Fareed Zakaria on ‘Age of Revolutions’ and the lessons of history for today
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 03. 2024
- Fareed Zakaria, a CNN host, a Washington Post columnist and a veteran foreign policy observer, has written a new book that examines how revolutions - past and present - often provoke backlash. Zakaria joins Post columnist Max Boot to discuss his book, “Age of Revolutions” and the lessons history holds for today.
Washington Post Live is the newsroom’s live journalism platform, featuring interviews with top-level government officials, business leaders, cultural influencers and emerging voices on the most pressing issues driving the news cycle nationally and across the globe. From one-on-one, newsmaker interviews to in-depth multi-segment programs, Washington Post Live brings The Post’s newsroom to life on stage. Subscribe to The Washington Post on CZcams: wapo.st/2QOdcqK
Follow us:
Twitter: / washingtonpost
Instagram: / washingtonpost
Facebook: / washingtonpost
Thank you, Fareed, for setting off a "revolution" in my head. Now the "Glorious Revolution" in 1688 in Britain makes complete sense The power of the monarchy had to be limited and controlled by the people, to allow Britain to become preeminent in the world, until its child, the United States, took over, and dispensed with monarchy. You demonstrate why the United States has been so successful. As an immigrant from India, you contributed your intellect to your adopted country!
This is fascinating discourse and brings to light the recurring role of identity in the US. While much of Zaharia's apologia, particularly in the international arena, is sound, his assertions on domestic US history are often reductive and specious. At 20:42, Boot summarizes Zakaria's treatise that the recent surge in identity politics was largely engendered by the accretion of the middle class, where an unprecedented satisfaction in material goods allowed people time to translate their political identities from class to race.
In his response to Boot's statement, Zakaria agrees and describes "women, blacks, and hispanics" as groups who found time to focus around their identities mid-20th-century due to the middle class emergence. The fact is there has not been a moment in US history when those cohorts did not have to think of themselves in terms of identity simply because the socio-political structure of the nation from its inception gave them no choice. As much as the right-wing disparages the left for identity politics, this nation was founded on identity politics from the 3/5's clause of the Constitution down to every laws that restrained blacks from full participation as citizens, which were not addressed adequately until the mid-1960s. Women did not have the vote until 1923. No one has been the author and implementer of identity politics better than white male elites over the vast majority of this nation's history.
If anything precipitated the focused and efficacious fight for civil rights in this nation, it was the advent of broadcast media. When the brutal suppression of protestors for civil rights in Birmingham, AL was broadcast around the world, it was one of the most empowering moments for the nation's advancement in civil rights. It was also one of the most embarrassing for a post WWII US that found itself competing on the world stage for alignment by emerging former colonies against a communist competitor. But both the protest and the suppression on display in the US were built on the identity politics that had been conceived and enabled since 1787.
Zakaria has a reasonable argument to make in noting the emergence of identity surpassing economic interests these days. But this is not the first time that this has happened nor is it a recent phenomenon. WEB DuBois lamented often over the failure of economically disadvantaged whites and freed slaves to find common cause in their economic struggle during and post-Reconstruction. Identity politics were too embedded to allow that to happen more than 100 years before today's right-wing started acting as if the construct was some recent liberal concoction.
The best of what Zakaria offers is his analysis is in the foreign context. If it is a "lens of history" through which Zakaria is trying to explain today, then based on his explanation of US history he proves that hindsight is not always 20-20.
Thank you for the video. I'm a bit surprised there's an admission by Fareed that he doesn't understand why this struggle hasn't faded out. It would have been worthwhile to dig a little deeper and attempt to find why half the country feels the way it does politically, socially, economically. A revolution has two sides.
Not sure how you can discuss the growing disaffection in democracies without putting the inevitable effects of neoliberal policies front and center. Weakening of state power and social protections, huge wealth inequality, and a power shift from governments to corporations.
The west always conflates capitalism with democracy - when in fact the two do not mix well. End of history thesis was undermined because capitalism was allowed to ran rampant and contained and undermined democracy- that's the source of the backlash. These two guys miss this key fact.
Because fareed is that standard bearer of neo-liberalism
@@RPSartre01this is relevant. Fukuyama misled a lot of people. The end of history is flawed, he didn't see the rise of Islam since 9.11, the wars in the middle east which is a backlash against capitalism at the core. Russia, China, Saudi Arabia are more capitalistic than America, no democracies. Fareed zakaria is stucked in Clintonomics!
@@g1y3true.
@@RPSartre01 Absolutely. These guys live in a bubble!
A great discussion, can't wait to read the book!
Excellent memory.
I agree about the importance of the Netherlands but it did not happen in a void. Before that there was the rennaissance and the Italian city states, their innovations in banking and trade, there was burgundy and the northern rennaissance, Bruges and Ghent, the opening of trading routes by the Portuguese, and the German reformation. Without these thre would not have been the Dutch.
Yes, absolutely. And since Fareed is talking about revolutions, your point is even more important because all revolutions have major events that lead up to.
Thank you
Wow wow wow. Brilliant.
Really insightful!
