What do you think?
Rate this book
The Wake-Up Call: Why the Pandemic Has Exposed the Weakness of the West, and How to Fix It
"[An] executive summary of modern political history studded with sweeping assertions and telling anecdotes." -- The New York Times Book Review
"Thought-provoking." -- Kirkus Reviews
“A shot in the arm...powerful.� -- The Financial Times
"The Wake-Up Call, refreshingly concise and eminently readable, highlights how the modern crisis of governance compounded the challenges of the pandemic." -- Bloomberg
"The Wake-Up Callargues that Covid-19 has exposed not just one president's shortcomings but a much more profound degeneration of governance dating back long before 2016...You will read no more interesting book on the political consequences of the pandemic than this." -- Niall Ferguson, author of The West and the Rest
NAMED ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS OF 2020 (BLOOMBERG)
An urgent and informed look at the challenges America and world governments will face in a post Covid-19 world.
The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed that governments matter again, that competent leadership is the difference between living and dying. A few governments proved adept at handling the crisis while many others failed. Are Western governments healthy and strong enough to keep their citizens safe from another virulent virus—and protect their economies from collapse? Is global leadership passing from the United States to Asia—and particularly China?
The Wake-Up Call addresses these urgent questions. Journalists and longtime collaborators John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge identify the problems Western leaders face, and outline a detailed plan to help them become more vigilant, better prepared, and responsive to disruptive future events.
The problems that face us are enormous; as The Wake-Up Call makes clear, governments around the world must re-engineer the way they operate to successfully meet the challenges ahead.
"Thought-provoking." -- Kirkus Reviews
“A shot in the arm...powerful.� -- The Financial Times
"The Wake-Up Call, refreshingly concise and eminently readable, highlights how the modern crisis of governance compounded the challenges of the pandemic." -- Bloomberg
"The Wake-Up Callargues that Covid-19 has exposed not just one president's shortcomings but a much more profound degeneration of governance dating back long before 2016...You will read no more interesting book on the political consequences of the pandemic than this." -- Niall Ferguson, author of The West and the Rest
NAMED ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS OF 2020 (BLOOMBERG)
An urgent and informed look at the challenges America and world governments will face in a post Covid-19 world.
The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed that governments matter again, that competent leadership is the difference between living and dying. A few governments proved adept at handling the crisis while many others failed. Are Western governments healthy and strong enough to keep their citizens safe from another virulent virus—and protect their economies from collapse? Is global leadership passing from the United States to Asia—and particularly China?
The Wake-Up Call addresses these urgent questions. Journalists and longtime collaborators John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge identify the problems Western leaders face, and outline a detailed plan to help them become more vigilant, better prepared, and responsive to disruptive future events.
The problems that face us are enormous; as The Wake-Up Call makes clear, governments around the world must re-engineer the way they operate to successfully meet the challenges ahead.
174 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 1, 2020
140 people are currently reading
983 people want to read
About the author
John Micklethwait
18books42followersRichard John Micklethwait CBE (born 11 August 1962) is editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, a position he has held since February 2015. A British journalist, he was previously the editor-in-chief of The Economist from 2006 to 2015.
Micklethwait was born in 1962, in London, and was educated at Ampleforth College (an independent school) and Magdalen College, Oxford, where he studied history. He worked for Chase Manhattan Bank for two years and joined The Economist in 1987. Prior to becoming editor-in-chief, he was United States editor of the publication and ran the New York Bureau for two years. Before that, he edited the Business Section of the newspaper for four years. His other roles have included setting up an office in Los Angeles for The Economist, where he worked from 1990 to 1993. He has covered business and politics from the United States, Latin America, Continental Europe, Southern Africa and most of Asia.
Appointed as editor-in-chief on 23 March 2006, the first issue of The Economist published under his editorship was released on 7 April 2006. He was named Editors' Editor by the British Society of Magazine Editors in 2010. Micklethwait has frequently appeared on CNN, ABC News, BBC, C-SPAN, PBS and NPR.
In 2015 he was appointed as a Trustee of the British Museum. He was also a delegate, along with two colleagues, at the 2010 Bilderberg Conference held in Spain. This group consists of an assembly of notable politicians, industrialists and financiers who meet annually to discuss issues on a non-disclosure basis.
Micklethwait was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2016 Birthday Honours for services to journalism and economics.
Micklethwait was born in 1962, in London, and was educated at Ampleforth College (an independent school) and Magdalen College, Oxford, where he studied history. He worked for Chase Manhattan Bank for two years and joined The Economist in 1987. Prior to becoming editor-in-chief, he was United States editor of the publication and ran the New York Bureau for two years. Before that, he edited the Business Section of the newspaper for four years. His other roles have included setting up an office in Los Angeles for The Economist, where he worked from 1990 to 1993. He has covered business and politics from the United States, Latin America, Continental Europe, Southern Africa and most of Asia.
Appointed as editor-in-chief on 23 March 2006, the first issue of The Economist published under his editorship was released on 7 April 2006. He was named Editors' Editor by the British Society of Magazine Editors in 2010. Micklethwait has frequently appeared on CNN, ABC News, BBC, C-SPAN, PBS and NPR.
In 2015 he was appointed as a Trustee of the British Museum. He was also a delegate, along with two colleagues, at the 2010 Bilderberg Conference held in Spain. This group consists of an assembly of notable politicians, industrialists and financiers who meet annually to discuss issues on a non-disclosure basis.
