A World Safe for Democracy

Liberal Internationalism and the Crises of Global Order

By: John Ikenberry

Narrated by: Mark Boyett

Length: 14 hrs and 28 mins

Publisher's summary

A sweeping account of the rise and evolution of liberal internationalism in the modern era

For 200 years, the grand project of liberal internationalism has been to build a world order that is open, loosely rules-based, and oriented toward progressive ideas. Today this project is in crisis, threatened from the outside by illiberal challengers and from the inside by nationalist-populist movements. This timely book offers the first full account of liberal internationalism’s long journey from its 19th-century roots to today’s fractured political moment. 

Creating an international “space” for liberal democracy, preserving rights and protections within and between countries, and balancing conflicting values such as liberty and equality, openness and social solidarity, and sovereignty and interdependence - these are the guiding aims that have propelled liberal internationalism through the upheavals of the past two centuries. G. John Ikenberry argues that in a 21st century marked by rising economic and security interdependence, liberal internationalism - reformed and reimagined - remains the most viable project to protect liberal democracy. 

PLEASE NOTE: When you purchase this title, the accompanying PDF will be available in your Audible Library along with the audio. 

©2020 G. John Ikenberry (P)2020 Audible, Inc.

A genuine American Dr Frankenstein

This is a really good book to have on “liberal world order”. This is written by a Princeton professor that is very influential on the subject matter. So, this is an authority on the subject. Probably had every other American diplomat in the last 30 years, in his class room. The narrator is 100% class.

What will shock the reader is how ethereal the subject matter is. If you wanted to know what it is, you will be disappointed. This is like reading the 10K for a company that does not sell a legal or moral product, like what an “investment bank” really is and how it makes money. Or it’s like reading the fine print on a scam. The outcome can be anything and they take no responsibility for bad outcomes. The author claims every human improvement as a benefit of “Liberal World Order”. Also, only a fellow “liberal” can say what a “liberal” is. So, they can blame everything on non-liberals, because only Globalist liberals know what Globalist liberals are. Also, the author keeps saying "we" and "Americans" as though anyone actually openly voted on the social and global engineering he loves. These are the Ottoman palace Eunuchs 2.0 run amok but claiming the "we" and "flag" of America. Hilarious and ominous. Doesn't it seem odd and super convenient that World "crisis" always happen when these palace Eunuchs are ascendant?

I am not sure that this authority fully understands how hackable this ideal really is. Also, he says so much about “democracy” that he does not see that that “democracy” is not what he wants. They want people that follow a leading and selected “liberal”, so if people elect a non-liberal, then it’s not “democracy” anymore. Author fails to see that JM Keynes was protecting the British monetary system in Versailles, even JMK said so himself. Fails to see that the "great" unlimited, total war only became the 20th Century standard because of unlimited central bank financing allows for total war, big governments make Big Wars. Little war lords actually manage their finances more carefully, their wars are very limited. A little war lord can't and won't sacrifice 500K people to take a French fortress. Also fails to see that shadow figures and intellectuals that morph between government jobs , finance jobs, "infrastructure" companies, defense companies, Health NGOs, and company boards are not "democratic", they represent their own interests. The author seems not to know that 1800's "Empires" especially Russia's was to create "safe space for civilization" too. They thought Central Asia and the Caucuses were pretty Barbaric, they were "civilizing". The Brits viewed and rationalized their "Empire" the same way. France just wanted to make the 19th Century Mediterranean "Safe". It's the most elitist form of government imaginable, 180-degrees divorced from self-rule and democracy.

Also, interesting that Woodrow Wilson is the model Liberal? The dude that nationalized the Railroads? Creator of the Sedition Act? The guy that hated people, hated debate, and wanted to unilaterally write constitutions – and went crazy twice when he could not get his way. He actually wrote constitutions for fun and rued internally when people always dismissed them. Once at Princeton, he was fired for being a megalomaniac tyrant president. His way or mental break-down. Then the same happened after Versailles, another mental breakdown. Also, Wilson did not believe in Constitutional Democracy. Not at all. He continuously made it impossible for the USA to be neutral in WW1, against the will of the people and then enforced compliance. Why were American tourists going on vacation in War Zones? Why did the cruise ship blow up like they were full of munitions? Why undermine his own peace-focused and anti-Empire Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan. Also, Wilson's venal fixer, Colonel House, openly fantasized about a Wilsonian dictatorship, even wrote a book, “Phil Dru- Administrator”, about an American “benevolent” dictator. But I get it. Wilson is a “liberal” when this author says he is “liberal”, but when he is bad, he is “illiberal”, so his actions don’t taint the brand. Does this professor know that Wilson invaded and occupied Nicaragua to help his gangster benefactors? Crimes against Central American folks don't count in Princeton?

Basically, this is a very un-self-aware book with the most immature and circular logic imaginable. Needs to be translated to Spanish ASAP. "Esto creen los de Washington." The Spanish title would be "A world Safe for Our Democracy."

good :)

conceptually good, fails to address causes which are briefly mentioned but with no real nuanced discussion until the very end. still a very insightful view of Liberal internationalists understanding.