Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pundit suggests Fareed Zakaria could be a good candidate for Secretary of State
New York Magazine (online Metro) ^ | April 21, 2003 | Marion Maneker

Posted on 04/26/2003 12:48:35 AM PDT by risk

Man of the World

Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria has the perfect intellectual pedigree (Indian-born, educated at Harvard, conservative) for a fast-changing world, and the kinds of friends in high places who can push a career into overdrive. The first Muslim secretary of State? Don’t bet against it.

By Marion Maneker

“‘My friends all say i’m going to be Secretary of State,” fareed Zakaria muses from a banquette in the Grill Room at The Four Seasons. “But I don’t see how that would be much different from the job I have now.”

The 39-year-old Newsweek foreign-affairs columnist is about to expand on this thought. But then Donald Marron, the former CEO of PaineWebber, walks over with Ken Duberstein, the former Reagan lieutenant, in tow. Cordial and courtly, Zakaria charms the two elder lions before picking up the thread of conversation. He’s not boasting. He’s comparing the core requirements of his job as a columnist—boning up on policy positions, balancing competing points of view, then making a clear, stick-out-your-neck decision—to the job of running the State Department.

Would he want the job? Before he can answer, Mort Zuckerman, who’s been having lunch with Ed Kosner, the editor of Zuckerman’s Daily News, heaves into view. Zuckerman praises the young man genuinely, then moves on. But a few feet away, at the top of the restaurant’s stairs, the real-estate developer and media dabbler stops to examine a blowup of the cover of Cosmopolitan, directing guests to an advertiser’s lunch in the Pool Room next door. Zuckerman considers the voluptuous model who seems to be staring at Zakaria with a smoldering look, then delivers his punch line: “This guy’s so hot even the cover girl wants to meet him.”

Fareed Zakaria may not be a sex symbol yet—or on anyone’s shortlist for secretary of State either (at least not this decade). But since 9/11, when he wrote a defining piece on the meaning of the terror attacks, he’s become one of the more influential and original voices on American foreign policy and politics. He’s an Indian-born, Yale- and Harvard-educated Muslim who moves easily between Condoleezza Rice and Pervez Musharraf, Tony Blair and Prince Turki Al-Faisal. He’s a conservative who is willing to question one of the most cherished principles of the West—democracy—but also a naturalized citizen who believes in America’s world-historical mission. And this week, he publishes The Future of Freedom, a contrarian book that mixes history and political analysis to make a case that individual liberty, not democracy, is the prerequisite for a nation’s economic and political growth. This just as the country wraps up a war to bring democracy to Iraq.

Dimple-chinned, with expressive eyebrows and a thick head of black hair, Fareed Zakaria could easily be the Indian reincarnation of Cary Grant. Certainly his manner is just as silky and unflappable. “I grew up in this world where everything seemed possible,” Zakaria says of his childhood in Bombay. Zakaria’s father, a leading politician, and his mother, who edited the Sunday Times of India, “knew everybody,” Zakaria says. “We saw the best architects, government officials, and poets all the time. Nothing seemed out of your reach.”

We all know the solution is the Clinton solution. There's a light at the end of the tunnel; there's just no tunnel. Nothing's going to happen until the U.S. presses the issue.

“There is no one in that family who is comfortable being ignored,” says Gideon Rose, a friend since college. That would include Fareed’s brother, Arshad, now the head of investment banking at Merrill Lynch.

Although they were practicing Muslims, the Zakarias shared the original Indian ideal of a secular modern republic—which tended to begin with a vigorous immersion in British culture. At the brothers’ school, each day started with Christian hymns. “I probably know the Book of Common Prayer,” he says, “better than most Anglicans.” Progressive India needed engineers, and the education system encouraged the most promising students to study math and the sciences. “The smart kids did science,” Zakaria says, “the rich kids did economics, and the girls did humanities.”

But when it came to college, Zakaria chose America, not Britain—“Culture follows power,” he says—and discovered that politics, not science, was his calling. At Yale, Zakaria joined the Political Union, “which was this bunch of nerdy politicos who’d stay up until four in the morning talking about whether or not Nixon should have imposed wage controls,” he says. Unable to let the subject pass, he adds: “The answer was, obviously not.”

