The American Spectator : Dreaming the Next Century

Text Size

Dreaming the Next Century

By Hunter Baker on 4.1.09 @ 6:04AM

George Friedman sees the future and how it might work.

The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century
By George Friedman
(Doubleday, 272 pages, $25.95)

The problem with the news is that it instinctively shares John Maynard Keynes' philosophy that "In the long run, we are all dead." As a result, reporters and newscasters deliver update after update written under the tyranny of the urgent NOW with a nearly complete disregard for the long-term consequences of what is happening and the actions we might take to address it. The war in Iraq can only be understood from the standpoint of how bad the pain is at any given moment or in terms of how much coverage it receives in competition with other stories. This present recession becomes the new gaping wound that must be closed immediately no matter how bad a scar the rush remedy might leave on the patient's body. The futurist George Friedman (founder of the private intelligence firm Stratfor) has attempted to remedy our obsession with the next second by mapping out The Next 100 Years.

Friedman's interpretive prism is geopolitics which assumes three things: that politics become necessary when human beings coalesce in units larger than the family, that human beings develop loyalty for the land of their birth, and that the facts of geography will determine a great deal of a nation's destiny. Wielding those assumptions, Friedman argues that it is possible to discern, for example, that "The United States is the United States and therefore must behave in a certain way." He adds that the same is true of other nations. He analogizes geopolitics to a game of chess. While it appears there are an enormous number of possible moves, the constructive choices are actually quite limited. Once you are able to make out the reasonable options, you can forecast the likely future.

The geopolitical method of making out the next 100 years produces explosive results. Friedman's biggest claims are guaranteed to shock and amaze. To most readers of the news, Russia appears to be on the cusp of a revival into a ruthless superpower no longer stuck with the albatross of communism around its neck. But Friedman predicts Russia will re-assert power and fail, ultimately collapsing. Fear a rising China? No worry. Internal instability will prevent its dominance and it will mainly be an ally of the United States. Japan will re-militarize and challenge the United States for dominance in the Pacific. The two will ultimately duel in space. Turkey will grow into a great power in the Middle East recalling memories of the Ottoman Empire. Poland will become a strong force and lead a resurgence of Eastern Europe with the help of the Americans. Mexico will rise and thanks to a global labor shortage will re-populate most of its old territory in the U.S. The two neighbors will not have resolved their tensions by 2100 as Mexico continues to grow more assertive.

With these kinds of bold predictions about the world of our future, The Next 100 Years is a compelling and provocative read. However, the degree to which you will buy into Friedman's version of the looking glass depends on how you feel about his assumptions. The one that seems most vulnerable is that a nation is basically constrained to make the decisions that it does.

Consider the economic revolution Ronald Reagan brought to Washington. Friedman credits Reagan with radically restructuring the economy in such a way as to achieve economic growth and modernization. Surely, this is true. But the part that raises an eyebrow is that Friedman claims Reagan had no choice in forcing the American economy to evolve. He did what was required at the time as did "Roosevelt or Hayes or Jackson." This brand of determinism is difficult to swallow. Reagan won office, but that result was far from pre-ordained. He could have lost. Jimmy Carter could have had a second term. Who is to say that the United States might not have followed a substantially different economic path? If you accept Friedman's presentation, one is nearly compelled to believe Carter or perhaps his Democrat successor would have proposed massive cuts in marginal tax rates. A Democrat president as a supply-sider? It is difficult to imagine.

There is such a thing as a substantial ideological disagreement over the direction of the nation and its economic development. We are witnessing the reality of that fact right now as the White House aggressively increases the size of government. Compare the different opinions of how to deal with the crisis presented by President Obama and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. The differences are real. One side could be in control rather than the other.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with some of the assumptions, Friedman has produced an interesting book with many fascinating insights. He correctly notes that when marriages are held together by emotions without the reinforcing glue of economic necessity, then divorce will be more common. Friedman also observes that when marriage becomes disconnected from reproduction, as it has in the modern period, then gay marriage or its equivalent becomes a nearly unstoppable logical development. Reflections of this type regarding social life and an analysis of changes in the way we view reason do a nice job of bringing the macro-analysis back down from the lofty perch of nations to a human scale.

