The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Revised Edition) |  | Author: Fareed Zakaria
Publisher: W.W. Norton & Co.
List Price: $15.95
Buy Used: $4.99
as of 11/22/2009 22:48 CST details
You Save: $10.96 (69%)
New (45) Used (45) from $4.99
Seller: Best-Seller-Books
Rating:  145 reviews
Sales Rank: 53636
Media: Paperback
Edition: Revised Edition
Pages: 304
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.5
Dimensions (in): 8 x 5.5 x 0.8
ISBN: 0393331520
Dewey Decimal Number: 321.8
EAN: 9780393331523
ASIN: 0393331520
Publication Date: October 17, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
âA work of tremendous originality and insight. ... Makes you see the world differently.ââWashington Post A modern classic that uses historical analysis to shed light on the present, The Future of Freedom is, as the Chicago Tribune put it, "essential reading for anyone worried about the promotion and preservation of liberty." Hailed by the New York Times as "brave and ambitious...updated Tocqueville," it enjoyed extended stays on the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post bestseller lists and has been translated into eighteen languages. Prescient in laying out the distinction between democracy and liberty, the book now contains a new afterword on the United States's occupation of Iraq. "Intensely provocative and valuable," according to BusinessWeek, with an easy command of history, philosophy, and current affairs, The Future of Freedom calls for a restoration of the balance between liberty and democracy and shows how politics and government can be made effective and relevant for our time. This new edition includes a new afterword on America in Iraq. .
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 145
 Un-Insightful Musings from a Powerless Fantasy Thinker November 17, 2009
Patrick Mastrola
This well worded yet soft ranting of a foreign journalist, or should I say Newsweek editor, brings nothing new to the real world except left-leaning, American-bashing ideals masked in a calculated style to win over the weak of mind. His arguments are only correct as long as no real world supporters of our American Republic are able to challenge his diatribe of distain for America's 233 years of growth and leadership. If you drink his Euro-Kool-Aid ideals, then this book is for you. If you believe America is still a Beacon of leadership and hope, then you will have little tolerance for his thoughtful wining.
Is the USA thinking and direction correct at every turn? Of course not yet, because of our willful ways of individual rights and opportunities, our Free Nation is by far the most advanced, prosperous AND compassionate country, when measured against any other. He writes and argues well, but like too many "thinkers" he'd fail greatly at most tangible jobs if he actually had to design, build or grow a real company. Invest your book money in another direction unless you want to get hired as an intern for MSNBC.
 average book October 27, 2009
Thamanjimmy (Jacksonville, Florida)
I agree with his title, however, he fails to show the true evidence of how America is both illiberal at home and abroad. What about the system of taxes, medicare, social security, etc.? What about our rights to "speech," "contracts," and arms?
Decent history account and I enjoyed the insight on India and democracy.
 Let them eat freedom October 17, 2009
Ashtar Command (Stockholm, Sweden)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Fareed Zakaria's book is a pro-establishment look at globalization and its consequences. In contrast to Amy Chua (see my review of her book "World on Fire"), Zakaria isn't even mildly critical of globalization. On the contrary, he supports it to the hilt, from a very self-consciously establishmentarian, even "bourgeois" standpoint. At one point, he exclaims: "Without a bourgeoisie, no democracy". Unfortunately for Zakaria, not everyone agrees. In nation after nation, democracy has been used to vote in populist and vaguely left-leaning governments. In other words, governments which may threaten the gains made by the globalist "bourgeoisie".
What should the American establishment do to stop this? That's the real point under debate in "The future of freedom". Of course, Zakaria doesn't quite put it that way. Instead, he begins by pointing out that "democracy" and "freedom" aren't necessarily synonymous. This, of course, is true. The Nazis used the democratic process to take power in Germany. Hamas is a popularly elected government. Russia has democracy, but very little "freedom". Zakaria calls such a state of affairs "illiberal democracy". But what exactly does Zakaria mean by "freedom"? While he mentions equality before the law or an independent judiciary, what he really wants is protection of private property.
This explains the tendentious character of the author's analysis. He supports dictatorships which carry out market reforms, claiming that these will eventually turn into stable, liberal democracies: South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, Chile and even mainland China. He doesn't mention obvious counterexamples. Indonesia carried out market reforms long before it became a democracy, yet its democracy is highly unstable. (Recent events show that Thailand is unstable, as well.) Nor does he mention the salient fact that it was the protests of the people that forced some of these nations to democratize. South Korea comes to mind. Further, most of the "illiberal democracies" mentioned by Zakaria turn out to be threats to globalization or American hegemony: Russia, Belarus, Venezuela, Zimbabwe. He doesn't consider pro-globalist democracies such as the Philippines to be "illiberal". Yet, it's difficult to see how a poor Filipino can possibly have "freedom". To Zakaria, "freedom" really means freedom for global multi-nationals and local market-dominant minorities to protect their private property. (In an afterword to the new edition, he suddenly waxes more positive about Russia. Why? The only reason I can think of is that he wants détente between Russia and the US, and actually thinks it might work. In reality, of course, Russia is even more "illiberal" today than when Putin came to power!)
The real agenda of the book is also revealed when Zakaria discusses the present state of US democracy. Zakaria wants to go back to the situation as it looked like about 60 years ago: powerful congressional committees, deliberations behind closed doors, no referenda, no primary elections, real political parties with real leaderships, etc. When discussing "checks and balances", he mentions NGO's and civil society as an important check and balance, but he considers the business community to be a part of civil society! Further, he wants potentially unpopular decisions to be taken out of the hands of elected politicians altogether, in much the same way as the Federal Reserve is already making important decisions about the economy all by itself. The point of all this, he wants us to believe, is to break the power of lobby groups and special interests, make politicians more responsible, and put some real leadership back in Washington, DC.
That's what they always say, isn't it?
Now, I don't deny that there is a grain of truth in all this: "direct" democracy isn't always the best form of government (even Switzerland has a Supreme Court), many of the lobby groups are unsavoury, and referendum campaigns are often manipulated by elite groups. This, however, is not really the author's point. Why does he mention the business community as a necessary "check and balance", while condemning labour unions as a "special interest"? Why indeed...
What Zakaria really wants is a more streamlined form of "bourgeois" democracy, in which the guys on top (from Groton?) can feel relatively secure from labour unions and other forms of unwanted popular pressure, while safeguarding the sacred right of "private property" (in reality, the power of the banks and multi-nationals). This also explains why he is positive to outright dictators, such as Pinochet, Chiang Kai-shek or even Deng Xiaoping, provided that they "liberalize" the economy, while waxing indignant over democratically elected leaders who take the opposite course.
The people want bread. To all extent and purposes, Fareed Zakaria wants them to eat freedom.
 OUTSTANDING September 22, 2009
T. L. Allen (Albuquerque, NM)
I could NOT put this book down when I read it on a plane in Indonesia. I was handed this book by someone I was traveling with and could not put it down until I was done. I bought several copies and handed them on to friends. Great book.
Thoroughly Interesting August 27, 2009
J. Stanford (Denver, CO)
Per usual Zakaria delivers an excellent insight into the shaping of liberty through the ages. He quickly removes the birth of liberty from Greece and gives it to the Romans who really began rule of law.
As a college student this book was perfect for discussing the importance of constitutional liberty and a brief history of Western Democracy.
I would have liked to see more discussion of US politics currently including a revised edition that tackles the Obama era. Great book.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 145
|
|
|
|