Micklethwait was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2016 Birthday Honours for services to journalism and economics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews
February 1, 2021
Interesting and pragmatic look at how contemporary western approaches to government are failing under the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The authors compare the COVID responses and outcomes of the so-called ‘Asian Tiger� governments (e.g. China and Singapore), to the concurrent actions of the US under Trump, and the UK under Johnson.
The authors argue for a post-ideological and evidence based type of government reform, that adopts the policies and procedures that have been proven effective in other governments.
For instance: Canada’s health care system, or Germany’s system of engineering education.
The main point is, the US and EU’s antiquated governments are choking on COVID.
While the (in many ways more modern) governments of China and Singapore are thriving and pulling ahead of the west in every way.
The authors argument is (as best as I can reckon) to utilize the excess of recent failures as a wake-up call, and start changing our practices based on what actually works, instead of basing public policy a priori on antique philosophy and/or internet based radical ideology.
The authors argue that populist government via 4-Chan and Fox News is clearly no bueno. And burning city’s over police brutality and systemic inequity is not a sustainable lifestyle.
They argue for a small and efficient, meritocratic and evidence based government, run by highly paid, well educated public servants that live with the people they govern in urban environments with ‘smart� infrastructure.
The book is well written, thought provoking and interesting.
But plays a bit like the broad stroking, counter-factual and ideological ‘we should do it this or that way� armchair quarterbacking social critique of the 90’s.
Only with a ‘think different� silicon valley, third stream, new wave of rational centrism political theory kind of flavor.
I LOVED a lot of what the authors have to say.
And I’d vote for it (I think).
But I’m not sure what (exactly) to do with all of this broad critique other than nod my head in agreement (some of the time).
Don’t get me wrong.
This is a cool book.
I’m just not sure how helpful it is (for me anyway) right here and right now.
Although I literally couldn’t put it down.
I’m giving it 4/5 stars ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ (⭐️).
The authors compare the COVID responses and outcomes of the so-called ‘Asian Tiger� governments (e.g. China and Singapore), to the concurrent actions of the US under Trump, and the UK under Johnson.
The authors argue for a post-ideological and evidence based type of government reform, that adopts the policies and procedures that have been proven effective in other governments.
For instance: Canada’s health care system, or Germany’s system of engineering education.
The main point is, the US and EU’s antiquated governments are choking on COVID.
While the (in many ways more modern) governments of China and Singapore are thriving and pulling ahead of the west in every way.
The authors argument is (as best as I can reckon) to utilize the excess of recent failures as a wake-up call, and start changing our practices based on what actually works, instead of basing public policy a priori on antique philosophy and/or internet based radical ideology.
The authors argue that populist government via 4-Chan and Fox News is clearly no bueno. And burning city’s over police brutality and systemic inequity is not a sustainable lifestyle.
They argue for a small and efficient, meritocratic and evidence based government, run by highly paid, well educated public servants that live with the people they govern in urban environments with ‘smart� infrastructure.
The book is well written, thought provoking and interesting.
But plays a bit like the broad stroking, counter-factual and ideological ‘we should do it this or that way� armchair quarterbacking social critique of the 90’s.
Only with a ‘think different� silicon valley, third stream, new wave of rational centrism political theory kind of flavor.
I LOVED a lot of what the authors have to say.
And I’d vote for it (I think).
But I’m not sure what (exactly) to do with all of this broad critique other than nod my head in agreement (some of the time).
Don’t get me wrong.
This is a cool book.
I’m just not sure how helpful it is (for me anyway) right here and right now.
Although I literally couldn’t put it down.
I’m giving it 4/5 stars ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ (⭐️).
December 10, 2020
Not a deep book, a quick read, more like a magazine article than a book. I would give it two and a half stars. Interesting enough, with lots of casual opinions (I admit, most of them I agreed with) that were stated without much nuance or background research. Conclusions of the author made sense, although I would put the importance of political leadership - critical, in my view - in situations like the current pandemic at an even higher level than the writer. The author's proposals for fixing the broken U.S. and U.K. governments made sense, but, for all the reasons he cites as the causes of the many failures of our two countries, very difficult to implement. At best, right now, we can hope only for incremental improvements in a few areas.
October 19, 2020
I first came into contact with these authors when they wrote a superb book on globalization (A Future Perfect). They have an ability to take complex issues and present them in new ways. This book is no exception. In spite of my concerns discussed below it is well worth the read. The premise is that Western governments demonstrated their bloat and ineffectiveness during the COVID pandemic. That seems to be undeniably true.
But I have two concerns with their premises. First, at the beginning of the book they argue for understanding three key scholars on government - Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill and Beatrice Webb. I've never been a fan of any of those writers although each had a hand in defining a role for government. I was especially troubled by including Webb who created a rationale for the modern welfare state. It would not be especially difficult to blame many of the problems of the modern Western democracy on Webb's ideas. That being said, their analysis of the problems facing almost every Western democracy seems in my mind to be spot on. One might call all of these systems as flabby. But had I written this book I would probably have substituted Locke for Hobbes - who argued that people come together for positive reasons (not simply to protects us from a life that is "cruel, brutish and short.") Mill in my mind might be a good person to discuss liberty (his "On Liberty" is clearly a key book and like this one very brief). But I think the writing that Madison did in this area is much more dispositive. Finally, I have always thought of the Webbs as ideologues of a robust state. As I understand their writings, they offered an expansive view of the state without ever considering the moral hazards presented for equity based programs. Had the Webbs been engaged in the the debates between the approaches of John Rawls and Robert Nozick- they would have clearly come down on the side of Rawls. Near the end of the book the authors mention the arguments of Rawls (Theory of Justice) and Nozick (Anarchy, State and Utopia). And I think the Rawlsian notions lead to a flabby and unresponsive state. The authors would disagree with that.
