This book charts the rise and fall of the 'globalism' aka neoconservative or neoliberal movement from the 1970s to the early 2000s. Saul describes it as a movement which made economics the prime mover of international relations, the idea that capital could flow around the world with such ease that overall wealth would increase and nation-states would become obsolete. It was like a religious belief, not particularly borne out by the results of the experiment, which increased inequality and led to corporate enrichment at the cost of entire countries. Globalism ignored culture, society and religion in favour of trade.

Having defined Globalism thus, Saul continued to talk about the 'technocratic elites' and their 'globalism'. I didn't necessarily disagree with the thesis of globalism's decline; many events after the publication of the book have confirmed it: the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, the rise of Bad China, Trump and Brexit in the teens and lately the 2020s pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. However I wanted to know how these 'elites' came to dominate the thinking of 'Western' governments and how they stayed enmeshed in their institutions for so long with little apparent result. I wanted more historical analysis than this book could provide. Instead there was a cherry-picking of events from the two decades to demonstrate the author's arguments, which I found unsatisfying.

The book did remind me of various events of the 1990s and inspired me to pick up a related work, Timothy Garton-Ash's 'History of the Present' (also written in the 1990s). More on that in another review. ( )

This book rambles on a bit but the soup contains many tasty nutritious elements. The overall flavor is clear and consistent. Curiously, a key ingredient is exactly the point that, hmmm, stews are more nutritious than steaks, something like that. A steak is this clear powerful structure, neatly carved. This is Fukuyama's End of History. Once one has the beef on the plate, the goal has been won so any sort of process or evolution or path has ended. But beef makes the whole planet sick. This dream of finality is deluded.

So Saul's book is not some grand totalizing structure that provides all the answers before anybody manages to ask them. It kicks around a pile of points. Where do we go with all these ingredients?

For sure... I had to double-check the publication date a few times. 2005! Saul brings up Senator Barack Obama as an example of a new kind of political figure with a vision that goes beyond a simple formula. My own theory would be that Obama unfortunately proved that leadership is not enough, that management is crucially important too. But perhaps the Washington DC environment is impossibly toxic.

Anyway the whole book is remarkably prescient - Trump, Brexit - and Saul gives us a vision of positive nationalism, contrasting it with the negative nationalism that is so much in the driver's seat these days. How can Saul's vision get any kind of finger hold?

I've been writing my Senators and will continue to do so. I would like to see a post-industrial military force, where soldiers learn languages and cultures from around the world, become effective partners around the world, where we build our own national strength by making other nations stronger.

On immigration - really, what a blessing, that so many hard-working people come to our country! If somebody has demonstrated their value to our society, as a neighbor, a member of society, a worker, etc. - doesn't our nation get stronger by welcoming such people to stay as citizens? Sure, deport the criminals and the sociopaths. If such a new path to citizenship encourages even more immigration... doesn't that make us even stronger? ( )

EA for the wise. A book that, if taken to heart, could change the world for the better of ALL people. Great prose too.

One thing that bothers me is Saul's willingness to allow a narrow nationalism to Israel, but not to others. He gives geo-political Jews a pass on ethnic nationalism but deems it "negative" when it comes to others.

As of last week Australia got (another) new PM [Turnball], and in his first three speeches he dropped the words "globalise" and "technology". Either the dragon that Saul set out to slay is still kicking or Australia is (surprisingly?) still living in 1994. ( )

There seem to be a lot of ideas in this book, but the prose style is so turgid at points that I had a great deal of difficulty figuring out what the author was intending to convey. The general idea seems to be that Globalism--which appears to be defined as the idea that all relations should be reduced to the economic and that nothing must stand in the way of free trade--rose to power, has been found to be unsatisfactory and is beginning to be challenged. But it is hard to take seriously a book on economics that makes no mention of resource depletion or the costs of pollution as contributing to a lack of rising prosperity. Add to this the fact that the book was published three years before the crash of 2008 and it is hard to decide how much relevance remains.

Liked his writing ( )