution- Tocqueville
February 3, 2025
[xmas gift from dad]
centrist, well-written summary of major Western economic, cultural, and political developments since the 1600s Dutch revolution. I enjoyed brushing up on some history but this book was alll over the place, and the final diagnosis - that the West suffers from an attitude problem?? - was, let’s say, rough
centrist, well-written summary of major Western economic, cultural, and political developments since the 1600s Dutch revolution. I enjoyed brushing up on some history but this book was alll over the place, and the final diagnosis - that the West suffers from an attitude problem?? - was, let’s say, rough
Read
July 6, 2024DNF. there's certainly some substance here, I just found it painfully boring.
April 8, 2024
Dense with information in more of a textbook way than I expected and felt long. About midway through I was better able to follow the writing style to get more from the book though it still seems like there’s simply too much here. Might be worth re-reading for a better grasp of the material to long-term memory.
My favorite parts weren’t the facts but the author’s interpretations, thoughts, and recommendations.
Interesting that this number two bestselling nonfiction author this week has a section affirming Jonathan Haidt, the number one.
My favorite parts weren’t the facts but the author’s interpretations, thoughts, and recommendations.
Interesting that this number two bestselling nonfiction author this week has a section affirming Jonathan Haidt, the number one.
May 19, 2024
A review of this book could start from many places, from the choice of the title and how it closely or not hewed to the content, to the definition of terms used and even could take time to consider how the summer reading list affects books released in that year but as I am not writing this review for a magazine somewhere, it is going to be my straightforward sentiments and will have no detours to suggest which revolutions should have been covered better or which scholar was not name checked.
I have been reading Fareed since his Newsweek days to this current era where he is more involved in TV than longform writing. He is insightful, an original thinker and tries to give all voices a platform to be heard. Unfortunately for him and any op-ed writer who has tried to translate an opinion piece into book form, the effort almost always misses it's mark. It is a bit harder to carry the nuances of a topic into book length and inevitably the book turns into a wanderer of this and that trying to find it's core thesis. The same was of this book, it was a mixed bag with some revolutions better covered like the one in Britain while others were unclear on how they were categorized as revolutions. Towards the end it turned into a meta narrative on geopolitics and unless you don't keep abreast of current affairs of geopolitics, no new ground was covered.
Books covering this topic can either be written by professional historians or journalists and occasionally by intrepid souls looking for a new challenge. Historians will cover a large swathe count everything including sheep, goats and the occasional raccoon growth over time, produce large tomes that will struggle to hold your attention but will reward the tenacious reader with a lot of information; journalists on the other hand hold your attention alright, with sweeping declarations and interesting anecdotes but will be light on information. This book fell in the latter group. The potential reader should decide on what they are looking for before jumping into this one.
I have been reading Fareed since his Newsweek days to this current era where he is more involved in TV than longform writing. He is insightful, an original thinker and tries to give all voices a platform to be heard. Unfortunately for him and any op-ed writer who has tried to translate an opinion piece into book form, the effort almost always misses it's mark. It is a bit harder to carry the nuances of a topic into book length and inevitably the book turns into a wanderer of this and that trying to find it's core thesis. The same was of this book, it was a mixed bag with some revolutions better covered like the one in Britain while others were unclear on how they were categorized as revolutions. Towards the end it turned into a meta narrative on geopolitics and unless you don't keep abreast of current affairs of geopolitics, no new ground was covered.
Books covering this topic can either be written by professional historians or journalists and occasionally by intrepid souls looking for a new challenge. Historians will cover a large swathe count everything including sheep, goats and the occasional raccoon growth over time, produce large tomes that will struggle to hold your attention but will reward the tenacious reader with a lot of information; journalists on the other hand hold your attention alright, with sweeping declarations and interesting anecdotes but will be light on information. This book fell in the latter group. The potential reader should decide on what they are looking for before jumping into this one.
July 12, 2024
The long historic arc of this book was interesting. I appreciated learning about the birth of modern liberalism in the Dutch republic, how this liberalism organically spread to the UK then the US, and the failure - first in France, then in many other parts of the world - to impose liberalism from above (I also appreciated the many connections between urbanization and economic growth; p.43 on Dutch urbanization and p.88 on the lack of French urbanization at the time of the revolution).
But I always like listening to Zakaria on CNN because he is clear, well-reasoned, and above all concise. And this book's greatest moments come when Zakaria boils a complex idea into a pithy quote, my favorite being "Liberalism's great strength throughout history has been to free people from arbitrary constraints. Its great weakness has been the inability to fill the void when the old structures crumble." p.268. I do think the book could have been a little shorter, he sometimes repeats himself, but I did appreciate him summing up many famous works that I haven't had the time to read (Bowling Alone), was supposed to read for class but lazed out (The Thucydides Trap), or have read but enjoyed the refresher (The End of History).
Ultimately a good summation of liberalism; what it is, where it came from, and why its worth fighting for (which might have been a better title?)
But I always like listening to Zakaria on CNN because he is clear, well-reasoned, and above all concise. And this book's greatest moments come when Zakaria boils a complex idea into a pithy quote, my favorite being "Liberalism's great strength throughout history has been to free people from arbitrary constraints. Its great weakness has been the inability to fill the void when the old structures crumble." p.268. I do think the book could have been a little shorter, he sometimes repeats himself, but I did appreciate him summing up many famous works that I haven't had the time to read (Bowling Alone), was supposed to read for class but lazed out (The Thucydides Trap), or have read but enjoyed the refresher (The End of History).
Ultimately a good summation of liberalism; what it is, where it came from, and why its worth fighting for (which might have been a better title?)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 437 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.