The second problem I had with the book is in their 13 proposals coming from a mythical president of the combined initiatives of William Gladstone and Abraham Lincoln. (Called Bill Lincoln in the book). The authors have amalgamated a series of proposals which fundamentally ignore the dynamics described by Mancur Olson in his last book. The authors mention "The Logic of Collective Action" (which posits the ability of narrow interest groups to extract rents from the majority by shielding preferences). The better book would be "the Rise and Decline of Nations" which described the risks of interest group politics which create glue in the system and thus make key decisions almost impossible to achieve. The authors have a lot more faith in group solutions that I do. At the same time while they go through some of the litany of left of center proposals they do not make a convincing case that any political system will adopt them. Of course, we should raise the retirement age for a program like Social Security and possibly make the system a bit more means tested but the underlying theory of the original system was as a social insurance program where beneficiaries had paid into the system in order to receive benefits - we could (in my view) modify the CPI adjustment for higher income beneficiaries but the ability to take the system out of the realm of social insurance and make it completely redistributionist is absurd. Another proposal would be to increase the pay for the best public officials - with public employee unions how quickly would those adjustments be moved down several levels. There are too many perquisites for Deputy Assistant Chiefs of Staffs to the Secretary but good luck in getting those lickspittles to give up their limos.
Finally the authors are blind to the risks of bureaucracies in multilateral organizations. Of course, we should revive the Transpacific Partnership - which both HRC and Trump rejected. But do the authors really believe that something like the several hundred page proposed Constitution for the EU had any merit? Do they understand that part of the rationale for Brexit was the vast over-reach of Brussels? I am pretty sure that the best arguments for Brexit were made by the Eurocrats and their allies in Britain.
Even with those criticisms and ignoring the in my mind seriously flawed set of recommendations - this is a very good book.
But I have two concerns with their premises. First, at the beginning of the book they argue for understanding three key scholars on government - Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill and Beatrice Webb. I've never been a fan of any of those writers although each had a hand in defining a role for government. I was especially troubled by including Webb who created a rationale for the modern welfare state. It would not be especially difficult to blame many of the problems of the modern Western democracy on Webb's ideas. That being said, their analysis of the problems facing almost every Western democracy seems in my mind to be spot on. One might call all of these systems as flabby. But had I written this book I would probably have substituted Locke for Hobbes - who argued that people come together for positive reasons (not simply to protects us from a life that is "cruel, brutish and short.") Mill in my mind might be a good person to discuss liberty (his "On Liberty" is clearly a key book and like this one very brief). But I think the writing that Madison did in this area is much more dispositive. Finally, I have always thought of the Webbs as ideologues of a robust state. As I understand their writings, they offered an expansive view of the state without ever considering the moral hazards presented for equity based programs. Had the Webbs been engaged in the the debates between the approaches of John Rawls and Robert Nozick- they would have clearly come down on the side of Rawls. Near the end of the book the authors mention the arguments of Rawls (Theory of Justice) and Nozick (Anarchy, State and Utopia). And I think the Rawlsian notions lead to a flabby and unresponsive state. The authors would disagree with that.
The second problem I had with the book is in their 13 proposals coming from a mythical president of the combined initiatives of William Gladstone and Abraham Lincoln. (Called Bill Lincoln in the book). The authors have amalgamated a series of proposals which fundamentally ignore the dynamics described by Mancur Olson in his last book. The authors mention "The Logic of Collective Action" (which posits the ability of narrow interest groups to extract rents from the majority by shielding preferences). The better book would be "the Rise and Decline of Nations" which described the risks of interest group politics which create glue in the system and thus make key decisions almost impossible to achieve. The authors have a lot more faith in group solutions that I do. At the same time while they go through some of the litany of left of center proposals they do not make a convincing case that any political system will adopt them. Of course, we should raise the retirement age for a program like Social Security and possibly make the system a bit more means tested but the underlying theory of the original system was as a social insurance program where beneficiaries had paid into the system in order to receive benefits - we could (in my view) modify the CPI adjustment for higher income beneficiaries but the ability to take the system out of the realm of social insurance and make it completely redistributionist is absurd. Another proposal would be to increase the pay for the best public officials - with public employee unions how quickly would those adjustments be moved down several levels. There are too many perquisites for Deputy Assistant Chiefs of Staffs to the Secretary but good luck in getting those lickspittles to give up their limos.
Finally the authors are blind to the risks of bureaucracies in multilateral organizations. Of course, we should revive the Transpacific Partnership - which both HRC and Trump rejected. But do the authors really believe that something like the several hundred page proposed Constitution for the EU had any merit? Do they understand that part of the rationale for Brexit was the vast over-reach of Brussels? I am pretty sure that the best arguments for Brexit were made by the Eurocrats and their allies in Britain.
Even with those criticisms and ignoring the in my mind seriously flawed set of recommendations - this is a very good book.
