Niall Ferguson is one of Britain's most renowned historians. He is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a senior fellow of the Center for European Studies at Harvard University, and a Visiting Professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing. His books include The House of Rothschild, Empire, The War of the World, The Ascent of Money, The Great Degeneration and Kissinger, 1923-1968: The Idealist. His many prizes include the Benjamin Franklin Prize for Public Service (2010), the Hayek Prize for Lifetime Achievement (2012) and the Ludwig Erhard Prize for Economic Journalism (2013).
In Empire, Ferguson (Herzog Professor of Financial History, Stern Sch. of Business, NYU) extolled the value of the British Empire; here, he turns his attention to its putative successor. America, he says, is an empire and has always been an empire, but this is not necessarily bad. The presence of a strong empire stabilizes the world around it. As a result, Ferguson is very much in favor of the recent U.S. military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The first half of this book takes a historical approach, showing how the United States acquired an empire not by brute conquest but primarily by purchasing territory. The second half compares contemporary America to the European Union and China as possible contenders for the imperial mantle. Both have problems, he argues, that make it unlikely they will supplant the United States. Ferguson, however, is not blind to the weaknesses of the U.S. empire, pointing especially to the unwillingness of Americans to spend a career abroad (as did Britain's Indian Civil Service) and a tendency to seek quick fixes when they do intervene in the affairs of other countries. Unlike Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, which argued that excessive military commitments abroad would undermine U.S. supremacy, Ferguson points to smoldering internal financial weaknesses (especially in Social Security and Medicare) as the more dangerous threat to this country. Though this book is well argued, its comparisons will make many readers uncomfortable. Still, many current affairs collections will want it for its synthesis of history and economics.-Marcia L. Sprules, Council on Foreign Relations Lib., New York Copyright 2004 Reed Business Information.
Criticism of the U.S. government's imperialist tendencies has become nearly ubiquitous since the invasion of Iraq began nearly a year ago, but Ferguson would like America to embrace its imperial character. Just as in his previous book, Empire, he argued that the British Empire had done much good, he now suggests that "many parts of the world would benefit from a period of American rule," as stability and a lack of corruption that could be brought by liberal imperial government would result in capital investment and growth. Similarly, he says, the British Empire acted as "an engine for the integration of international capital markets." The problems nations like India faced after the British left, he continues, could have been ameliorated if the colonization had been more comprehensive, more securely establishing the types of institutions that foster long-term prosperity. The primary shortcoming of America's approach to empire, Ferguson believes, is that it prefers in-and-out military flourishes to staying in for the long haul. His criticism of Americans as a people who "like social security more than they like national security" and refuse to confront impending economic disaster are withering, but he also has sharp comments for those who imagine a unified Europe rising up to confront America and for the way France tried to block the Iraqi invasion. The erudite and often statistical argument has occasional flashes of wit and may compel liberals to rethink their opposition to intervention, even as it castigates conservatives for their lackluster commitment to nation building. (Apr. 26) Copyright 2004 Reed Business Information.
|
Ask a Question About this Product More... |
|
