The Post-American World

What is the book about?

Just looked at Amazon's blurb.

Sounds like an interesting read. There is no doubt that America faces challenges to her hegemon status. Looks like this looks at the whys and how's and how to deal with the future in a way that will best serve America in the new reality.

 

It went to #2 on the NYT bestseller list. I imagine a lot of folks read it.

 

Her WHAT???? You have got to be kidding me. You really posted this?

The Snopes article you linked shows the website's obvious liberal bias. He is described as a "moderate" but supported the Great Pretender in both his White House runs, and Forbes called him one of the top 25 most influential liberals in the US in 2009.

He credits the Great Pretender with "opening avenues" back into the world, alleging that previous leaders have insisted on thinking in terms of American centricity -- that is, thinking of the US as the center of the world, action Zakaria and his ilk incorrectly believe "closed international doors." His lavish praise of the Empty Suit fails to consider Clinton's AIDS initiative in Africa, continued by both President Bush and the Great Pretender, that has saved millions of lives, as well as ignorance of Bush's multiple international trips to build bridges and to forge a coalition of nations that brought down Hussein and forced the Taliban underground -- the latter now freely roaming Afghani society again because the cowardly Great Pretender wouldn't finish the job his predecessor began. Zakaria also fails to acknowledge that President Bush did nothing in Iraq or Afghanistan until he had Congressional approval, a tip of the hat to the Constitution that the Empty Suit did not seek himself for actions in Libya and that Clinton ignored in bombing the Serbs.

So what about the president’s being praised by Zakaria for transitioning America to “a post-American world,” in which we are supposed to accept a new multi-polar reality to replace the fossilized concept of American exceptionalism? As Col. Sherman T. Potter would so eloquently state it, "Horse hockey!"

Our own massive debt, the rise of China, and the emergence of India and Brazil as major economies are offered as proof by this liberal twit that post-Americans should accept a new “lead from behind” role abroad. In so doing, Zakaria either ignores or tramples on history.

In 1939 there were more multi-polar contenders — France, Britain, Germany, Russia, and Japan — than there are now, and all in much better shape both finanacially and sociopolitically than any of the wannabes that are emerging today. To greater or lesser extent, all those rivals deprecated an isolationist Depression-era America, despite the fact that the U.S. had the world’s largest economy and had miraculously, just two decades earlier, sent a million men to Europe in a single year to ensure the allied victory over imperial Germany. To say that the US literally saved the world then, and followed on the heels of that feat another world-saving performance in a two-front war a generation later, is by no means an understatement. Such heroics on the world stage of nations was, and remains, quite beyond the capabilities of any nation then or now.

Should it become necessary, the US could rise to the occasion again -- but not by "leadership" the likes of the Great Pretender, a liberal nitwit such as Zakaria, or any other milquetoast self-hating American "apologist" for a non-existent "hegemonic attitude."

It will take someone with vision, insight, determination, and courage. In short, it will take a mainstream American conservative, not an idiot liberal.

 

What would it mean that Islamic and Socialist states rise?