February 3, 2021
Some Correct, Some Wrong
There’s a lot of good ideas in here and some that I found alarmingly wrong. Since the wrong alarmed me, I’ll address that. I’m Norplant sure where the author would end up on the income spectrum but I suspect on the high end. I’m a teacher and what this author said about them strikes me to the core. The author is clearly anti union and mentions it in several sections. Apparently while expressing concern over the income gap, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid need to be pared down. He mentions redoing the healthcare system which is very important. That democracy is probably better at dealing with COVID-19 and other pandemics than autocracies when they function properly. Agreed. But in education, the author knows little, he claims that the problem is bad teachers who need to be gotten rid of and teachers unions be ignored. He mentions high performing nations for education, Finland, South Korean, Japan, but not how he can to the the conclusion that they’re high performing (He’s using test scores on the NAPE, which he doesn’t explain or know?). He doesn’t mention the difference in the way teachers are treated and the curriculum the countries use, he decides that American teachers are bad and those teachers are good. He claims that that is the proof in student performance. In Finland, one of the highest performing nations, students aren’t subjected to rite standardized curriculum like the US has since NCLB. In fact the current way American students are taught runs counter to what good research has told us for many years. Corporations and businesses found a way to monetize schools for their own benefit, creating standards, standardized tests, and remedial materials, the incentives are to have failing students. But also, in questioning the high performing nations compared to the US on the NAPE, fails to mention that many nations only test a select number of students, while the US has a broader scope. Also income inequality affects student performance. I really admired a lot of what is said in this book, but in reading about civil servants and teachers, it’s obvious that the author adheres to old tropes and stereotypes rather than truth. I doubt his knowledge of civil service and education is very far removed and nor part of his regular life. They barely touch him and he is prone to stereotypes. His view of public higher education has a similar bent.
There’s a lot of good ideas in here and some that I found alarmingly wrong. Since the wrong alarmed me, I’ll address that. I’m Norplant sure where the author would end up on the income spectrum but I suspect on the high end. I’m a teacher and what this author said about them strikes me to the core. The author is clearly anti union and mentions it in several sections. Apparently while expressing concern over the income gap, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid need to be pared down. He mentions redoing the healthcare system which is very important. That democracy is probably better at dealing with COVID-19 and other pandemics than autocracies when they function properly. Agreed. But in education, the author knows little, he claims that the problem is bad teachers who need to be gotten rid of and teachers unions be ignored. He mentions high performing nations for education, Finland, South Korean, Japan, but not how he can to the the conclusion that they’re high performing (He’s using test scores on the NAPE, which he doesn’t explain or know?). He doesn’t mention the difference in the way teachers are treated and the curriculum the countries use, he decides that American teachers are bad and those teachers are good. He claims that that is the proof in student performance. In Finland, one of the highest performing nations, students aren’t subjected to rite standardized curriculum like the US has since NCLB. In fact the current way American students are taught runs counter to what good research has told us for many years. Corporations and businesses found a way to monetize schools for their own benefit, creating standards, standardized tests, and remedial materials, the incentives are to have failing students. But also, in questioning the high performing nations compared to the US on the NAPE, fails to mention that many nations only test a select number of students, while the US has a broader scope. Also income inequality affects student performance. I really admired a lot of what is said in this book, but in reading about civil servants and teachers, it’s obvious that the author adheres to old tropes and stereotypes rather than truth. I doubt his knowledge of civil service and education is very far removed and nor part of his regular life. They barely touch him and he is prone to stereotypes. His view of public higher education has a similar bent.
September 15, 2020
Expansive backgrounder and history primer, this book covers a lot of ground and the authors have managed to contextualise recent events in the broad sweep of history. No mean feat under present circumstances. Some good points and several home truths in there, but not so much in the way of practical, workable suggestions for solutions (all of which are focused on U.S. readers)
September 17, 2021
I am seriously thinking of learning more about the government.
December 26, 2020
The thesis of this book is an incredibly important one: that the West generally, and the US specifically, have a lot to learn from other democracies if their aim is truly to improve. It identifies three main areas of focus toward that end: basic modernization, luring "talented" people into government, and paring down the state's functions to those it does "well." The bias throughout the book, however, is a fairly right-leaning one, so the authors are forced to tapdance around several unpleasant realities of an efficiency-based model for statecraft. Their most strident and repeated criticisms, for example, are leveled at unions. Aside from the facile nature of the recommendations that frequently hamper purely economics-based solutions to human problems, the book is strongest at identifying the nature of some of the problems themselves, and for that reason alone, it's worth a read.
And I'd be remiss if I didn't comment on the editing lapses (legal "precedence" instead of "precedents," and even the word "why" in the title, which is more properly "how"). Coming from economists, those kind of linguistic errors aren't entirely surprising. But taking their book's advice at face value, you'd think they'd acknowledge that a more efficient model for book publishing would entail final review by a team of English majors. That oversight brings to mind a weakness of their other frequent lament: that better governments, like Singapore's, are dominated by engineers instead of by lawyers, as in the US. Interesting how they cannot see the potential downsides of civil service dominated only by scientists as opposed to people with backgrounds in the humanities and the law.
And I'd be remiss if I didn't comment on the editing lapses (legal "precedence" instead of "precedents," and even the word "why" in the title, which is more properly "how"). Coming from economists, those kind of linguistic errors aren't entirely surprising. But taking their book's advice at face value, you'd think they'd acknowledge that a more efficient model for book publishing would entail final review by a team of English majors. That oversight brings to mind a weakness of their other frequent lament: that better governments, like Singapore's, are dominated by engineers instead of by lawyers, as in the US. Interesting how they cannot see the potential downsides of civil service dominated only by scientists as opposed to people with backgrounds in the humanities and the law.