At the end of the book, Friedman admits that "The closer one gets to details, the more likely one is to be wrong." But he doubles down on the prediction he believes is at the center of his entire vision for the century, which is that "the United States -- far from being on the verge of decline -- has actually just begun its ascent." Reading the news, this core prophecy about our nation doesn't feel true, but the moment nearly always counts for too much and typically lacks perspective. George Friedman declines to allow the moment to direct his sight.

About the Author

Hunter Baker is associate dean of arts and sciences and associate professor of political science at Union University. He is the author of The End of Secularism and winner of the 2011 Michael Novak Award. His personal website is www.hunterbaker.wordpress.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (25) | Leave a comment

David Mathews| 4.1.09 @ 7:06AM

I read the book. George Friedman isn't just wrong about the details, he is wrong about everything.

The United States of America isn't going to exist either as a Superpower or anything. Between now and 2025, the United States of America will cease existing altogether.

Peter Skurkiss| 4.1.09 @ 7:39AM

David Mathews's wishful thinking about America's demise by 2025 as is as off-base as was his recent bigoted assessment of the Irish.

But back to the issue at hand. George Friedman's book "The Next 100 Years" is a well worthwhile read. And I have to agree with Friedman when he looks at the big picture and says, "... the United States' power is so extraordinarily overwhelming, and so deeply rooted in economic, technological, and cultural realities, that the country will continue to surge through the twenty-first century, buffeted though it may be by wars and crises" (p. 28).

One of the more interesting details that Friedman speculates on is energy. In about mid century, he sees the U.S. capturing energy from solar panels in geostationary orbit and transporting it back to Earth via microwaves (p. 219). This development, according to Freidman, will be driven by America's entrepreneurial spirit, spured on by war & necessity. Interesting thought.

David Mathews| 4.1.09 @ 7:59AM

Hello Peter,

* "One of the more interesting details that Friedman speculates on is energy. In about mid century, he sees the U.S. capturing energy from solar panels in geostationary orbit and transporting it back to Earth via microwaves ... "

That's not even science fiction, Peter. That's science fantasy.

The United States of America is a zombie nation. Collapse is imminent. If you want a roadmap of the future examine the history of the Soviet Union's collapse.

Tim| 4.1.09 @ 8:51AM

Without bacon, turkey will can never achieve greatness.

Ellis Wyatt| 4.1.09 @ 9:09AM

I've read the book and would agree that it is worthwhile reading. Friedman presents real issues and the implications they will have. he is clear to point out he may be wrong, but he also makes us have to face reality. the most compelling part of the book for me was in regards to the retiring boomers and its economic impact. Jobs will be in demand and salaries will rise as a shortage of workers exists. Gains in salaries will be negated by higher taxes to support the boomers. Hence, immigration will be of vital importance. Very thoughtfully written. Like Friedman I am long on the US, but the next 40 years or so will be difficult if the war on prosperity continues.

Big Leo| 4.1.09 @ 1:00PM

I am looking forward to Friedman's book. Any prediction of the future is questionable, since we can never truly know what is coming, but it sounds like his analysis of the current trends is well thought out. "The United States of America is a zombie nation. Collapse is imminent. Between now and 2025, the United States of America will cease existing altogether. "

Dave Mathews has thought out his ideas carefully, too. "The United States of America is a zombie nation. Collapse is imminent. Between now and 2025, the United States of America will cease existing altogether. " Believing this, he supports Obama, who has the best chance of achieving DM's desire that the human race be nearly exterminated and that we return to a hunter-gatherer society.

Big Leo| 4.1.09 @ 1:01PM

Correction-- I meant to erase the quote found at the end of the first paragraph and hit the wrong key. I sure wish I could type like Dave Mathews.

David Mathews| 4.1.09 @ 1:04PM

Hello Big Leo,

* "Believing this, he supports Obama, who has the best chance of achieving DM's desire that the human race be nearly exterminated and that we return to a hunter-gatherer society. "

Your civilization is dying. The Romans wanted their empire to last forever, too ... reality didn't care what either the Romans or you want.

Civilizations die. Our civilization is dying right now.

Big Leo| 4.1.09 @ 1:11PM

DM- has it ever occured to you that being enthusiastic for both the collapse of all civilization and Obama tends to discredit him just a teeny bit?