I would add the "American Dream" as an additional factor, It is produces record breaking success in both good and bad
Wow!! Very informative. I would never have guessed Nederland was/is such a great power. I love to visit Holland, but now I can look at its Citizens with increased awe
They were an empire, meaning the had colonies. They did some messed up things in Indonesia.
They are also one of the key powers in the chips industry and the international trade conflict that is currently taking place with China.
For proof that Netherlands were the first, remember there was also a boom and bust economy in the tulips market! The housing bust in 2008 was compared to the tulip market in the 1700's.
Venice and Florence were the first merchant Republic in Europe, not Dutch.
Venice and Genoa*
@@craserx6267 Florence (and most of northern Italian cities) were under direct Pope control. The Pope basically let the top 100 tax payers in Florence (and other cities) form a council to rule themselves. This is well documented in Dante's life, for example.
@@ericchang9568 True, but only venice and genoa were merchant republics.
@@craserx6267 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Florence
Thanks for the candid discussion. I have been a regular reader of WaPo column and CNN GPS. I think that the problem is deeper. It is a political philosophy problem.
Such a good discussion with a moderate view point. Both the left and right have valid concerns. It is good to see a balanced discussion.
Exactly
Great question from someone who would know from experience.
Conservatism always defends existing wealth and power against change. So the fact that pre-industrial conservatives defended land ownership and monarchy as the foundation of the economy and now they defend capital and industry is not contradictory. Whoever holds the wealth and power is conservative (ie: don't change anything), whereas a liberal philosophy is to promote change and new ideas, even when it might occasionally wander into being nonsensically utopian.
Conservatism is not "don't change anything." It has to do with conserve. Conserve what is valuable. Like the proverbial fence found in the field. The progressive says 'tear it down.' The conservative should ( I mean it, should) first see where the value is, if any , in the fence and which purpose it serves before making the change. Granted, that is a 'best case' description, but it is the standard against which to judge.
As an immigrant, I also love America, my adopted spiritual home. I trust the innate sense of decency of Americans to stand on the side of democracy and personal freedoms, and reject Trumpism and its reactionary cult worship of an amoral leader.
The book is very expensive for Indian readers as seen from Amazon.
Please get an Indian edition..
At 25:00
🤯
Great conversation.
Superb conversation! Tariq Nails the USA's critical Post-Modern vs Traditional/MAGA family cult predicament head-on.
Looking forward to your book with me . There may be more books of study of History on wide sweep, I have been impressed by Amitav Ghosh on various stories about globalisation, which went with industrial revolution, imperialism domination and so on . On the whole despite these the humanity has gained.
Now we are in most creative period of history that all can be well and happy. Only I hope we can take the way of pursuation and shun fighting.
We are just an insignificant pale blue dot and must take everyone togather.
We have not done so bad .
Hopefully wishful thinking.
I think you miss an important point…maybe you will discuss it later, but… the strength of the stock market is not a realistic reflection of the strength of the economy of the millions of average Americans who do not own stock, and who are struggling from paycheck to paycheck. That is the point that is not taken into consideration when we talk about public dissatisfaction. I’m a lifeline progressive, and I supported Obama, but the bail out of banks, when tens thousands of people lost their homes with no help was provided to them certainly feeds this dissatisfaction. Now we see millions of people, disaffected by the Biden administrations slow response to the death of tens of thousands of Palestinians, my current dissatisfaction as well. Dems have to do better, and address these issues in a meaningful way.
Agree 💯 note: Zarkaria's discussion with Suleyman, (Microsoft pres of AI) addresses artificial intelligence. His discussion with Max Boot is journalistic in style. His interview at the Harvard Bookstore addresses this question of the poor extensively.
📍22:35
👌
2📍17:45
3📍19:36
I am so unease!
Speak for Gazah
Is this a conscious homage to Hobsbawm?
Without exploitation of raw materials from former european colonies, industralization wouldn't have proceeded.
He discusses this in his book. It didn't come up in this discussion with Max Boot. It figures prominently in the interview with Mustada Suleyman at the Commonwealth Club.
I absolutely love Mr. Zakaria!! Not a TV guy-music-tho the 2 shows I do watch, w/o fail, are Jeopardy! & GPS Sunday am’s
Support sharia law in america
Support human rights in america
Remeber Michelle Bachman?
Fareed was all in on the Iraq war , he even promoted it !
The Dutch draining the fens caused an agricultural revolution in East Anglia that led to the English Civil war. The goals of the New Model Army were the supremacy of parliament and the reform of the Church of England.
He still measures a country's success in terms of GDP...
Where stands humanity today?😢
Did he say “We should have spent more on the ‘losers’”??? (19:20) Yikes…
I find his analyses interesting but I think he underestimates the trouble that America is in, and the legacy of slavery/failure to make reparations, has had on their society. Add to this continued racism, inequality, poor social safety nets and supports, violence and gun non control, poor rates of higher education…there are so many underlying issues contributing to the societal unrest in the U.S.
He does identify the inconsistencies with idealizing Scandinavia for their social support system, and believing that this alone is the solution for a happy, balanced society. Scandinavia does have a rather non diverse population, and seems to have its own share of racism and right wing politics.