October 13, 2020
3.5 stars. Watching the world's response to the Covid-19 pandemic unfold from the southern end of Africa provided a different perspective on the matter. Being in a state where the public health sector has been under-resourced for decades and corruption expected, it was unexpected to see the West fail at its response. I appreciated the historical perspective on the development of government in the West which provided some useful context. The analysis of the government response is less complete given the time frame of the work. The policy proposals are a collection of some widely acceptable proposals that have been made over time to address the issues highlighted by the pandemic. Some of these are broadly applicable to most governments (government aimed at the most needy is not disputed), some more specific to the West. A useful overview at this point of the pandemic.
November 6, 2020
In "The Wake-Up Call", Micklethwait and Wooldridge examine the reasons why the global COVID-19 pandemic had a worse impact on the West than the Eastern countries. While this is an eloquent, well-written book with many cogent arguments, I did not see any Earth-shattering insights here : many of the perceived "weaknesses" of the West that are mentioned in the book have been discussed ad nauseam for decades; and many of the possible solutions set forth in the book have already been considered in different Western societies.
The authors' use of an imaginary, idealized US president ("Bill Lincoln") is creative and his roadmap to a more egalitarian Western society is mostly sound; but the success of the roadmap seems to be predicated on the very unlikely event of the US population somehow magically coming together and overcoming the social division that was the highlight of the 2020 election. I am afraid a mere global pandemic that killed only (!) several hundred thousand people will not be enough to unite the American people again. Perhaps what the West needs is a genuine "Sputnik moment", a seminal event event that will highlight the fact that the East is on the cusp of achieving technological and societal leadership at a global scope.
Until then, I hope more people take notice of the situation that the authors skillfully describe in this book; and think about how to overcome our societal division and get back on track to maintain the global leadership position that the West had enjoyed in the last few centuries. Highly recommended to anyone interested in global affairs.
The authors' use of an imaginary, idealized US president ("Bill Lincoln") is creative and his roadmap to a more egalitarian Western society is mostly sound; but the success of the roadmap seems to be predicated on the very unlikely event of the US population somehow magically coming together and overcoming the social division that was the highlight of the 2020 election. I am afraid a mere global pandemic that killed only (!) several hundred thousand people will not be enough to unite the American people again. Perhaps what the West needs is a genuine "Sputnik moment", a seminal event event that will highlight the fact that the East is on the cusp of achieving technological and societal leadership at a global scope.
Until then, I hope more people take notice of the situation that the authors skillfully describe in this book; and think about how to overcome our societal division and get back on track to maintain the global leadership position that the West had enjoyed in the last few centuries. Highly recommended to anyone interested in global affairs.
December 3, 2020
concise but very informative. starts with a history of the west (hello hobbes and locke) and popular thinkers at the time, then provides reasons to the west’s decline. uses the reasons and historical context for why the west failed to address covid quickly enough, and provides solutions.
lots of critical thinking, definitely did not absorb all of it. also kind of crazy to have a book already about covid!
lots of critical thinking, definitely did not absorb all of it. also kind of crazy to have a book already about covid!
January 18, 2021
A neighbor suggested I read this book and afterrwards meet to discuss it. I was suspect. But I ended up really liking the book. It made some very good points. Obviously in a very brief book (its only about 150 pages) I did not expect a lot of details. But I did feel it (at times) made some very sweeping generalization. All in all though I enjoyed it and I hope more people read it.
April 12, 2021
Really interesting.
April 25, 2023
Short, sharp shock to The West, with lessons from The East in how to move on in a post-Covid world. I wonder how much of it will be done...
October 18, 2020
Interesting little look at government in general, government in relation to the pandemic in particular and a call to arms for better government overall.
At around 160 pages it's short and feels like a sort of starting point. Some political history, some current observations and some recommendations, all concise.
Okay read.
At around 160 pages it's short and feels like a sort of starting point. Some political history, some current observations and some recommendations, all concise.
Okay read.
September 26, 2020
A good, short book that offers 13 policy proposals for how to reinvigorate Western democratic governance (especially in the USA) in light of how poorly such countries have failed with COVID. This core is draped by a bunch of more abstract discussion of the merits of liberal democracy vs. authoritarianism (incl. w. Chinese characteristics) and a redo of the authors' history of the 'three revolutions' in Western governance (i.e., the post-Westphalian nation-state, the liberal state, and then the welfare state).
The thirteen proposals:
1. Disaster preparedness. Stockpile medical equipment/devices; rejoin the WHO; get a lot more serious about cybersecurity/warfare; impose a federal carbon tax (while allowing individual states to raise it higher); use some of the proceeds to help coal miners etc. who lose their jobs. I'd also add: invest a lot more in clean energy R&D, esp. battery technology and distribution systems.
2. Protect and unite. Try to get guns off the streets by beefing up background checks and putting in place other laws that constitutionally limit access; end the Pentagon program of giving weapons to local police; require substantial training for all police; pass federal leg. requiring police disciplinary records can't be expunged mid-career (like they can now); deconstruct, not defund, the police by adding tailored support staff for mental illness, juvenile delinquents, etc.; find ways to reduce incarceration the state and local level; some fuzzy nonspecifics on helping minorities out of poverty.
3. Clear the fog. The president should commit to simplifying the annual budget so that (s)he could explain the whole thing at the SOTU. Get rid of accounting gimmicks.
4. Simplify, cut, modernize, sell. Reduce income tax rates and eliminate all tax expenditures; introduce free auto tax filing for the ~50m Americans who only have salary income; equalize tax rates for income and cap gains; add a modest VAT; introduce more sunset clauses into legislation so it has a 10 year horizon; get rid of the Dept of Agriculture; sell lots of federal land.