Big Leo| 4.1.09 @ 2:17PM

"the United States -- far from being on the verge of decline -- has actually just begun its ascent." That statement is indeed counterintuitive in this time of gloom and doom, but thinking about it further made me believe that he is right.

I won't analyze all the reasons that led me to believe so, but focus on one. Citizens of the US are more likely than any country in the developed world to have a positive view of their nation and its ideals. While we may have a pessimistic view about the immediate future, outside of academia there is a broad general support for the ideals that make America unique. It is that confidence in our traditional American values that gives us the courage to shape our own destinies and determine our future. It is precisely those values that leftism seeks to discredit and undermine.

Mac Skiba| 4.1.09 @ 2:50PM

Those people who have this false assumption that the US won't longer be a superpower are idiots. You just don't realize the power the US in this world. US navy rules the seas and can stop trade any time it wishes. Sending countries into economic despair. Not saying it will but it has the power to do so.

For those that are saying look at the high level of debt we have, then I say learn your history. In the 1940's our debt to gdp ratio was 106% and yet somehow America continued to flourish. Now our debt to gdp ratio is only a fraction of that standing at 67%. Clearly many of you here don't know your history or your Geopolitics..

Dave| 4.1.09 @ 3:00PM

I don't know nuthin' about Dave Matthews, and I sure as heck don't support Obama. But it ain't a stretch, in my humble opinion, to say our civilization is collapsing. And while this book sounds like a good read, it seems to me the author also makes another dubious assumption, that Americans will continue to be innovative and productive. While I am calmed by the author's prediction that America will be around a little longer, that serenity cannot withstand the daily accumulation of evidence pointing to this country's continuing degradation.

Big Leo| 4.1.09 @ 3:15PM

I don't know, Good Dave. I don't think that our current situation is all degradation. I can remember when rivers I can fish in today were open sewers. I can remember when pollution from industry killed people regularly, like the Danora disaster. I can remember segregated schools, drinking fountains, and department stores. Poor people today live better than the middle class did when I was a kid, since effective income has increased exponentially. Our incredible technology gives us the tools for self-education and entertainment unknown when I was a child. I'm concerned about the moral climate we live in, but in reality it isn't too much worse than what it was sixty years ago. I wish it were better. The improvements in medicine and dentistry are amazing? I'm not sure, but I think my family doctor was still using leeches when I was a kid. And I had Dr. Mengele as a dentist, I'm sure. Modern cars are uglier, but they surely are more reliable. Air travel isn't gracious any more-- even as a child I had to wear a coat and tie when we flew anywhere, but it's safer and much much cheaper. We live in an age of splendor if only we have the courage to seize the opportunities it gives us. Unfortunately, many are corrupted by the wealth and opportunity. They use the computer to play video games and the wealth to buy clothes they never wear and exercise machines they never use. But it has always been thus. No, I'll agree with Friedman. We're only just getting started.

Dave| 4.1.09 @ 3:23PM

Big Leo,

I admire your optimism. And, like you I am sure, I am aware of the huge blessing God bestowed upon me when He allowed me to be born in this great country.

But I look across the ocean and see a once Great Britian shockingly reduced to a nation of ninnies. And I witnessed the debacle of election day last November. This country has changed, and is changing--for the worse. While I still have hope of saving her, I fear for the future of my country.

Big Leo| 4.1.09 @ 3:31PM

Thanks for the kind words, Dave. It may cheer you up to think of this: when Obama doesn't deliver on all the promises that have aroused people's expectations, he's going to have a lot of angry, disappointed voters to deal with. In order for his party to be reelected, they need to deliver on their promises-- and I don't believe they can.

Dave| 4.1.09 @ 3:46PM

Big Leo,

I can't wait to vote in 2010 and hope we witness another "temper tantrum" as Peter Jennings described the 1994 thumping of the democrats.