The art historian John Berger coined the term vertical invader to describe the powerful force of Picasso’s talent on Parisian painting. Zakaria, too, was something of a vertical invader. “I would try to go head-to-head with anybody on whatever—Hegel, Kierkegaard, Metternich, Bismarck—whatever people wanted,” he recalls. “But I did have this whole other thing that I could also do: Nehru, Gandhi, and the Mogul Empire.”

Zakaria became a conservative, he says, from observing the Indian state. “People often say, ‘How could you, living in India, end up a Reaganite?’ Well, the answer is, live in India. There are two things that people don’t understand. One is the degree to which a highly regulated economy produces masses of corruption because it empowers bureaucrats. It just has to be seen to be believed.

“The second,” he continues, “is that you are very quickly inured to the charms of pre-industrial village life. Whenever someone says the word community, I want to reach for an oxygen mask.”

After Yale, Zakaria went on to Harvard for his Ph.D. in political science. “Watching him in the academy, he reminded me of Kissinger,” says Walter Isaacson, who met Zakaria hanging around Harvard Square while working on a biography of the controversial statesman. “Both have a great intellectual confidence, an ability to make brilliant conceptual connections, and a charm for attracting patrons. I mean that in a good way.”

Isaacson later recommended Zakaria for a job at Foreign Affairs, and not long after he was hired, Kissinger asked to meet the young man. “I discovered later that he bore a grudge because I had commented on some of Walter’s chapters,” Zakaria says. The meeting might have intimidated some, but “we had a scintillating time,” Zakaria says. “Kissinger was switched on for my benefit: dazzling erudition and all that.” The irony, he notes, is that “what I had told Walter is that I thought he was being too hard on Kissinger.”

The Foreign Affairs job brought Zakaria to New York, where he moved in with Arshad. “It was not at all a bachelor’s apartment,” says David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter and author of The Right Man. “It was furnished with Anglo-Indian artifacts his mother had picked out and sent to New York.”

The 28-year-old Zakaria was charged with bringing in younger voices to reinvigorate the magazine. But ironically, his biggest contribution to the publication’s revival was landing 70-year-old Samuel Huntington’s seminal essay “Clash of Civilizations?” (Huntington was Zakaria’s Harvard thesis adviser.) Zakaria and Foreign Affairs editor Jim Hoge became fixtures on The Charlie Rose Show, and Zakaria further built his reputation writing op-eds for the New York Times.

In 1999, Michael Elliott left the editorship of Newsweek International, and Zakaria, who had been writing regular columns for Newsweek, was offered the job. It was a great opportunity for the access alone. “It’s fun being able to get a meeting with anyone you’d like to talk to,” Elliott says. “When you go overseas, you’re a king.”

But being a king abroad wasn’t enough for Zakaria. “He’s extremely shrewd, and I don’t mean that in the negative sense,” says Paul Kennedy, who taught Zakaria history at Yale. Zakaria wanted a platform to craft his own public persona in America. Friends say he used the Newsweek International offer as leverage to get not only his bi-weekly foreign-affairs column in Newsweek (a major coup at a time when readers were more interested in pashminas than Pashtuns) but also syndication in the Washington Post.

“I urged him to move to Newsweek,” Kissinger says. “He has a first-class mind and likes to say things that run against conventional wisdom.”

News "Man of the World"

It was the destruction of the World Trade Center that brought Zakaria into the national limelight. Marshaling both his intellectual and his personal experiences, Zakaria wrote a 7,000-word cover story called “Why They Hate Us” that punctured the knee-jerk explanations that simply blamed Islamic religious intolerance. It was the uneven path of globalization, especially in modernizing Arab aristocracies, Zakaria wrote, that stoked the homicidal rage. The Arabs had grasped the wrong end of the global stick, importing the vapidity of Western culture but raising walls against its ennobling influences—a formula for an explosion.

“They see the television shows, the fast foods, and the fizzy drinks,” Zakaria explained. “But they don’t see genuine liberalization in the society, with increased opportunities and greater openness. As a result, the people . . . can look at globalization but for the most part not touch it.”

“Widely read, widely photocopied, widely envied,” says New Yorker editorial director Henry Finder. The essay echoed across the country in unexpected places. Rear admirals at the Pentagon made it recommended reading for the troops. Ted Koppel engaged Zakaria in some high-minded chatter. The onetime academic even found himself conducting tutorials with Joy Behar on the set of The View (“I hope this all doesn’t end up in your next column,” she teased hopefully) and lobbing zingers at Jon Stewart on The Daily Show (he asked if Stewart’s suit was polyester).