5. Stop subsidizing the rich and the old. Cut ethanol subsidies; cut the carried interest exception; means-test Social Security and increase the eligibility age to 70.
6. Fairer health care system. Basically make Medicare available to everyone; guarantee access to the poorest Americans; have at least a modest copay for all visits/procedures to avoid overcrowding; provide a small subsidy for private insurance (like 500 bucks a year per person).
7. Education. Add pre-k; add one year learning credit for Americans over 50. Some other boilerplate stuff to make K-12 work better.
8. Tech. Update government tech--no more insane legacy systems in fed gov depts. Also, invest to create a free/heavily subsidized national internet.
9. Go local. Devolve more power to mayors.
10. Reinvigorate talent. Increase the percentage of federal employees who are career civil servants (aka fewer political appointees); make ambassadorship based on merit; pay dept heads major salaries that equal what they could make in the private sector; pay scholarships to brilliant young people to let them go to elite universities for free in exchange for 5 years of gov't service after.
11. Nat'l service scheme--18 months nat'l service before age 25 for all Americans.
12. Make gov't dowdy--prez gotta live modestly.
13. Invest more in int'l alliances
The thirteen proposals:
1. Disaster preparedness. Stockpile medical equipment/devices; rejoin the WHO; get a lot more serious about cybersecurity/warfare; impose a federal carbon tax (while allowing individual states to raise it higher); use some of the proceeds to help coal miners etc. who lose their jobs. I'd also add: invest a lot more in clean energy R&D, esp. battery technology and distribution systems.
2. Protect and unite. Try to get guns off the streets by beefing up background checks and putting in place other laws that constitutionally limit access; end the Pentagon program of giving weapons to local police; require substantial training for all police; pass federal leg. requiring police disciplinary records can't be expunged mid-career (like they can now); deconstruct, not defund, the police by adding tailored support staff for mental illness, juvenile delinquents, etc.; find ways to reduce incarceration the state and local level; some fuzzy nonspecifics on helping minorities out of poverty.
3. Clear the fog. The president should commit to simplifying the annual budget so that (s)he could explain the whole thing at the SOTU. Get rid of accounting gimmicks.
4. Simplify, cut, modernize, sell. Reduce income tax rates and eliminate all tax expenditures; introduce free auto tax filing for the ~50m Americans who only have salary income; equalize tax rates for income and cap gains; add a modest VAT; introduce more sunset clauses into legislation so it has a 10 year horizon; get rid of the Dept of Agriculture; sell lots of federal land.
5. Stop subsidizing the rich and the old. Cut ethanol subsidies; cut the carried interest exception; means-test Social Security and increase the eligibility age to 70.
6. Fairer health care system. Basically make Medicare available to everyone; guarantee access to the poorest Americans; have at least a modest copay for all visits/procedures to avoid overcrowding; provide a small subsidy for private insurance (like 500 bucks a year per person).
7. Education. Add pre-k; add one year learning credit for Americans over 50. Some other boilerplate stuff to make K-12 work better.
8. Tech. Update government tech--no more insane legacy systems in fed gov depts. Also, invest to create a free/heavily subsidized national internet.
9. Go local. Devolve more power to mayors.
10. Reinvigorate talent. Increase the percentage of federal employees who are career civil servants (aka fewer political appointees); make ambassadorship based on merit; pay dept heads major salaries that equal what they could make in the private sector; pay scholarships to brilliant young people to let them go to elite universities for free in exchange for 5 years of gov't service after.
11. Nat'l service scheme--18 months nat'l service before age 25 for all Americans.
12. Make gov't dowdy--prez gotta live modestly.
13. Invest more in int'l alliances
June 6, 2021
Cartea abordează problema pandemiei, de la care însă se abate pentru a o privi dintr-o perspectivă mai largă, istorică chiar. Se vede aici contribuția lui Adrian Wooldridge, istoric la bază, care face o frumoasă incursiune în cele trei etape de dezvoltare ale statului: statul-națiune, statul-liberal și statul-bunăstării.
Altfel spus, actualitatea cărții este dublată de perspectiva istorică asupra situației în care ne aflăm, deoarece nu este nici pe de parte prima dată. Astfel, uitându-ne înapoi la experiența altor state și la evoluția lor istorică, ne putem da seama unde greșim și ce și cum putem repara.
Din acest punct de vedere, este o carte de istorie și chiar de teorie politică. Nu se oprește aici, fiind totodată pragmatică și, așa cum am zis mai sus, actuală. Se aduc în discuție filosofi precum Platon cu Republica sa, Hobbes cu Leviatanul, John Stuart Mill și mulți alții. Plecând de la teoriile acestora, se analizează starea actuală a lumii din punct de vedere al funcționării statului.
În toată această poveste, pandemia este elementul care declanșează nevoia unei astfel de analize. Altfel spus, problemele existau, evident, și înainte. Ce a făcut pandemia a fost să le evidențieze, determinându-ne să le acordăm mai multă atenție. De aceea, dincolo de dimensiunea sa istorică și teoretică, volumul este și cât se poate de practic. Spre finalul cărții devine și mai punctual, analizând problemele lumii și ale SUA în mod special și oferind totodată o serie de posibile remedii.
Recenzie completă aici -
Altfel spus, actualitatea cărții este dublată de perspectiva istorică asupra situației în care ne aflăm, deoarece nu este nici pe de parte prima dată. Astfel, uitându-ne înapoi la experiența altor state și la evoluția lor istorică, ne putem da seama unde greșim și ce și cum putem repara.