But my point goes beyond present and future electoral politics. The fact that Clinton was not unanimously voted out of office by the Senate was the first substantial indication to me that this country was seriously decaying. And I will never forget the phone call I made to my Dad, a Vietnam veteran, last election night. We shared our utter disbelief that America would elect a transparent America-hater instead of a true American war hero--regardless of political affiliation. While I couldn't see my dad, I think I heard his voice quiver--so I got off the phone and cried. But for my ceaseless attempt to teach my young sons of their great fortune to have been born in this country and its' glorious history I am not sure they would have any inkling of American greatness. What about all the kids growing up today without a dad or mom who's a history buff, patriot, and C-Span junkie?

Big Leo| 4.1.09 @ 3:57PM

As a viet vet I know just how your Dad feels. Try to comfort him with the memory of that treasonous little snob Kerry getting his clock cleaned for him by GWB. I remember him from TV in 1972 and have loathed him and his ilk ever since. Also, there's a new generation of vets that have served in Iraq and know the difference between the reality of the war and the establishment's lies about it. Very few of them will return to be Obama voters, and I hope their influence and witness will be heard.

Rod Martin| 4.1.09 @ 5:03PM

Dave,

Having gone to Cambridge, I appreciate your comment regarding a once Great Britain more than most. But it is important to remember: Britain built its wealth and power on the backs of slaves, not the literal slaves whose servitude it abolished by the hand of Wilberforce, but the subjugated inhabitants of its colonies, men like Gandhi and Barack Obama's grandfather, whose countries were stolen from them and whose wealth did not rightly belong to their aristocratic masters.

Britain's decline is in no small measure traceable to its loss of that vast slave empire, its collapse little different from that of the USSR. It is impossible to understand it's drastic contraction at home -- or at the loss of Empire much bemoaned by romantic but unthinking Anglophiles (of which I am occasionally one) -- without grasping that key point.

I say this without malice toward our British friends, but with the philosophy I rightly inherited from our own Revolution. America has always stood against everything the British Empire stood for -- not its attributes such as the rule of law, but the fact of empire itself -- from its inception to this present day. We have done so with good reason: we believe in the dignity of every human life, and its right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", or self-determination as it were.

This is the core distinction we all miss (I too am guilty) when looking back a century at the great European powers and their demise over a half-century's time. We miss that America is a republic, not an empire; that even those expressions of its power abroad which may feel or seem imperial are not; and that a nation of free minds working together is and will remain more powerful than anything the Earth has ever produced.

Will America remain more powerful than China, Russia, and the rest of the world, as Friedman suggests? I don't know (though his book was a great read). But I do know that, unless we constrain and butcher the liberty which has made us, something Obama seems all too excited to do, any other country wishing to even match us will have to match us in that liberty first. And if they can, I wish them all the best in so doing.

Rod Martin

Dave| 4.1.09 @ 5:22PM

Rod,

Very enjoyable post, thank you.

My lament concerning the decline of Great Britian is focused on the character of its' inhabitants as is my lament concerning the decline of America.

I suspect that Britian is simply in an advanced stage of the degradation currently eating away at the soul of America. A loss of national pride, of national confidence. Remember Britian's "response" to the armed kidnapping of her sailors by Iran?

Dean Vander Linde| 4.1.09 @ 5:48PM

Russia truly is a dying nation; the demographics prove it. By mid-century Russia's population will be half of the present, thanks to a low birth rate. Also, Russia has the dubious distinction of being the only industrialized nation in which life expectancy has declined over the past few decades. Good riddance when Russia finally collapses; it is a nation that can do little good for the world but capable of causing incalcuable mischief!

Peter Skurkiss| 4.2.09 @ 10:54AM

Rod Martin saying Britain built its wealth and power on the backs of pseudo-slaves.

I disagree. A far greater factor in the Bris power & wealth can be attributed to the Industrial Revolution which was born in England and the country being a nation of laws.

gfhgf| 11.30.09 @ 4:02AM

TOD Converter Mac,
TOD File Converter Mac

hgjhg| 11.30.09 @ 10:18PM

iPod Touch Converter for Mac,
DVD to iPod Touch Converter for Mac

sfdgs| 1.5.10 @ 4:44AM

Capture Streaming Video,iPhone To Computer Transfer

Benn| 1.11.11 @ 7:53AM

D.Mathews remind me the southerner, after the civil war, crying about the country`s(who looked like ancient Rome for him) death. America gives her habitants freedom and dicent life,unlike Rome`s slavery.