“That was the moment,” recalls Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker, “Fareed became a rock star.”

During the summer of 2002, NBC and ABC fought to land Zakaria for a regular TV spot. “He’s wired and well-spoken,” says George Stephanopoulos, who scored Zakaria for This Week. “We courted him aggressively.” And the former politico hasn’t been disappointed. “He’s so well versed in politics, and he can’t be pigeonholed. I can’t be sure whenever I turn to him where he’s going to be coming from or what he’s going to say.”

The pressure on Iran is the pressure of modernity. They're fed up with fundamentalism. We're sanctioning them, but we should be overwhelming them with contact and capitalism.

ABC News wants Zakaria to do more, but he’s put them off. Zakaria and his wife, Paula Throckmorton, a Harvard M.B.A. who owns a jewelry-design business, have a baby girl and a 3-year-old son. The couple regularly have journalist friends, including Frum, the Times’ John Tierney, and The New Yorker’s Malcolm Gladwell, to their Upper West Side apartment to show off their talents with food and wine. “Fareed is one of those people who believe that specialization is for insects,” says Frum. “You need to be able to talk about what should be done in Baghdad while quoting Swinburne over duck that you’ve cooked yourself.”

On Iraq, Zakaria’s dual perspective between West and East—“I’d call it equipoise,” Henry Finder says—could have put him firmly in the antiwar camp. But he does not hesitate to back the president’s war aims. “The place is so dysfunctional,” he says of the Mideast, “any stirring of the pot is good. America’s involvement in the region is for the good. In that way, I’m an immigrant.”

That doesn’t mean he feels beholden to his friends and acquaintances now in power. The week the bombing started, Zakaria let loose a long and pointed Newsweek cover story called “Why America Scares the World.” The essay openly criticized the Bush administration for its failure to conduct diplomacy and attempt—or even pretend to attempt—to build an international consensus for our action in the Gulf. “The point is to scare our enemies,” he admonished in his essay, “not terrify the rest of the world.”

As much as the immigrant admires American values, he’s also taken aback by the provincialism that treats the State Department like an esteemed but underfunded university and allows the $400 billion–a–year Defense Department to formulate foreign policy.

To the feudal lords of the Gulf, Zakaria is like an errant member of the extended family. “You tear your hair out,” he says of a recent encounter with the Saudis at Davos. “They seem proud that I’m up there, but the government spokesmen find it frustrating. With Tom Friedman, they can say he’s just a Jew, which is despicable but effective.”

Not that Zakaria is eager to trade on his religion with Americans or Arabs. “By and large, there is a suspicion that I’m betraying my roots, whatever that means,” Zakaria says. “The only way I can respond is to say I’ve simply never been defined by religious identity, so I can’t be defined by that now just because it has come into the question.”

What he hopes does define him—the ideas expressed in The Future of Freedom—is likely to cause the noble Bedouins no end of aggravation. His book points to the Gulf regimes as the worst examples of rich, authoritarian states that are making no progress toward the kind of meaningful personal liberties that produce lasting economic growth and social stability.

Zakaria’s increased visibility has generated a steady stream of lucrative speaking gigs, the kind most journalists hanker for. But Zakaria seems drawn to the other invitations he gets: town meetings where he can play politics in an unencumbered West Wing–ish way. And he admits that he likes the taste of that.

“He has a wonderful way with a crowd,” says Gideon Rose, who has seen Fareed make stump speeches for the senior Zakaria. But Rose is skeptical of Zakaria’s fitness for contemporary politics: “He’s suited to a politics that can be an organic part of a larger life—not a profession that is dominated by fund-raising and poll taking.”

Could he run for office? One could easily see his column, television work, and whistle-stop speaking as a trial run for an election. And Zakaria has already proved himself capable of making risky career moves. “Precisely when he had his ticket punched in the academic world,” says Whitaker, “he gave that up to come to New York. Precisely when people started to talk about his going into government, he took a job at a mass magazine. Why? There’s a part of him that likes risk, that likes taking a chance.”

If he doesn’t go that route, perhaps he could be someone’s secretary of State, after all. “I would be amazed if he doesn’t wind up in government,” says Kissinger. “But I have found in my life that if you plan too precisely, it never works. He’s adopting the right course—writing thoughtful foreign-policy pieces. In time, he’ll be a candidate for any number of positions.”

