Policy Advice to Obama (in an author comparison): Fareed Zakaria vs. Michael Mandalbaum

Dear Mr. President:

As your foreign policy advisor it is my responsibility to provide you with my thoughts and opinions on current matters of critical importance.  Your other advisors on foreign policy, Michael Mandalbaum and Fareed Zakaria, both have their own personal opinions on what the future of the United States holds and on what you must do to ensure and secure both peace and prosperity for the country in the coming years.  Mandelbaum presents his perspective in his book The Frugal Superpower, and Zakaria lays out his own ideas in The Post-American World.  Both offer strong, logical arguments including some profound insights that I am in agreement with and believe you should embrace.  However, I feel that both their views have some critical flaws and weaknesses that need to be addressed, as they could have serious repercussions in terms of risk to your own political future as well as to the future of our country. 

Mandelbaum’s argument hinges on the idea, as his title suggest, that the United States has become a “frugal superpower because it is no longer able to sustain the massive costs and spending it incurred in past decades to defend its position as a world power.  He sees of the American economy today in its most serious crisis since the Great Depression.  He paints an extremely dismal picture of the enormous budget deficits and resulting debt that have been created over the past decade and argues that the situation will only worsen as Americans age and entitlement spending increases.  In particular, Mandelbaum worries, as I believe you should, that with the start of the retirement of the Baby-Boomer generation and their subsequent qualification for Social Security and Medicare in 2011, our economic problems will rise sharply.  Although politically risky, the solution Mandelbaum proposes that would yield the best results would be to raise the retirement age by a few years.  Although this move would undoubtedly generate a lot of disapproval, especially in the elderly community, it would ultimately save the government billions of dollars in spending that it does not have at its disposal.

The real flaw I see in Mandelbaum’s line of reasoning, however, is his approach to dealing with the Middle East.  He proposes a sharp increase in the current gas tax, which he believes will reduce American oil consumption, thereby greatly hurting the economies of corrupt governments of oil-rich region and eventually leading to the spread of democracy throughout the region.  I see a number of holes  in this argument.  As a country that generates large amounts of its own oil and imports only around 25% from the Middle East, our reduction in consumption will have much less revenue impact on the governments of the Middle East oil exporters than Mandelbaum anticipates.  In addition, in direct response to our under-consumption of oil, power-hungry countries such as China would jump on the opportunity to purchase higher quantities, raising their ability to produce and raising the worries of the American public about our country’s global competitiveness.  I also strongly question the notion that a blow to the economies of corrupt regimes will lead inevitably to an overthrow of the current rulers and an introduction of democratic institutions.   In fact, barring intervention, the replacement of these leaders with others equally corrupt seems much more likely.  And finally, there is the practical feasibility of securing the gas tax that Mandelbaum proposes.  He calls for a gas tax increase of more than 300%, a figure that is jaw-dropping consider the fierce resistance to much more modest proposals for raising the tax by only a few pennies over the current $0.18 level.   In my opinion, the near-term likelihood of passing a gas tax at the level Mandelbaum proposes is slim to none – and just proposing such an increase could cost you enormously in terms of political capital.  That said, as a vehicle for increasing government revenue, I do believe you should advocate for a smaller gas tax increase -- but without holding out any realistic hope that such an increase will drive real change in the Middle East.  What such a tax increase would do is  help us to move away from our reliance on oil, reducing the number of SUV’s and other oil-hungry vehicles on the road and moving us towards more environmentally-friendly modes of transportation.

