“It is the argument of this book that the international political system has indeed entered a period of dangerous instability and profound change.” – Rachman

Gideon Rachman, a journalist with the FT who spent 15 years at The Economist, has considerable experience talking about politics and international relations. His book focuses on the last 30 years, and divides it into three distinct eras: an Age of Transformation, an Age of Optimism, and an Age of Anxiety. Most of this post will be a summary of that structure; I found it a nice way to think about recent political history.

From 1978 to 1990, under Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Thatcher, and Reagan, Rachman argues that in an effort to revive economies world leaders transformed the structure of international trade, loosening controls (to varying degrees) and encouraging globalization. China would begin to join the world economy; the USSR would disintegrate; and free markets would reign in the UK and US.

1990 to 2008 Rachman labels as the Age of Optimism. Trade and globalization flourish, with Clinton as a classic case. American power, whether military, economic, financial, technological, or intellectual, reigned supreme, and with the collapse of the USSR the world looked forward to peace and prosperity. No longer was competition between nations relevant: the success of any nation helped everyone, and the real threat to international security was not rivalries between powers, but failed states. International relations were win-win.

By 2008, however, the limits of American military power had been made painfully clear, and the financial crisis would do the same to American economic power. Global political problems, like terrorism and climate change would emerge, but the world seemed incapable of coordinating global political solutions. Authoritarian countries like Russia and China would gain power and confidence, and though no broad challenge to democracy would emerge, the rise of authoritarian powers spread like a rot through the system. No longer were disputes win-win; instead, they were zero-sum, with one country losing if the other won.

Such is Rachman’s story, and if somewhat politics and developed-world centric, it is compelling. Today’s discussion tends to be left vs. right, but for much of history it was authoritarian vs. democracy, and that’s the axis Rachman wants to focus on. He argues that in the long run authoritarian powers will struggle due to an inability to project power globally and a lack of a convincing alternative vision of how the world should be run, but in the short run, they can pose a significant problem.

I had a good time reading the book: each chapter is devoted to key events in recent history, and though I had a passing knowledge of most of them, having them detailed in a clear, structured manner was useful, and Rachman’s occasional dry observation didn’t hurt. No particularly revolutionary new ideas, perhaps, but it’s well explained and nicely expressed. A light but interesting read.