In a sense, though, Zakaria is already holding the brass ring. Not long ago, after his first flush of fame, he found himself back in Delhi for Newsweek International, meeting all the important ministers. “A friend of my father’s took me aside,” Zakaria recalls, “and he said,‘I want you to know how proud we all are of you.’ That’s the great thing about India. Success in America isn’t considered selling out. They all think you’ve made it!”

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: america; fareedzakaria; india; muslim; muslimamericans; state; zakaria
I'm still deciding what I think about Zakaria. But my knee-jerk response is to scoff. Why? Isn't the real question now all about "Understanding American Rage?" Zakaria strikes me as a well-educated, well-meaning, but somewhat confused elitist. His lucid assessments of the world, and his happiness at being able to immigrate to this country offer us hope, but I'm going to remain skeptical.
1 posted on 04/26/2003 12:48:35 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: risk
Salon review of The Future of Freedom The dangers of democracy This season's intellectual pinup, Fareed Zakaria, author of "The Future of Freedom," explains why the romantic myth of freedom could harm Iraq -- and why power elites aren't so bad.

- - - - - - - - - - - - By Michelle Goldberg

April 21, 2003 | Since Sept. 11, hawks in the Bush administration have presented themselves as evangelists for democracy. The absence of democracy, in the neoconservative analysis, creates the climate of desperation and frustration that breeds extremism. Democracy's introduction into the Middle East, via regime change in Iraq, would bring a bracing new spirit of liberty to the region, undermining the stagnant authoritarianism of Iraq's neighbors.

Yet were it implanted tomorrow, democracy in most of the Middle East would bring to power the very totalitarian theocrats who most menace us. Indeed, argues Fareed Zakaria in his incisive new book "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad," democracy isn't necessarily the opposite of tyranny. From Venezuela to Kazakhstan, the last decade has seen a rise in elected autocrats, challenging American bromides that posit universal suffrage as the answer for all the world's ills.

The book and its 39-year-old author, the editor of Newsweek International, is getting an extraordinary amount of attention. In New York magazine, Marion Maneker gives him the movie star treatment, writing, "Dimple-chinned, with expressive eyebrows and a thick head of black hair, Fareed Zakaria could easily be the Indian reincarnation of Cary Grant." He may be the first of a new, post Sept. 11 breed -- the policy wonk as sex symbol.

For all the buzz he's generating, Zakaria's ideas about democracy's failures aren't that new -- in much of the foreign-policy establishment, they've become a kind of conventional wisdom, popularized by writers like Robert Kaplan and Amy Chua. It's clear to anyone who's been paying attention, after all, that the heartening triumph of democracy around the world in the last decade has coincided with brutal outbreaks of ethnic nationalism, civil war and genocide.

Yet Zakaria's book goes further than others, scanning the history of Western culture and identifying a series of fallacious assumptions about the roots of liberty that threaten not just fledgling Third World republics, but America as well: "Western democracy remains the model for the rest of the world, but is it possible that like a supernova, at the moment of its blinding glory in distant universes, Western democracy is hollowing out at the core?"

Freedom, Zakaria argues, comes not from politicians' slavish obeisance to the whims of The People, divined hourly by pollsters. It comes from an intricate architecture of liberty that includes an independent judiciary, constitutional guarantees of minority rights, a free press, autonomous universities and strong civic institutions.

In America, all of these institutions have been under consistent attack for the last 40 years from populists of the left and right seeking to strip power from loathed elites and return it to the masses. "The deregulation of democracy has ... gone too far," Zakaria writes.

Much of what Zakaria writes will anger liberals. He criticizes 1970s reforms that opened up the closed workings of Congress to the public, arguing, "The purpose of these changes was to make Congress more open and responsive. And so it has become -- to money, lobbyists, and special interests." The World Trade Organization is opposed by anti-globalization activists in part because of its secretive, unresponsive nature, but Zakaria argues that's precisely why it works.

"If trade negotiations allowed for constant democratic input, they would be riddled with exceptions, caveats, and shields for politically powerful groups," he writes. The current system, he says, has produced "extraordinary results ... The world has made more progress in the last fifty years than in the previous five hundred. Do we really want to destroy the system that made this happen by making it function like the California legislature?"

To this, many progressives would likely answer yes. Yet they'd be wise not to disregard Zakaria's argument, since it also does much to illuminate the social trends that most trouble them. After all, vitriolic attacks on intellectuals and artists for being "out of step with the American people" are a symptom of the populism run amok that Zakaria is criticizing. When the right attacks Supreme Court rulings that prevent state legislatures from banning abortion, it does so in the name of democracy. Fox News gets its bombast from the notion that The People, in all their provincial, jingoistic glory, are intrinsically wiser than the aloof elites at CNN.

