Appreciate this! I first heard Zeihan on Sam Harris' podcast and he was very convincing, articulate and speaking as he does with the confidence of authority. But some of the shit he was saying I had to question, like that China will cease to exist as a country due to population decline. My husband and I spent some time joking about his dire global outlook on that front.
But I was still considering buying one of his books for my dad! Now I won't do that.
Zeihan reminds me of George Friedman, who I also listen to on geopolitical questions. They both manage to post hoc rationalize every nonsensical Trump move. The US withdraws? Aligns with their worldview. The US engages? Aligns with their worldview. Their predictions are totally wrong? Ignore and keep posting.
I absolutely love Peter Zeihan because he is FUN. I take inspiration from him because he helps paint a vivid picture of the world and allows you to consider new possibilities. Most of the people predicting American collapse and the rise of BRICS are Marxists or Nazis -- he provides an opposite viewpoint, where America survives quite well. Overall, I basically agree with Zeihan that barriers to trade are increasing, while America's assets are quite strong.
That said, the term "assets" should be expanded to include our policy infrastructure, institutional trust, religious cohesion, etc. These things are worsening, but still much stronger than the global average. Take Russia, for example, where Prigozhin held a coup, or China, where they aren't allowed on the normal internet.
Where I think your critique is strongest is on this point of policy determinism, that America MUST shrink its navy, it MUST withdraw, it MUST isolate because the logic of isolationism is too strong. As you point out, this doesn't reflect material reality. I think eventually it may come to pass that China grows too strong for the American navy to compete with it, either leading to a withdrawal from the Indo-Pacific or the outbreak of war. But barring some kind of event signaling Chinese supremacy in the region, a voluntary premature withdrawal seems unlikely. It's possible, I suppose, but neither political party seems interested in abandoning the Indo-Pacific.
I really enjoy Zeihan as a conversation starter, someone who makes people think about big ideas in geopolitics and macroeconomics, because I've always been interested in those things. I think he made some predictions back in 2010 that were interesting and did bear some resemblance to our politics today (Trumpist isolationism, anti-neocon backlash) but he is trapped in his own brand and not separating apart the way in which politics is elite-driven vs sentiment-driven.
I do think Trump's sentiments are uniquely isolationist, and provide a template for future GOP leaders to block American involvement overseas. But in material terms, Trump has not withdrawn us from anywhere, reduced our overseas presence, or reduced military funding. It was Biden who did that in Afghanistan, while at the same time doubling down in Ukraine.
I find this stuff fascinating. I will admit that Zeihan is a guru, but I think gurus can be fun and harmless. Instead of Zeihan, each area of study could have a firewall around it to prevent non-experts from speculating wildly. But historically that's not how western thought developed and expanded. Letting people say crazy things about the lost Israelites of the Americas or an ancient race of giants or the ability to talk to the dead all spurred creative investigations and excitement to understand the world around us.
Where Zeihan lacks in "bet hedging" and "caveats" and "considering counter-arguments" he makes up for in spirit. I would rather people get excited about centrist-liberal geopolitics and be slightly off than to be seduced over to more destructive ideas like Marxism or Nazism. There is a moral dimension here where I think you have to give Zeihan some credit, in comparison to Hasan and Fuentes. Compare him to his competitors on social media, not the idealized form of an academic. I say this as an aspiring "guru" myself.
Zeihan obviously poses as a guru and makes erroneous predictions, but his worldview is likely in the top 1% of possible worldviews one could hold. If one were to replace their geopolitical understanding with his, most would be more accurate on average.
Yes he makes inaccurate predictions, typically accelerating realistic timelines (Bitcoin and China) but I think your list of predictions from 2022 “not happening” is premature.
Appreciate this! I first heard Zeihan on Sam Harris' podcast and he was very convincing, articulate and speaking as he does with the confidence of authority. But some of the shit he was saying I had to question, like that China will cease to exist as a country due to population decline. My husband and I spent some time joking about his dire global outlook on that front.
But I was still considering buying one of his books for my dad! Now I won't do that.
Zeihan reminds me of George Friedman, who I also listen to on geopolitical questions. They both manage to post hoc rationalize every nonsensical Trump move. The US withdraws? Aligns with their worldview. The US engages? Aligns with their worldview. Their predictions are totally wrong? Ignore and keep posting.
I absolutely love Peter Zeihan because he is FUN. I take inspiration from him because he helps paint a vivid picture of the world and allows you to consider new possibilities. Most of the people predicting American collapse and the rise of BRICS are Marxists or Nazis -- he provides an opposite viewpoint, where America survives quite well. Overall, I basically agree with Zeihan that barriers to trade are increasing, while America's assets are quite strong.
That said, the term "assets" should be expanded to include our policy infrastructure, institutional trust, religious cohesion, etc. These things are worsening, but still much stronger than the global average. Take Russia, for example, where Prigozhin held a coup, or China, where they aren't allowed on the normal internet.
Where I think your critique is strongest is on this point of policy determinism, that America MUST shrink its navy, it MUST withdraw, it MUST isolate because the logic of isolationism is too strong. As you point out, this doesn't reflect material reality. I think eventually it may come to pass that China grows too strong for the American navy to compete with it, either leading to a withdrawal from the Indo-Pacific or the outbreak of war. But barring some kind of event signaling Chinese supremacy in the region, a voluntary premature withdrawal seems unlikely. It's possible, I suppose, but neither political party seems interested in abandoning the Indo-Pacific.
I really enjoy Zeihan as a conversation starter, someone who makes people think about big ideas in geopolitics and macroeconomics, because I've always been interested in those things. I think he made some predictions back in 2010 that were interesting and did bear some resemblance to our politics today (Trumpist isolationism, anti-neocon backlash) but he is trapped in his own brand and not separating apart the way in which politics is elite-driven vs sentiment-driven.
I do think Trump's sentiments are uniquely isolationist, and provide a template for future GOP leaders to block American involvement overseas. But in material terms, Trump has not withdrawn us from anywhere, reduced our overseas presence, or reduced military funding. It was Biden who did that in Afghanistan, while at the same time doubling down in Ukraine.
I find this stuff fascinating. I will admit that Zeihan is a guru, but I think gurus can be fun and harmless. Instead of Zeihan, each area of study could have a firewall around it to prevent non-experts from speculating wildly. But historically that's not how western thought developed and expanded. Letting people say crazy things about the lost Israelites of the Americas or an ancient race of giants or the ability to talk to the dead all spurred creative investigations and excitement to understand the world around us.
Where Zeihan lacks in "bet hedging" and "caveats" and "considering counter-arguments" he makes up for in spirit. I would rather people get excited about centrist-liberal geopolitics and be slightly off than to be seduced over to more destructive ideas like Marxism or Nazism. There is a moral dimension here where I think you have to give Zeihan some credit, in comparison to Hasan and Fuentes. Compare him to his competitors on social media, not the idealized form of an academic. I say this as an aspiring "guru" myself.
Zeihan obviously poses as a guru and makes erroneous predictions, but his worldview is likely in the top 1% of possible worldviews one could hold. If one were to replace their geopolitical understanding with his, most would be more accurate on average.
Yes he makes inaccurate predictions, typically accelerating realistic timelines (Bitcoin and China) but I think your list of predictions from 2022 “not happening” is premature.