Not really. Just kidding. I think Zakaria is a bright, thoughtful fellow, he is much more knowledgeable about many things than I am, and I am one of his biggest fans.
I just needed a controversial post title to grab your attention.
Per the assigned book review for this quarter, I generally see that students like, in general agree with and find comfort in the overall theme and premise of his book, The Post American World. No problem there.
I am sometimes surprised by how his arguments also sometimes seem to be given a free pass and the benefit of the doubt. On this note, see, for example, this WSJ article, Multilateralism Cuts Both Ways.
Said article, in my view, highlights one of the main weaknesses with the Zakaria and his argument for us “all to just get along.” This article is right to point out, and it is perfectly fair to highlight, that now that Bush and Cheney are gone, the rest of the world don’t have their softball easy targets and big bad bogeymen to attack and use to criticize America for their own unwillingness to “man-up” on difficult geopolitical problems and challenges, and they will now have to get in the game and put their money and own budgets where their mouth is.
Your thoughts?
Relatedly, see this WSJ article, Auction Bidder Protests Looting by Refusing to Pay, about a Chinese art collector who was the successful bidder on some Chinese art at a Christie’s art sale in France, but then refused to pay because he wanted to kill the buy-sell process as an act of political protest. While some would say this is admirable, for me, it highlights a facet of China’s growing (understandable) patriotism and confidence (this also relates to some of our other predepature readings). But more importantly for the purposes of this post, it also highlights China’s ongoing national schizophrenia and paranoia. To wit, one day the CCP and a percentage of its Chinese citizens may claim to be victims of past historical and colonial injustices (for those familiar with recent Chinese history you know the various historical events to which I refer) and they want some form of payback or recognition for those past wrongs, and then the next day they want respect but don’t want to be held to the same international and rule of law standards that the rest of us big boys have to play by (e.g., China had its day in court on the pieces of art at issue and lost).
The argument being that if one wants to be a true global power that is given respect and accolades, said country can’t have it both ways. This too, in my view, is where Zakaria’s books falls short — it does not take this flip flopping by other countries into account (e.g., France, anyone?). He only focuses on the flip-flopping of the USA.
Your thoughts?
And again, for the record, I really am a Zakaria fan. He is a very sharp dude and from what I hear, an even nicer person.
I was running at the gym a few days ago when Zakaria appeared on CNN. In 0.2 seconds flat I unplugged my ipod and was attentively listening in. I chuckled to myself… “wow, I would have NEVER done that a year ago”.
They talked about how Obama had been photographed reading the Post American World during the campaign (the same picture I posted months ago… catch up CNN!) and how empowering it must be for Zakaria to know the president is reading his book.
On the gullibility of students… here’s what I think: we’re taught by teachers to trust books, text books particularly. So in reading the Post American World, my first book review in years as opposed to a book report, out of programming I trusted Zakaria. I read it like a text book. Especially because I am certain Zakaria has much more global knowledge and intelligence all together than myself, someone who has just started learning about business a year or so ago. How could I read something this brilliant man wrote and say…. “no, you’re wrong.”??
Although he may have gone over the top on a few things, he has made quite the impact with his words, just as Dr. Carr did with the title of this post. He grabbed our attention with something that may have truthful undertones (I too clearly am a Zakaria fan though) yet in its entirety, the statement can be examined under a microscope.
So, even if Zakaria was off on a few points, he still shifted the way many of us view global politics… to which I say, a job well done.
How dare you attack Zakaria! After all, he and I are Facebook friends…
I disagree with the idea that the overtone of Zakaria’s book is that we all need to “just get along.” Rather, it seemed that Zakaria was pushing for America to serve in the multi-lateral role that Obama is now playing. It’s definitely true that our foreign allies used Bush/Cheney as a reason to shirk from their international obligations, but my takeaway from the book were that as America’s economic power shifts to China/India, we need to use our soft power to provide leadership to the world. That certainly doesn’t mean pandering to the crowd, but it does mean consensus-building on an international level….something that our Republican cowboys never did.
And while it is true that the world is still cooing over Obama, I’m glad that he’s turning to some of our lamer allies and finally trying to get them to “pony up.” I think it’s a great lesson in delegation/communication: if you keep trying to do everything yourself without involving others, you’ll end up doing everything yourself without anyone else involved.
I’m reading The Opium Wars for my Spring book report, and one of the reoccurring themes of the book is the unyielding arrogance of both the Chinese and the British. The pride and greed of both nations seems to drive the conflict more than anything else, and the Opium Wars themselves represent the shift in power away from the Chinese over to the British. Zakaria’s book, on the other hand, deals with the shift in power away from the US over to the Chinese (and Indians, to some extent). Zakaria addresses America’s pride, and whether we will be gracious as our hard economic power slips away. And I agree with Dr. Carr that the Chinese have had some pretty atrocious things done to them (especially during the Opium Wars), and as their power continues to RISE, how will they act? Will they be gracious with their new power, or will they become paranoid international jerks?
Zakiria is someone that could possibly be considered an expert in his field. It is common for people to fail to think critically when reading or listening to an expert. Here is a link to an interesting TED talk that speaks about our critical thinking regarding experts. The speaker notes that we are prone to shut off our brain when listening to someone we think is an expert.
http://www.ted.com/talks/noreena_hertz_how_to_use_experts_and_when_not_to.html