 Although Mandalbaum does present some insightful arguments (particular in his recognition of the limitations of American power in a world of growing scarcity), I believe it would be wise for you to pay more attention to Fareed Zakaria, who presents in The Post-American World a cogent set of ideas and perspectives much closer to my own on what the future of America holds.  He envisions a world in which our power diminishes in relative terms with the rise of new world powers such as China, India, and Brazil.  He then focuses on the new role in the world we must take on to accompany the rise of these powers and the end of a unipolar age.  It is difficult to argue with Zakaria’s analysis of our current situation and of the many challenges we must overcome to maintain our lead or at least keep up with other growing nations.  I would draw your attention in particular to Zakaria’s perspective on the issue of immigration, which I strongly support.  One of our country’s greatest strengths historically has been the consistent desire of foreigners to emigrate and become Americans.  Looking to the future, while the populations in Russia, China, the UK, India, and other powerful nations mature and age, the United States can enjoy an expanding population in which the influx of immigrants serves as a fuel for continued innovation and growth.   So while developing and maintaining an appropriate immigration policy does present many challenges, I believe that the approach Zakaria proposes, recognizing the advantages that spring from immigration and therefore embracing it, is one that will serve the country well in the long run.

The major issue I have with Zakaria’s overall argument is that he (like Mandelbaum) sometimes seems overly confident about the future of the United States and the ease at which current problems can be sorted out.  For example, while his assumption of the inevitability of China becoming a world power is doubtless realistic, I find him unduly optimistic about the ability of Americans to accept this fact and the resulting new role he envision for the U.S. as a “power amongst many powers.”  He fails to adequately address the problems that will be caused by Chinese interest in geographic expansion, increased control in the Southeast seas, and a number of other issues which will surely cause outrage within the U.S.  Furthermore, I fear Zakaria may underestimate the challenge for the U.S. in simply keeping up with China in the years ahead.   As he points out, China is producing far more scientists and engineers than the U.S. – the result not just of its larger population base but also of America’s poor long-term education decisions (e.g., we are graduating more sports medicine than engineering majors).  And while the quality of our educational system may mean that the abilities of an individual American engineer may exceed than that of a Chinese engineer, China’s advantages in sheer numbers far outweigh this factor.  So it is becoming increasingly important that we remember what has brought us success in the past and what will help secure our strength in the future.

Like Mandelbaum, Zakaria also seems to me to underemphasize the importance of the Middle East, seeing the issues there as ones that should take a backseat to many others.  I think he vastly underestimates the dangers emerging from the region and also the ability of the U.S. to walk away from it completely without causing more problems than already exist.   In my option, the instability in the entire Middle East region is a top priority that must be dealt with and must remain at the forefront of your mind.

Zakaria’s optimism especially dominates his analysis of India, which he sees  as a “slowly moving arrow in the right direction.”  It is unclear to me if this assessment is grounded in reality or rather in a personal desire to see his native country flourish.  While India does seem to be advancing economically and has the population necessary to be a world power, as of now there are few signs that the country is able to look current internal problems and its fractious relations with Pakistan.  For the moment at least, India seems to exhibit little desire or even interest in involving itself affairs on the international stage. 

My final argument with Zakaria is over his sanguinity regarding the economic stability of the U.S. and the ease to which policies can be implemented to solve a majority of the front-page dilemmas the country faces.  Because his book was published shortly before the current economic crisis hit its peak, Zakaria can be excused for a somewhat over-trustful critique of the economy.  However, his statement that “a set of sensible reforms could be enacted tomorrow to trim wasteful spending and subsidies, increase savings, expand training in science and technology, secure pensions, create a workable immigration process, and achieve significant efficiencies in the use of energy” (211) seems remarkably naïve in the current political environment.   He seems to be arguing here not only against a system of government which has operated fairly smoothly for over two centuries, and suggesting – incorrectly, in my view -- that under different leadership these problems could be easily cured.  I believe the reality of the world is much more complex than this.

Both my fellow advisors present very worthwhile points in their respective books, and many of these you should consider greatly in your decision making process in the upcoming months.  Overall I would warn you to be mindful of the sometimes over-simplified strategies that Mandelbaum proposes, and the over-optimism in Zakaria’s arguments, and make sure you realize that it isn’t going to be easy to move into this new multipolar era.  It will be impossible to avoid conflict, and the goal should thus be to minimize the amount of conflict necessary.  You will not be able to please all who you represent, but most will stand by you as you lead the country in the right direction.

Nicholas Jared