Zakaria's book is in part a defense of elites, of expertise and leadership over poll-driven pandering. It's a rejection of John Dewey's claim that, "The cure for the ailments of democracy is more democracy."

This certainly doesn't mean he argues for authoritarianism. On the contrary, "The Future of Freedom" is an eloquent defense of constitutional liberalism, of the institutions that sustain unpopular liberties. Zakaria is a democracy advocate, but he asks readers to take a more expansive view and see that elections are just one element of a free society. His book, measured and centrist as it is, is a brief against tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority.

It's also a book with immense relevance for the immediate future of the Middle East, since in the short term, the West will have to choose whether to hold elections Iraq and possibly let the ayatollahs dominate, or to impose liberalism, possibly against the will of the people. Westerners rebuilding Iraq will have to realize that, despite America's rhetoric, giving all citizens a vote isn't the same as giving them freedom.

How autocratic should America be in imposing constitutional liberalism in Iraq?

I don't think the United States needs to be autocratic. It has to provide order. If you think about it, the best recipe I can imagine is James Madison's recipe for our own government. When thinking about the American Constitution he said very famously in "Federalist No. 51" that when constructing a government, you have to do two things. First, the government has to control the governed, and then it has to control itself.

In Iraq, what the United States has to do is create order and then begin building the institutions of liberty -- constitutions, courts, power sharing -- before it gets to the hurly-burly of political contests in elections. It's not that you have to be autocratic, you just have to get the sequence right.

But in the short term, America needs to work with Iraqis, and those most committed to building the institutions of liberty might be exiles who would have to be foisted on an unwilling public.

We should do what we seem to be beginning to do, which is to create a broad-based and therefore legitimate group of Iraqis who would begin the discussions about what kind of political system they want. In the meanwhile, while those discussions are going on, authority will largely have to be wielded by the coalition. You're right in that sense -- one can call it autocratic. It's simply common sense that you cannot devolve power to the factions that are at the very moment deciding what kind of political system to put in place.

One lesson of the Balkans was that if you begin the power contest before you build the institutions, everything goes awry because people who are voted into office suddenly lose interest in the rule of law, clean administration and limitations on governmental authority. It's much easier to construct a fair system when you don't know whether you're going to be the ruler or the ruled, because you will have an incentive to create a fair and balanced system.

During that period, the United States will have to wield authority in conjunction with others and with as much international legitimacy as it can muster. That is why the United States should be internationalizing this process as much as possible.

But aren't there dangers in the United States wielding authority for too long? There have already been protests about the town meetings the United States has been holding to identify Iraqi leaders it can work with. People are protesting a sustained American presence in Iraq.

With regard to these protests, you have to weather some of this. Remember, there were a few hundred people protesting. This is what democracy is all about. We have no idea how representative they were. When you invite 100 or 200 people to a national conference, you are not inviting 100 or 200, and the easiest charge for the excluded is going to be U.S. imperialism. My solution to this is that you don't therefore go away, you therefore internationalize the process more.

A multilateral body has been running Bosnia for six years. The U.N. has been running Kosovo for almost as long. Nobody is calling that colonialism. They call it international assistance.

But is there any hope of the Bush administration agreeing to internationalize the process? So far, it's shut the U.N. out.

I think there's no chance in the short term because the administration is set on its course, but things have a way of changing. We were not going to provide security 50 miles outside Kabul, and then it became clear that that position was untenable, that Hamid Karzai's government in Afghanistan was vulnerable to collapse if we didn't provide security, so we changed course. Who knows what things will look like two or three months from now.

What should the role of Iraq's Islamists be in shaping the new Iraqi government?

They should have a role, they should be included, but I think we should be pushing very strongly for the idea that the system of government that is put in place is one that has all kinds of rights and protections, for example for women, so that even if they were to come to power, the Islamists would not be able to adopt a reactionary attitude towards women. It would be impossible to modernize Iraq if you were to not put in place some of the basic protections of human rights and separation of powers. Let [the Islamists] come in for sure, but vigorously use all the influence we have to ensure that they are not able to create an Islamic state. I don't think they would be able to do so anyway -- most Iraqis are quite secular.

