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.
