The title of the book seems to be a curious choice - wouldn't the first four nouns (God, Gold, Britain, America) be considered four of the most un-cool words in a modernist vocabulary? Doesn't the title suggest the book will be just another triumphalist exercise by some out-of-fashion West-centric writer?
I was willing to give it a try because I'm familiar with the author via his blog - something I've added to my daily reading list (a list that I try to guard jealously) as of a couple months ago. I don't know exactly where the author fits on the ideological spectrum, which I take to be a good sign.In any event: this book was full of good ideas - very much worthwhile - provides a valuable historical framework for thinking about the modern world. To be sure, he describes the ascendancy of what he calls the maritime states, but (at least to this citizen of the current leading maritime state) it's done in the manner of reporting historical trends with eyes wide open to the shortcomings as well as achievements.
The most interesting idea (to me at least - see the list below, there are plenty of others) was the notion that societies tend to have three primary drivers, and that successful societies (exhibit A being Britain) find a way to balance them. The three drivers are Reason, Revelation and Tradition. I think this is important and useful. The triad appears in various societies in different ways. Tradition - countries like Spain and France went on for many centuries with state-institutional Church dominating life. Proponents are religious, but power players. Also includes populist nationalism. Revelation - religious folks who want to get back to the religion's true roots - opposing the traditional power structure - Lutherans, Puritans, evangelical Christians, Pentecostals, Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia, Al-Quaeda, etc. We can see what happens in states where those folks get too much power. Reason - central planners; folks who reject religion and believe society can function by experts; "Great Society" where all goes well via government fiat - this, too, has been proven inadequate. England - during the years it was the predominant maritime state - found a way to balance these three elements. Kept a monarchy in place but took away its power. Church of England - practical, didn't claim a monopoly on religious truth. Etc.
Other ideas:
1. Religion has mattered a great deal to peoples all over the world for millenia. To minimze or ignore this in interpreting history or looking to the future is a mistake - something we fall into because so many folks in the West, especially in the punditocracy, are (or profess to be) beyond it in the 21st century. Even non-religious folks often think in religious terms, if unwittingly.
1. Religion has mattered a great deal to peoples all over the world for millenia. To minimze or ignore this in interpreting history or looking to the future is a mistake - something we fall into because so many folks in the West, especially in the punditocracy, are (or profess to be) beyond it in the 21st century. Even non-religious folks often think in religious terms, if unwittingly.
2. The Dutch, English and Americans, in that order, have been the leading players he in what he calls the "maritime system". That it wasn't set in stone that this progression would occur, esp in the early going for Dutch and English. (In fact, the era of Dutch predominance was pretty short.)
3. Land-based empires are forced to deal with quarrelsome neighbors, get caught up in frightful fights over terrain not crucial to the big picture. This hurt the Netherlands (based in mainland Europe). Obvious examples would include Russia and Germany wrecking each other over Poland, Ukraine, etc.; France and Germany wrecking each other over Alsace, Lorraine, etc. England and in turn the US able to play the global whole - far more effective.
4. Looks to the Glorious Revolution (1688) as the key event for England. William of Orange arrives from Netherlands. Protestants hold sway thereafter notwithstanding continuing struggles to restore Stuarts or whoever (often financed from abroad in an effort to destabilize England).
5. Interesting discussion about national debt - how England reached its heights while constantly incurring debt beyond what was dreamed to be sustainable.
6. One of the fundamental sources of conflict: capitalism isn't for everybody (certainly not at first blush); yet nations are inevitably left behind if they don't play the game. Forced into something they may not want, resentful of those on top of the system that does the forcing.
7. Wars of religion - primarily a phenomenon among the three Abrahamic religions (Jews, Muslims, Christians). Not surprisingly, conflict results when you claim that only your religion is based on revealed truth - doesn't leave much room for compromise!
8. Secular modernism as a fourth major religion. Yes, it does function as such.
9. I've always felt that Adam Smith was right because the concept of "original sin" is right (however one wishes to phrase it). Individuals are flawed, if for no other reason than we cannot possibly avoid over-emphasizing our own importance. And we act accordingly.
10. Therefore Plato's "benevolent dictator" cannot exist - in any form. We are better off with decentralized power and decision-making - the "invisible hand" may not be infallible but the idea is far more than a pretty phrase. And it certainly operates far better than central planning, as has been demonstrated over and over.
11. "The greatest wealth of countries like the United States and Great Britain is not their mineral deposits or their agricultural land. It is not the money that they have in the bank. It is the mentality and habits of the nation at large. These are peoples accustomed to governing themselves, accustomed to promoting enterprise, ready to join in spontaneous and private activities of all kinds - but also accustomed to an ordered liberty whose roots now are many centuries old. This human and social capital is by far the most valuable to have - and by far the hardest to get."
12. #11 is critically important. Compare how most other countries function. Yet it is not an eternal, immutable situation. The modern welfare state - yes, including Obama - destroys this ethos - a straightforward example of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
3. Land-based empires are forced to deal with quarrelsome neighbors, get caught up in frightful fights over terrain not crucial to the big picture. This hurt the Netherlands (based in mainland Europe). Obvious examples would include Russia and Germany wrecking each other over Poland, Ukraine, etc.; France and Germany wrecking each other over Alsace, Lorraine, etc. England and in turn the US able to play the global whole - far more effective.
4. Looks to the Glorious Revolution (1688) as the key event for England. William of Orange arrives from Netherlands. Protestants hold sway thereafter notwithstanding continuing struggles to restore Stuarts or whoever (often financed from abroad in an effort to destabilize England).
5. Interesting discussion about national debt - how England reached its heights while constantly incurring debt beyond what was dreamed to be sustainable.
6. One of the fundamental sources of conflict: capitalism isn't for everybody (certainly not at first blush); yet nations are inevitably left behind if they don't play the game. Forced into something they may not want, resentful of those on top of the system that does the forcing.
7. Wars of religion - primarily a phenomenon among the three Abrahamic religions (Jews, Muslims, Christians). Not surprisingly, conflict results when you claim that only your religion is based on revealed truth - doesn't leave much room for compromise!
8. Secular modernism as a fourth major religion. Yes, it does function as such.
9. I've always felt that Adam Smith was right because the concept of "original sin" is right (however one wishes to phrase it). Individuals are flawed, if for no other reason than we cannot possibly avoid over-emphasizing our own importance. And we act accordingly.
10. Therefore Plato's "benevolent dictator" cannot exist - in any form. We are better off with decentralized power and decision-making - the "invisible hand" may not be infallible but the idea is far more than a pretty phrase. And it certainly operates far better than central planning, as has been demonstrated over and over.
11. "The greatest wealth of countries like the United States and Great Britain is not their mineral deposits or their agricultural land. It is not the money that they have in the bank. It is the mentality and habits of the nation at large. These are peoples accustomed to governing themselves, accustomed to promoting enterprise, ready to join in spontaneous and private activities of all kinds - but also accustomed to an ordered liberty whose roots now are many centuries old. This human and social capital is by far the most valuable to have - and by far the hardest to get."
12. #11 is critically important. Compare how most other countries function. Yet it is not an eternal, immutable situation. The modern welfare state - yes, including Obama - destroys this ethos - a straightforward example of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
No comments:
Post a Comment