You accepted the idea of spurring democratization in the Middle East as one of the justifications for war with Iraq. In your book, you write, "The Middle East needs one ... homegrown success story," and you say that Iraq is a candidate for this role. Yet you also lay out certain criteria for successful democratization, and in writing about Indonesia, you say, "Indonesia in 1998 was not an ideal candidate for democracy. Of all the East Asian countries it is most reliant on natural resources" -- which you say inhibits other kinds of development -- "Strike one. It was also bereft of legitimate political institutions ... Strike Two. Finally, it attempted democratization at a low level of per capita income, approximately $2,650 in 1998. Strike three. The results have been abysmal."

Yet Iraq also has these three strikes against it -- and its per capita income is even lower than Indonesia's was. Why go to war to bring democracy to Iraq if that goal isn't feasible?

It's difficult. My view on building democracy is not that we should not do it in countries that don't meet the criteria. The reason I point to these criteria is just to emphasize how difficult it is to do. When you get an opportunity to try, absolutely you should take it, but you should learn something from those criteria and from history and ask yourself what should we do to try to minimize the danger of democratic dysfunction and maximize the chances for success.

I recognize, living under a terrible dictatorship, you don't get to choose your moment of freedom. The point, however, is to learn from history and to make the most of your moment for freedom.

You point out that in many developing countries, contrary to Western assumptions, elections wouldn't lead to more freedom. In Pakistan, as you write, General Pervez Musharraf has been able to pursue liberalization "precisely because he did not have to run for office and cater to the interests of feudal bosses, Islamic militants, and regional chieftains ... In Pakistan no elected politician would have acted as boldly, decisively, and effectively as he did."

This suggests that those most concerned about social justice should stop calling for open elections in all countries. What, then, should they be calling for?

They should be pushing for human rights. More than anything else, the ability to protect individual rights is going to lay the groundwork for liberal democracy. How do you protect them? Most effectively through a court system, through laws that guarantee human rights. The other stealth method of political reform is economic reform. Economic reform has the effect over time of producing political reform because it creates the need for the rule of law, a cleaner and more responsive administration, and most importantly a middle class that presses the government for a greater political voice.

In Pakistan, for example, it would help not at all to press Musharraf to hold more elections. The last ones were almost won by Islamic fundamentalists and they have no interest in reform. The best course there is to press Musharraf to engage in the kind of broad structural reform, of the legal, economic and political system that will then be the basis for a genuine democracy.

Does this require a paradigm shift for liberal human rights activists? In the recent past, progressives have condemned efforts by the West to impose our values on others. It's one thing to say people should choose their own leaders, and another to say our governing values and institutions are superior.

It requires a paradigm shift for modern liberalism and the recovery of the older, more muscular liberal internationalism that's pre-Vietnam, pre-postmodern. I don't think Dean Acheson or Harry Truman or Franklin Roosevelt would have had any trouble with the idea that constitutionalism and liberalism were better forms of government than dictatorships or theocracy. This is all part of the recovery of self-confidence that liberalism needs to undergo.

I think many liberals would ask how they can trust this government to export liberty abroad when it seems to undermine liberty at home.

Again, this is part of the problem of liberalism today. The United States has problems, no question, but they are in no way and on no scale comparable to the problems of Nigeria. It's necessary to get some perspective. There is simply no question that getting some form of constitutionalism and some form of democratic governance would be better for the vast majority of non-democracies.

To be hobbled by fears and self-doubt seems silly. What one should do with those concerns is channel them into domestic reform programs rather than losing faith in American democracy. It's entirely possible to be a reformer at home and a universalist abroad. Look at Harry Truman.

You said it's necessary to get some perspective. Can you provide some? How imperiled is our democracy?

American democracy has always been safeguarded by strong institutions that protect liberty and it's also been enriched and ennobled by a whole set of informal institutions that Tocqueville called intermediate institutions -- everything from political parties to rotary clubs to choral societies to bowling leagues. If those intermediate associations wither away, if the sense of the civic culture of America decays and is replaced by a kind of polarized populism in which each side is simply trying to use the political system as an arena where you simply have to capture the government however you can, then American democracy is impoverished and loses some of its vibrancy. It doesn't mean American democracy will become Nigerian democracy. It means it won't live up to its promise.

Am I right to see in your book a defense of the power of elites?