Din acest punct de vedere, este o carte de istorie și chiar de teorie politică. Nu se oprește aici, fiind totodată pragmatică și, așa cum am zis mai sus, actuală. Se aduc în discuție filosofi precum Platon cu Republica sa, Hobbes cu Leviatanul, John Stuart Mill și mulți alții. Plecând de la teoriile acestora, se analizează starea actuală a lumii din punct de vedere al funcționării statului.
În toată această poveste, pandemia este elementul care declanșează nevoia unei astfel de analize. Altfel spus, problemele existau, evident, și înainte. Ce a făcut pandemia a fost să le evidențieze, determinându-ne să le acordăm mai multă atenție. De aceea, dincolo de dimensiunea sa istorică și teoretică, volumul este și cât se poate de practic. Spre finalul cărții devine și mai punctual, analizând problemele lumii și ale SUA în mod special și oferind totodată o serie de posibile remedii.
Recenzie completă aici -
May 3, 2021
Lately, our political debate is about what government should do, and where it oversteps its role. “The Wakeup Call: Why the Pandemic Has Exposed the Weakness of the West, and How to Fix It� shifts the discussion to what government simply cannot do effectively.
While the title might make you think that the authors focus on what we learned since the coronavirus became a pandemic it only uses the situation as a focal point for their theories as to where western society has fallen behind.
Authors John Micklethwait, the editor in chief of Bloomberg News, and Adrian Wooldridge, a columnist for The Economist, compare how the West and Asian nations differ in their approach and response to challenges. They see only a few success stories in the Western World. (Germany, Switzerland, and Greece.). They find better results in Asia despite China’s early failures.
They make strong arguments. I was disappointed that they focused so little on what went wrong with handling the current pandemic, and so much on broader political philosophies.
MEMORABLE QUOTE:
If the United States, Europe, and Asia’s democracies were to negotiate with China as one, they would be an unstoppable force. The West’s collective failure to prevent China from breaking its promises in Hong Kong was another reminder of the weakness that disunity brings.
While the title might make you think that the authors focus on what we learned since the coronavirus became a pandemic it only uses the situation as a focal point for their theories as to where western society has fallen behind.
Authors John Micklethwait, the editor in chief of Bloomberg News, and Adrian Wooldridge, a columnist for The Economist, compare how the West and Asian nations differ in their approach and response to challenges. They see only a few success stories in the Western World. (Germany, Switzerland, and Greece.). They find better results in Asia despite China’s early failures.
They make strong arguments. I was disappointed that they focused so little on what went wrong with handling the current pandemic, and so much on broader political philosophies.
MEMORABLE QUOTE:
If the United States, Europe, and Asia’s democracies were to negotiate with China as one, they would be an unstoppable force. The West’s collective failure to prevent China from breaking its promises in Hong Kong was another reminder of the weakness that disunity brings.
September 19, 2022
Considering it is called the Wake up Call, the utter omission from the book of the silencing doctors and scientists all over the world, accused of spreading "misinformation", is a glaring fault. These eminent people who were censored by "fact checkers" with degrees in nothing but commerce or communication include Dr. Robert Malone, who basically invented the method used for the jabs, and my favorite among very many, Dr. Paul Marik, who early in the pandemic got together with other good doctors to develop effective treatments in this crisis. Far from being listened to, he lost his eminent position. Like many others. Medications he and others used were basically forbidden, despite being the least dangerous medications know to us. But had he been believed, the emergency authorization for the jab would not have gone through. While in the mainstream they kept using ventilators and remdesivir, both now known to kill more than help. Had we listened to the real doctors, the death toll would have been a lot less, and the toll on economy/psychology/education and freedoms likewise. THAT should be the wake up call. Even if the rest of what they say in the book is probably also noteworthy. So, not too many stars from me here.
January 28, 2021
This started out strong, ended kinda crazy - like a paper you wrote in university with all the diligence and research in the front and late night, caffeine-induced sprints of creative writing as you wrote the conclusion. There's a lot to think about, but this book in no way contains solutions - I'm not even sure it provides pathways, but what it does do is articulate a point of view that is important to understand. Government is bloated and many parts of it are not just ineffective, but unnecessary. Generations of solving problems by creating SOPs and departments - that part of the thesis is correct. How we govern in a crisis is NOT how we should govern in the long-term. That part is true as well. Should we aspire to be Singapore? Korea? Taiwan? Ummmm...no. We should aspire to be the best version of the United States of America, as we can be. We have to be able to trust government, and we don't right now. For good reasons.
October 12, 2020
A short book that summarizes critical theories of governing and juxtaposes them against the problems and crises facing western democratic governments as a result of Covid -19. It then poses the question, can the problems exposed by the pandemic in the US government, the United Kingdom and elsewhere be fixed? Unfortunately the authors fail to offer any novel solutions to reform democratic governments and solve these problems. Instead they rehash existing proposals, some of which have already been piloted in some jurisdictions with mixed results. This is disappointing for the reader who expected new innovative proposals rather than a rehash and regurgitation of proposals that have appeared elsewhere in different formats.
January 3, 2021
Smart skrevet bog om hvordan man gør vesten smartere og bedre. Ideen i bogen er, at covid er en test eller et wake-up call, som skal få os på mærkerne. De beskriver historien som de ser den og tydeliggør problemer og løsninger, som vi har gennemgået og ser på fremtiden. Fokus ligger på ændringer af staten og bureaukratiet, herunder sammenhængskraft mellem ledere og ledte.
