"Revolution" or Evolution? Why a New Book from The Economist Misses the Mark
Micklethwait's book from The Economist falls short, plagued by flawed logic and a glaring omission: the 2008 financial crisis.
A Critical Look at Micklethwait's Latest Offering on the State of Governance
When a book lands on your desk authored by the Editor-in-Chief of The Economist and one of his senior colleagues, you brace yourself for an intellectual powerhouse—a true reflection of the publication that positions itself as the "bible of the chattering classes." Sadly, Micklethwait's latest work on the history and future of governance falls short of that lofty expectation.
Faulty Logic and Historical Oversight
The first, and perhaps most frustrating, stumble is a fundamental misunderstanding of basic terms and arithmetic. The authors propose a "fourth revolution," yet their own narrative details three full revolutions and one "half revolution." Simple math dictates the next major shift would be the 4.5th, or the fifth if you’re rounding up, but definitely not the fourth. More critically, their use of the term "revolution" itself is flawed. A revolution, literally meaning an upending or a turn of the wheel, suggests a complete break. However, the authors describe shifts like nationalism, liberalism, Fabianism, and Thatcherism—all of which clearly still co-exist in the modern state. The far more appropriate, and correct, term for this long-term change is evolution.
Leaving aside the issues of numeracy and literacy, the most glaring weakness is the authors' seemingly willful amnesia. They guide us through 400 years of major themes in government and governance, yet almost entirely fail to mention the 2008 financial crisis. This is a profound omission.
The Unspoken Elephant in the Room
I've criticized The Economist for this blind spot before. Back in 2011, the magazine published a ridiculously sycophantic cover story essentially begging the public to stop being "nasty" to bankers, using statistics provided by a City PR firm to boot. While I’m sure there are sound commercial reasons for an influential publication to avoid criticizing the financial sector, this choice severely weakens the book's core argument.
If the goal is to warn readers about the fragility of the Western state, there is no better example than how it allowed an out-of-control, amoral financial sector to lead the world into the worst recession since World War II.
This silence, I suspect, stems from an ideological bias. Critiquing the banking sector would force the authors to question the sacred notion that the private sector always knows best and must be unshackled at every turn. It appears they can never truly move past their passionate, teenage infatuation with the doctrines of Hayek, Friedman, Thatcher, and Reagan.
The Real Lesson of 2008
The great lesson of the 2008 crisis is precisely the opposite of what their ideology suggests: governments need to be powerful and respected enough to enforce laws and common decency on all citizens. Western public sectors may be historically large today, but that is largely because they have had to pour vast compensating resources into economies drained of life by the catastrophic losses inflicted by the financial crisis.
Like the frustratingly cookie-cutter approach of their newspaper, the authors have allowed an important, legitimate debate to be completely hijacked by their own ideological obsessions. And that, frankly, is just stupid.
