Proving that exorbitant wealth and allegiance to the Republican Party do not necessarily go hand in hand, billionaire George Soros offers a sharp critique of the neoconservative philosophy that he sees guiding the George W. Bush administration. In
The Bubble of American Supremacy, Soros warns that American efforts to be the ultimate global superpower will not only be unsuccessful but will make America and the world infinitely more unstable. Bush and company, he says, have callously used the events of September 11th for their own political gain and misled the world about the threat posed by Iraq. In previous American presidential elections, billionaires Steve Forbes and Ross Perot have tried to run for president themselves to address the country's problems, but Soros--while no less zealous about his convictions--sees his role a little differently. "I have made it my primary objective to persuade the American public to reject President Bush in the upcoming elections," he writes, "We have been deceived." The arguments he makes and the evidence he presents are interesting enough, although there really isn't anything here that hasn't been written in scores of other anti-Bush books released around the same time. What sets Soros's book apart from all the others is the recurring presence of Soros himself, frequently citing previous books he's written, speeches he's made, and highlights of his career. The pronoun "I" is never far away. Granted, it's been an interesting career; his financial success coupled with his passionate political convictions would make for a terrific memoir, but at times in this book Soros's ego gets almost comically in the way. Referring to his long-held support for open societies, he says this philosophy "could almost be called the Soros doctrine" only to renounce propriety over it a page later. Soros is a capable writer and a clear thinker, and he ably articulates his views. Readers interested in criticisms of Bush and company have several options but readers interested in George Soros will find plenty to satisfy them here.
--John Moe(retrieved from Amazon Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:57:57 -0400)
Wikipedia in English (2)
Unfortunately there are a number of flaws in Soros’s argument. He makes no recommendation for people who do not live in an open society and are thus unable to choose democracy. How does a society come to democracy when it is ruled by a dictator? Additionally, the author admits that “our nation must concern itself with the well-being of the world,” yet denies us the ability to decide what the best condition for a nation is. Regardless of how you feel about the Bush administration or its foreign policy, it seems disingenuous to say that the United States must look after other countries and then argue that we shouldn’t try to shape those countries in the mold of the most successful nation on the planet.
There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance in The Bubble of American Supremacy. Soros harshly criticizes the Bush administration’s attempts to establish democracy in Iraq and to erect a new, stronger state in the wake of Saddam Hussein’s deposition; and yet he levels more criticism on Bush for his “opposition to nation building” in Afghanistan. He praises the Warsaw Declaration for proclaiming “that it is in the interest of all democratic countries taken as a group to foster the development of democracy in all other countries,” yet he argues that the United States should not be democratizing Iraq because it “has no experience of democracy.” According to The Economist, of the 196 nations of the world only 33 have a fully democratic government and 116 have an authoritarian or hybrid government. How can the world’s free nations spread democracy when fully half of all nations “[have] no experience of democracy?”
Ultimately, Soros presents a solid philosophical background for the establishment of open societies. But his practical theories and refusal to acknowledge the concept of natural rights make it difficult to reconcile the fact that the United States, as the most powerful nation on the planet, does have a responsibility to encourage freedom throughout the word, with Soros’s contention that it is not our responsibility to define democracy. If our example of democracy is the most successful (and its 200+ year history would suggest that it is), surely that is the best model for burgeoning democracies to be based on. (