I think I would describe it this way. Every society has elites. That is simply a fact of life. People who run the corporations, who run universities, govern in Washington and the state capitals, who are editors and writers, have a disproportionate influence over the life of the nation. To pretend that you don't have elites only does one thing -- it absolves the elites of any sense of responsibility, any sense of having to consciously adhere to a sense of public spiritedness.

I'm not somebody who sees much value in pointlessly bashing elites whether they're conservative or liberal. One of the more interesting shifts I point to in the book, is the shift from a dispassionate, bipartisan elite that founded so many national institutions to the situation today where it's considered almost banal and boring to try to be bipartisan and solve national problems. The heat is all in trying to be as polarizing as possible.

How much of that shift is a result of the rise of the conservative movement? You write about think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution "that were designed to serve the country beyond partisanship and party politics." Now the most powerful think tanks are right-wing outfits like the American Enterprise Institute, which are fiercely political.

It's an outgrowth of the fact that many of these national institutions became excessively liberal and lost their sense of being bipartisan. Perhaps that's because liberalism so dominated the culture that it went unnoticed, but the reality is that many of these institutions became lopsidedly liberal. That produced a conservative counteraction that is now producing a liberal counteraction.

Really? Where is that liberal counteraction?

You're beginning to see it in places like the American Prospect magazine. But I agree this is an era of conservative ascendancy. There's no question about it.

Isn't there an irony at the heart of your argument, in that it requires people to mobilize against some of the power that's been delegated to them?

The most important thing that could be done is to make the system of government less open and hyperresponsive, by which I mean give people in government some degree of leeway to make judgments. If you look at Congress, by opening up Congress to the degree we have done, we've only opened it up only to special interests. The average American doesn't send 20 faxes a day to his congressmen, but various narrow interest groups do.

The manner in which some of the thorniest problems in the United States have been solved, like major tax reform, military base closings and some judicial issues, have often involved politicians agreeing not to pander and committing themselves to a process by which they're not trading votes to interest groups or campaign donors.

There's something very important for Americans to understand: You can have a more democratic process but actually end up with a less democratic outcome, because the system gets captured by those who know how to play the system.

But do you really think Americans would accede to less democratic processes? Do people ever vote to curb their own power?

It would mean recognizing that some of this populism has gotten us nowhere. Some of this openness has produced dysfunction. Look at California. It's a poster child for democracy run amok. A state that used to be one of the most well-run in the country is now on the verge of collapse. The educational system is a mess, it cannot pay its bills, and it's because of this strange system of government where everything is done by initiative and plebiscite. The Legislature has no control over anything. Do you really want a state where everything is decided by plebiscite?

It's not simply the case that more democracy is always better. The public can understand that. What are the three institutions that the public most admires? The Supreme Court, the armed forces and the Federal Reserve System. What do all three have in common? They're insulated from public pressure and can therefore act somewhat independently of it. Sometimes in democracy less is more. There needs to be some insulation from the day-to-day pressure of public opinion polls.

Your book also touches on the democratization of culture in the age of celebrity, where buzz is taken to be the measure of worth. Meanwhile, you're being written about like a pop star. In her latest column, Tina Brown talks about your "Bollywood sex appeal" and calls you "New York's hot brainiac." Have you become an example of the phenomenon you're writing about?

What does it take to get Hollywood good looks? Look, I hate it. I hate it. What can I say -- when you're trying to sell books, you're out there in the public and people have the freedom to write about you as they wish. I have to confess that I haven't been that thrilled about that part of this.

After the book is done, I will very happily retreat back to the position of being a writer whose public persona is shaped by his own voice. I've found it unsettling to be constructed by other people, but I don't think that there's any danger of my becoming any kind of a mass phenomenon. Let's not kid ourselves.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer Michelle Goldberg is a staff writer for Salon based in New York.

2 posted on 04/26/2003 12:52:16 AM PDT by risk (Isn't Zakaria just attacking Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, and the NeoCons?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: risk
Understanding American Rage

L'Oreal lost my regular dollars for hair dye. I wonder if French businesses understand my rage, and my lurching efforts to find another product. (Clairol Nice N Easy did a good job today, despite the added ammonia smell.)

And sometime in the next weeks when we start running out of Iris Smart & Final toilet paper, tissue paper, paper towels, etc. I will let the local franchisee know why he is losing our business.

3 posted on 04/26/2003 1:04:18 AM PDT by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: risk
"Yet were it implanted tomorrow, democracy in most of the Middle East would bring to power the very totalitarian theocrats who most menace us."