He seems to ignore a much closer comparator nation - Canada.
Canada isn’t perfect, and we have a long way to go in making reparations and reconciliation with our indigenous peoples, but you’re hard pressed to find a safer or better quality of life, and while we do have some rise in populism, however it seems mild in comparison to most other countries. We have a large diverse population, increasingly so, and we seem to be avoiding the “backlash” for the most part, so far.
Suggest you listen to additional interviews and not regard this one as the only one. He addresses all of your points. Through interview with Mustafa Suleuman (Microsoft president of AI) he addresses artificial intelligence. In an interview at Harvard Bookstore he addresses all the points you make.
Without general agreement documents clear for any others not rights
The best part was Fareed admitting that they don’t understand what is going on, rest of the conversation was data to prove it.
I could not really get much from the 1688 topics and the Dutch. I will have to get to that again. The interview was clouded by TDS jabs that repeatedly sounded elitist.
The two sound to me to be immensely out of touch with not only what Americans in 'fly over country think but also with what so very many on the coasts and of course many, many, many black Americans or African Americans and Americans of Spanish-speaking descent think about who the 'danger to democracy' really is. The diagnosis of what has developed in this century seems diametrically opposed to what discussions about the hopes and expectations of grassroots Americans have in connection with a Trump victory. Conservatives want progress, but it is the like the proverbial conservative response to finding a fence in a field- the first reaction is not to 'progressively criticize it or tear it down' (the Marxust critical theory way, Horkheimer, 1937, on traditional and critical theory; Marcuse on Repressive Tolerance, 1960s, etc.). It is to ask why and even argue (in the sense of bringing propositional statements to dispute and exchange on) as to why it might be there in the first place and to understand the thoughts about the purpose it serves
No thank you, Mr. Zakaria. Talking to Americans who have not drunk the progressive narrative Kool-Aid show that elitist technocrats are in an echo chamber and have it wrong in thinking we have to do away with democracy to save democracy - by restraining free speech, bringing indoctrination into schools, promoting reracialization with DEI, by grooming and promoting gender confusion (remember the fence analogy above). In a few words - Cultural Marxism, Critical theory.
Marxists are good at tearing things down. Granted.
And to say a throwback to the 1950s is sought by conservatives sounds ridiculous. Parental rights? Yes. But the way progressives throw around disparaging descriptions of those who respect looking at traditions and trying to understand their value before 'chucking them' sounds so very condescending, unreflective, uneducated, ideological.
Looking at the way Executive Orders have been used in the current administration (Biden) and how the administration repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats white supremacy, MAGA, Fascists, Deplorables, and other name calling without data seems to scream as to who the albeit perhaps 'soft totalitarians are here. I am immensely disappointed as someone who used to watch CNN.
Why start off taking shots at Trump as 'unhinged'? MAGA, etc. oh yeah, of course there is no guilt to be placed on cultural Marxism, critical theory, and their influence in education /indoctrination. It the elites that seem to act in a patronizing manner toward minorities, seem to want to do away with merit-based achievement to pander to a certain voting group as long as they retain power.
Now I will listen again and hope to have ears to hear about the book contents
Love that you will listen again!! Also suggest you listen to other interviews with Zarkaria. One with Mustafa Suleyman focuses on AI (of course). And one at Harvard Bookstore addresses your points. 😊
He’s quoting Sharma? Great guy but no historian .
Energy power technology digital ecosystem research of general scientific climate change global trade value chain order from international court justice south Africa United nations related finishing COUNTRIES controlling general scientific globally peace
I think this lack of vision, of common purpose that are realistic and tangible from the left is partly to blame. Like Mr Zaharia said: we are mostly past the phase of basic needs. But what’s next? Mr Mearsheimer points out that there is no consensus about what is a “good life”. Donald Trump suggests a version of good life. This idea by liberals of an egalitarian society is not the solution. It is not measurable. It is against human nature. I think humans have an innate drive to excel. This is not to say we don’t collaborate but this idea you cant do better and I can’t do worse are not collaboration.
“What is a good life?” - do we want someone else to tell us that or do we each want to choose/evaluate ourselves? the “good” life Trump, Xi, Putin or Kim would give is conditional on the complete obedience to the dictator. there is no freedom of expression or speech. everyone is supposed to exist for the good of the dictator, regardless of whatever costs to the society and it’s fellow citizens. we are born in a place and time to be a human and individual. Why would anyone want to be a dog for a corrupt dictator if you have a choice?
@@loskotas0403 Exactly. Why you choose one leader and call another choice a dictator? As an individual, everyone chooses. Who is to judge the others’ choice?
Dutch are also know as worst colonists with their cruel ways, may be they amassed wealth,but they lacked Humanity,nothing to be in Awe with.....lots of darkness there!
What a fool. He starts by praising the Netherlands rise because of decentralization, commerce and capitalism. But yet he is a leftist, and says stupid things like "yes, we should have distributed more".
Very Eurocentric view of the world ..does not take into account how advanced china, Indian sub continent and Islamic states/ ottomans were prior to Industrial Revolution
Asking a radical Islamist Muslim to speak against Obama 😅
God bless you sister