Deres emne er enormt og de begrænser sig ikke ret meget, men bruger hele verden som deres case. Derfor har de god lejlighed til at plukke det, der passer med deres argument. Jeg synes dog, at de gør det godt uden at falde i for mange åbenlyse fælder.
Kan godt anbefales til mennesker, der har brug for inspiration til at gennemtænke ændringer, nok især hvis man er lidt til højre for midten politisk.
Deres emne er enormt og de begrænser sig ikke ret meget, men bruger hele verden som deres case. Derfor har de god lejlighed til at plukke det, der passer med deres argument. Jeg synes dog, at de gør det godt uden at falde i for mange åbenlyse fælder.
Kan godt anbefales til mennesker, der har brug for inspiration til at gennemtænke ændringer, nok især hvis man er lidt til højre for midten politisk.
January 28, 2025
Closer to a 3.5. Wild that this book is already outdated with regards to talking about covid and the current political climate in America. A quick read that gives you a lot to think about in how you view the government and it’s responsibilities (beyond its actions of being a spread-too-thin nuisance). If you’re learning about or reconsidering what duty people have to their governments (and in turn, their fellow citizens) and what the governments should be doing for their people in turn, this isn’t a bad place to start. The history goes pretty far back but stays pretty surface level, a pro for not getting too bogged down in the details and how they apply to the now, but a con in that I feel like I didn’t get the full picture a lot of the time. Not a bad way to kill a few hours though.
September 27, 2020
It’s a quick read and so I would recommend reading it - certainly the key chapters on the central point about the decline of government in Western democracies. However, the book has no depth or scholarship. It’s A level essay quality. To be fair it was written quickly and is of its moment rather than having any pretensions to being a great book. Its weaknesses include the lack of any objective analysis of quality on the issue it highlights and then the constant contradictions within it, including calling for a long term strategy and then suggesting some short term political manifesto ideas of the moment. But give it a read and judge for yourself.
January 14, 2021
What a brilliant long-form essay on how to shake up Western (mostly US and British) governance.
The highlights are Chapter 2 (a brief summary of modern political philosophy) and Chapter 4 (a recap of COVID up to the latter half of 2020.
Admittedly this is the first draft of COVID's history as it was still written before major changes have occurred (the vaccine, 2020 US Election etc), so it may not stand the test of time. For now, however, it is a necessary read by anyone in governance to energise the continuing stagnation and lack of innovation found within many of Britain and America's public services.
The highlights are Chapter 2 (a brief summary of modern political philosophy) and Chapter 4 (a recap of COVID up to the latter half of 2020.
Admittedly this is the first draft of COVID's history as it was still written before major changes have occurred (the vaccine, 2020 US Election etc), so it may not stand the test of time. For now, however, it is a necessary read by anyone in governance to energise the continuing stagnation and lack of innovation found within many of Britain and America's public services.
October 5, 2020
If only the enlightened governance John Micklethwait and Andrew Wooldridge argue for were more likely, or even possible. COVID provides a public policy league table and this book explains why the leaders are where they are. Good governance requires seriousness and self sacrifice not self interest. At the moment the populists treat government as entertainment. The final chapter on what can, could and should be done is simple and elegant but such common sense seems a distant possibility. Small steps though. Glad I read this and I’ll keep it on hand for reference.
May 24, 2021
This book begins with a quote from Lenin about how sometimes decades worth of events pass in weeks. The months since it was written have been filled with such weeks. Hence, for such a recent book, it already feels remarkably dated. Many of the events have been superceded. For example, it predates the vaccine roll-out, which raises questions about its assessment of which countries have handled Covid best.
This leaves the book feeling most valuable as a window into the mindset of a distant past that was only last year.
This leaves the book feeling most valuable as a window into the mindset of a distant past that was only last year.
October 18, 2021
Den er meget holdningsbaseret, men giver et historisk kig på hvordan stater og regeringer har været drevet, og hvilke ting der med fordel ville kunne overføres til nutiden. Den handler om hvordan pandemien har vist hvor sårbare de forskellige samfundsstrukturer er, og hvordan man burde lære noget mere af hinanden.
En interessant bog der sætter tanker igang om hvor håbløst hvor tids politiske magtspil er i forhold til rent faktisk at skabe struktur, simplicitet og fremgang i vores da samfund både lokalt, regionalt og globalt.
En interessant bog der sætter tanker igang om hvor håbløst hvor tids politiske magtspil er i forhold til rent faktisk at skabe struktur, simplicitet og fremgang i vores da samfund både lokalt, regionalt og globalt.
September 27, 2020
This is just such a fascinating book and whether or not you agree with the authors' conclusions, it most certainly makes you think about where we are heading. I expected it to be a depressive read but found it full of hope. However, I think it should be compulsory reading for everyone that has an interest in politics and at any level. I think it reinforces the fact that power corrupts and that corruption is a source of most of current problems.
November 24, 2020
A thought-provoking, quick, and timely synopsis of the success and failures of modern government theory told through the prism of the global responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. Touching on many subjects and explanations for why the West's response was lackluster compared to the East's, the authors conclude by presenting numerous suggestions for modernizing governments by masterfully weaving together historical learnings.
February 8, 2022
Executive summary type book discussing why Western governments did poorly during the COVID crisis and what can be done to better prepared. The book recognizes that the current crisis is merely a symptom of underlying problems. And it doesn't argue for larger government, but better government that is more focused. It also notes that while some autocratic governments performed well, many did not so a more dictatorial approach is not in the cards.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.