Why do people keep saying that Muslim democracies must inevitably elect Islamofascist dictatorships like in Iran? There are such things as checks and balances, you know. A properly written constitution, a people that become used to freedom and want nothing else, and U.S. muscle to enforce it, will prevent any such thing from happening.

We simply won't let them make the wrong choice.

4 posted on 04/26/2003 1:51:03 AM PDT by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
Why do people keep saying that Muslim democracies must inevitably elect Islamofascist dictatorships like in Iran?

Good question! And as I recall, the Ayatollas weren't elected, they were revolutionaries. In any case, Zakaria's pessimism sounds all too familiar.

5 posted on 04/26/2003 2:02:40 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: risk
I want high government officials who have a strong personal relationship with Christ, like our President. That way if there is a serious decision that needs divine assistance or guidence, they have that resource available to them. Islam has no such option. Just empty prayers to a fairy tale god.

6 posted on 04/26/2003 4:37:37 AM PDT by Russell Scott (When you ignore God's instruction, you end up in the Devil's destruction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: risk
Indian-born, educated at Harvard, conservative)

What, is he religiously conservative? He's certainly no right winger....

7 posted on 04/26/2003 7:25:18 AM PDT by Katya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Russell Scott
I want high government officials who have a strong personal relationship with Christ. . .

As an atheist who recognizes the power of Judeo-Christian values to bind together our society and make it stronger, I can't object to your argument based on Constitutinal requirements for separation of church and state. I would object if someone like President Bush argued policy based on his religion alone. President Bush has the decency to recognize that execution of his office based on values can form a common set with those driven strictly from religious dogma, but that values can be shared by others of any persuasition, whereas dogmas can divide. In short, President Bush unites this country, whereas another equally religious president might divide it hopelessly.

I myself would be nervous about putting a Muslim in charge of anything this high in our government since we are at war with Islamic extremism. We ourselves are confused enough about how to deal with issues of political correctness and so forth -- it's unnatural for us to be prejudiced against one religion or another, and so we dither on how to fight the war on terrorism. For example, we avoid targetting mosques with our AC130 gunships in Afghanistan as a policy. So if we ourselves find it difficult to make hard choices about Islamic symbols in this war, how easy would a muslim?

When I think about your preference for a particular brand of Christian in high offices such as secretary of state, I am reminded of John F. Kennedy's presidency, however. Many refused to vote for him because they thought the pope would be running the country. And yet we gained a president who said the following:

Let every nation know.... that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of Liberty. --JFK, 1961
I am also reminded that it is nearly impossible to know the inside of a man's heart. We can't prove that President Bush is sincerely born again, for example. I understand the concept very well, and I think there is good evidence that he is (and his religiosity is actually a comfort to me). But you can't be sure. Many were bamboozled by President Clinton's weekly churchgoing. I used to laugh when we'd see him heading into Sunday School on TV!

There's one more issue involved here, and it's not politically correct to bring it up. How can we trust naturalized immigrants to uphold the values of this country we hold dearest? I'm not hearing the ring of American patriotism in this man's writing, and the best objection I can make to his holding a high office in this country is a sense that he needs to gain additional exposure to fundamental American values. Too many immigrants over the last 50 years have come here simply because we are a wealthy nation with endless opportunities for advancement. These are not the immigrants of our grandfathers who came here to find the ultimate freedom, and to fight for it.

If Zakaria were to send his children to fight in our armed services, that might change my mind.

8 posted on 04/26/2003 2:25:45 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Katya
What, is he religiously conservative? He's certainly no right winger....

I've heard other leftists praising him, as well. That alone makes me suspicious. I wonder if he's one of those fiscal conservatives who hopes that his own taxes will be lower, not so that the American nation would be stronger.

At this point, I find that I can learn much from reading Zakaria's comments, but they don't go far enough in condemning Islamic extremism, nor do they urge us forward in our war to crush it with nearly enough zeal.

9 posted on 04/26/2003 2:30:50 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: risk
After watching the ABC's Stephanopolous week, Zakaria is a moderate at best. Although he condemned Santorum for his statement which made all deviant sex practices relative to one another...he then turned and said that the community/state has the right to legislate against certain behavior it deems wrongful. George Will took a very libertarian position, and asked what the difference was between these acts...and pointed out you had to use a logic ruler in order for the state to find cause.
10 posted on 04/27/2003 11:19:37 AM PDT by Katya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson