In his new book, 'God and Gold', foreign affairs expert Walter Russell Mead argues that modern world history can be understood as the global application of a system of economics, religion, and culture that has been unilaterally developed and directed by the English-speaking peoples. From the time of Oliver Cromwell to the present, the British and the Americans, either individually or together, have won every major war, and have established a commercial and military dominance that remains the foundation of the modern world. "It is perhaps bad manners to say so," Mead acknowledges, "but that does not make it less true."
Within this context, Mead addresses questions which he believes can help us better understand and handle the problems and dangers that confront America today. As he goes through his discussion of these questions, the strengths of the book include his authoritative mastery of historical, political, and economic facts, which he uses liberally to support his argument, and his ability to weave together cultural, religious, economic, and political strands of history into a fascinating, well-written, and coherent synthesis that explains a great deal. The weaknesses of the book include a sometimes-overbearing repetitiveness of key points, and in the end a rather unsatisfying response to the major contemporary criticisms of Anglo-American culture. Nonetheless, the book is a very worthwhile read, both for its historic sweep, and most importantly for Mead's lucid and useful suggestions regarding the future of American foreign policy.

Walter Russell Mead takes a crack at the contention that has been right in the thick of international politics for the last two - three hundred years: the rise of Britain and United States to the ranks of preeminent economic and military superpowers with significant cultural and social influence around the globe. And he does an excellent job of exploring it.

Meade locates the source of English and American success and triumph in economy, military, politics and culture to the evolution of certain ideas over the long course of english history. These being: Liberalism, Captalism, Rationalism, and Religious pluralism. However, he goes further than that. He believes that dynamic interaction between these factors helped balanced each other and prevented a strong backlash against either one of them. In this, he traces the beginnings of the success of Anglo-American countries.

However, this is not a history book. He does not dwell deeply into the history, his interest lies in exploring how this history created a Maritime Order where first the British and then the Americans took the lead. This is the preoccupation of the book. He means to give the reader an idea as to the structure of this order and how it functions and has historically functioned. Meade gives ample space to the critics of this order, he does not dismiss them out of hand; however he still remains a believer in the necessity of this order, albeit with reservations as to its certain practices.

However, in his enthusiasm for linking the English Maritime Order with the American Post WWII one, he completely skips over the exploration of American attitudes towards the idea of 'Internationalism' in 19th and early 20th century. Certainly, a historian such as him must know that leading Americans from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to Mark Twain and Calvin Coolidge were against the idea of active invovlement in international politics. Thus, he simplifies his task, by completely dropping the history of the 'non-interventionist' position of American classical liberals, whose philosophy he otherwise supports more or less.

He also does not offer much in the way of explaining the benefits of this order to the residents of these countries. What matters if there is instability half the world away or sea lanes are clogged half the ocean away, if the internal dynamics of these countries - capitalism, rationalism, liberalism - keep improving the lives domestically (as author himself tells us earlier in the book)? That was the key question that popped in my mind again and again and the question that was left unanswered by the author.

Despite these two cases I would have liked Meade to write about, I would definitely recommend 'God and Gold' to anybody with interest in world politics. You will learn a lot of interesting historical facts. Meade also has a humble understanding of the problems invovled in promulgating a just 'maritime order' and he is able to bring keen insights from various thinkers to his discussions.

On the light note, there is also a reserved and subtle humor flowing through the first two parts of the book. Read the quote of a man whom Meade refers to sarcastically as "renowned social critic" and see if you don't double over laughing at the hysteria and hilarity of it.

Before I read this book, I often wondered why Americans, regardless of the war, always see ourselves as the good guys. This book explains that and also why and how, first Great Britain, then the United States became the dominant global power that it is today in the modern world.
I never realized how important capitalism was to the forming of not only the United States but also the modern world. This book also explains, in great detail, why are there has always been nations, i.e., the bad guys, that have opposed the spread of the ways of the West, like capitalism, liberal democracy, freedom of religion, and things like that.
I would highly recommended this book to anyone who wants to understand not only the effect of capitalism in the world history but also why capitalism transformed the world into the one that it is today.

This books covers a lot of interesting territory. Unfortunately it does so in a haphazard and totally unplanned manner. The author is clearly very good at generating the written word. He is unfortunately not very good at actually planning what he's going to write about or why. This makes it very difficult to stick with the book until the (phew!) end. Also, this book is largely unsupported by other sources. There are VERY occasional notes thrown in there to make it look like he actually based this book on existing knowledge. But don't get me wrong: I very much appreciate the author's attempt to synthesize all of these disparate literatures. But I fear it was done sloppily, perhaps because of time pressure to get the book out there? Or perhaps because the author prefers to just plain write rather than to slow down in order check and cite other sources? Overall an interesting idea for a book that is unfortunately poorly organized and weakly supported.

Although much narrower in scope, I much prefer the wonderfully-written and well-planned book "The Marketplace of Revolution" by T.H. Breen. Breen cares enough about his readers to put painstaking effort into writing a quality book.

"God and Gold" is an exceptional book, one deserving of serious attention by anyone concerned with the future of both the United States and the world stage on which it acts. This book, first and foremost, is a history and discussion of ideas--the political, economic and religious ideas that gave birth to modern western society and the rules that govern, to a significant degree, the interaction of nations today, especially on a commercial level.

Those who dismiss or criticize Mead's analysis because of his reverence for Reinhold Niebuhr's political philosophy are missing the larger point the author is trying to make. Whether espoused by Niebuhr or some other intellectual, it is hard to take issue with the proposition that the United States must: (a) proactively participate in the international system, (b) eschew the necons' unilateralism in favor of cooperative diplomacy, (c) exhibit greater empathy for those peoples and countries that feel threatened by the Ango-American world model while remaining true to its beliefs in a dynamic, open society, and (d) accept the fact that only incremental improvements, not perfection, are likely to be achieved in much of the developing world. Where I part company with Mr. Mead, however, is his qualified optimism regarding the future.

First, he dismisses the threat posed to our society by the recent attacks on civil liberties (e.g., the Patriot Act, unconstitutional surveillance, disregard of federal statutes, etc.) as a temporary aberration for which there is ample historical precedence (e.g., Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War). The past, I believe, provides little assurance that the pendulum will swing easily back towards the middle. Unlike prior military conflicts, the "War on Terror" lacks a clearly defined enemy and, most importantly, has no foreseeable ending. As long as one terrorist remains alive and kicking, the government can rationalize its disregard of civil liberties and human rights. Further, the technology at the disposal of our government today is without historical precedent. Unlike suspending the writ of habeas corpus or the Palmer Raids after WW I, it will be very difficult to unwind the intrusive and unconstitutional, yet largely invisible, systems and policies the government has put in place. If we cannot preserve our own dynamic, open society, then there is little hope that other nations will embrace it.

Second, Mead expects the U.S. to refrain from engaging in pointless military adventures (Vietnam, Iraq), but chastises the country for not being proactive when it came to stopping Hitler in the 1930s or the Kaiser in the years before WW I. He fails, however, to acknowledge a critical distinction between these situations: while both Vietnam and Iraq were clearly avoidable and were the result of foolish presidential ambitions, public opposition to each of those wars--at the outset--was modest. By contrast, if either Wilson or Roosevelt had proactively sought to use the threat of force to thwart Germany's ambitions before either of the two world wars began, they would have failed for wont of public support and, in the process, ended their political careers. The moral of the story: it is much easier for a president to avoid foolish military adventures or to respond to an evil empire (e.g., Hitler, Tojo) after it has launched an attack than it is to convince the electorate that such threats should be preemptively stopped. Stated differently, Kennedy, Johnson, and Bush would have not suffered politically if they had chosen to stay out of Vietnam and Iraq; the same cannot be said about Roosevelt and Wilson had they chosen to initiate a confrontation with Germany. To the extent Mead hopes that presidents in the future who find themselves in the same position as Wilson and Roosevelt will act differently, he is in for a disappointment.

As noted, Mr. Mead seems a bit more sanguine about the future than I do, but I sincerely hope he is right and I am wrong. Regardless of your political or philosophical orientation, your understanding of our country's place in the world can only be enhanced by reading this book.

While I strongly agree with all the glowing recommendations you'll see here, I just wanted to throw in a warning to keep plugging away at the beginning. Maybe it's because I hadn't heard this book so positively reviewed when I started it, but I found myself close to quitting several times early on, when it seemed I'd be slogging through a nearly endless tirade against Wasps.

Keep going and you'll see the beginning sections of the book are more background than argument and, just like all the heavy discussions of centuries of protestant and catholic feuds in England, set the author up to draw some incredibly insightful and truly useful conclusions about the world we live in.

I have had the pleasure of viewing several TV discussions in which Mr. Mead took part and he is incisive, often funny and quite congenial. So I asked for this book for Christmas.

At one level, I hope this book is read by everyone who seeks to understand international politics and it would not surprise me to find Mr. Mead landing an important job in the next administration be it democrat or replublican.

At a higher level, however, it has to be pointed out that the capitalist west -- cultural taproot of Mr. Mead's 'maritime order' -- is murdering its own children and I wish Mead had addressed this issue on a moral level. But had he taken on this task, what else would there have been to say? After all, does not state-sanctioned murder negate rather than merely offend our values? And when you have lost your values what else is there to talk about other than how to get them back again? The answer to these questions is that the abortion crisis is not 'a' problem but 'the' problem. It is a civilizational emergency and it towers over, albiet in silence, every discussion on public affairs. When recognized, it pushes everything else off of the table. When not recognized, it makes the discussion irrelevant.

Until the nations that promote the maritime order recognize the humanity of unborn children, a book like 'God and Gold' -- regardless of its value in addressing a discrete set of issues -- will be irrelevant at the most important level.

This books shows up the real reason for the triumph of US-UK's view of the world over the European-COntinental view or Latin American dreams. The only way possible to achieve high development levels is walk a hard and long journey with labor and Christian-Protestant values. The United States' success isn't fruit of change.

While demonizing the West in general and the English speaking world in particular have been all the rage for a generation now, readers who benefited from real courses in world history will find here a fair-minded and nicely crafted review of the Anglo-American success story. Mead is anything but tedious nor (heaven forbid) triumphalist, but he is willing to spend some time fingering some of the more prominent anti-Americans and Anglophobes past and present

This book is very readable. A big blend of history, philosophy, politics, and religion. The metaphors used give the book a light hearted feel (such as the Walrus and the Carpenter, Alice in wonderland etc) but emphasize rather then detract from the main points. At times the book is a little too 'American' in the sense that British achievements and British history (which is far older than US history)are referred to as 'Anglo-American' as opposed to just 'British'. On the other hand, any US achievements are referred to as simply 'American'. In the preface of the British edition, the author acknowledges that there are a few points which Brits may find a little contentious but hopes no offense is caused. This aside, the book is a joy to read and provides a very interesting perspective of Anglo-American history and the current Anglo-American alliance.

This book is thought-provoking and profound in its treatment of an issue that goes to the core of who we are as a nation. Both inspirational and challenging at times as the author makes his case for why and how we do what we do in the English-speaking world. Anyone interested in understanding why we continue to believe we are different from the rest of the world should read this book.

While I was reading "God and Gold", I had a simple meal at a local restaurant. It is one of those wonderful Greek-American places with a menu several pages long that serves breakfast any time of day and where you can get the tuna melt sandwich with soup and French fries for less than eight bucks. As I was paying, the evidently bright young cashier, noticing this book, asked,

"Is that book about theology, or economics?"

To her, I replied,

"That's a very interesting question. Sadly, I would say that it is neither. Rather, it is a book written by a man who should have been schooled in philosophy, theology, history, and economics to have written such a book but who, sadly, evidently understands none of these disciplines particularly well."

She looked perplexed. Perhaps it was a bit more of a lengthy answer than she had expected. I attempted to elaborate:

"It is really a book about the New World Order and the rejection of traditional Catholic and Orthodox values."

To which, she replied,

"Ah, now I see."

And I am certain that she did. This illustrates that the common folk are much more intelligent than elite sophists like Walter Russell Mead would ever know.

Mead's theme is that the world order imposed by what he styles as the Anglo-Saxon empire is essentially good, despite its record of slavery, persecution, and incessant bloodshed. Throughout it, he invokes drug addled freemasons like Lewis Carroll, Jonathon Swift, and Alexander Pope in the attempt to rationalize the bloody history of the Anglo-American world order. Curiously, he often mixes references to fictional characters, such as the Red Queen, from Carroll's evidently drug induced "Alice in Wonderland" with actual statements on international politics. In this, we are constantly left to wonder whether Mead is truly able to distinguish between fact and fiction. It seems that often he is not.

While we truly despise Mead's theme, it is important for those who would stay informed of the plans of the elite to read this book, however nonsensical so much of it is. The reason for this is that Mead's sophistry is well received by the elite, and very well financed. He is as at home in narcissistically praising his own work with the mendacious Michael Medved as he is with the truly evil George Soros, whom Mead credits with many of the "great" ideas about gangster capitalism presented in this book. And Mead's efforts are supported by his position at the Council on Foreign Relations, that bastion of muddled elite thought.

So, read this totally illogical and truly perverse tome, however painful the process may be. By doing so, the reader will gain significant insight into the unclear and painfully illogical thought process of today's elite and thereby be more positively disposed to know justice and to love mercy, while yet there is time. God bless.

On first glance God and Gold might seem to be a typical triumphalist school of history production about the glorious rise of the Anglo-Americans and their victories over lesser peoples. However, the reader who takes a second look will recognize that Walter Russell Mead has created a wide-ranging and fascinating examination of world history over the last three hundred years or so that, while it does praise the strengths of the Anglophones or Wasps, is not blind to their short comings or to the achievements of other peoples.

I found this book fascinating on many levels. Its a superb work of history, making deft comparisons and drawing excellent and elaborate parallels. The analogies are clear and highly illuminating. Mead is thought provoking and astute in his assessments. I appreciated the attention paid to the role played by organized religions and the reassessment and validation of earlier historians' theses on Protestantism and Christianity. Most of all, I enjoyed the many literary references and analogies, particularly the Carrollian theme of the Walrus and the Carpenter that runs through the book.

Mead can be harsh in his criticisms, particularly of the foolish vainglory of the Bush Administration over the last few years, but overall the book is hopeful and optimistic in its assessment of the past and predictions for the future.

I agree with the other reviewers. This is an excellent history. I found particularly interesting the interplay of religion and politics that Mr. Mead describes.

Unfortunately, the book continues past that point, and Mr. Mead shares his views on how the current world could be made a better place. Mr. Mead's foreign policy recommendations cause the book to fall down, hard.

Who knew many of the world's ills could be cured merely by having Red-State Americans read Reinhold Neibuhr? Why haven't they already done so? After all, Mr. Neibuhr was a favorite of President Jimmy Carter, and we know how well his foreign policy efforts played out. This is one of the core recommendations Mr. Mead offers to resolve the world's ills.

If op-ed insights like this, and other thoughts first vetted around George Soros' dinner table (not a joke) are your cup of tea, then I highly recommend, in its entirety, this book to you.

Otherwise, the history portion is excellent and more than makes up for the latter part of the book, which, gratefully, is brief.

Mr. Mead should stick to his strengths: he's an excellent historian, and a fine writer.

I give it four stars. It would have been five, except for the end, which is dreadful. Then I take one away for the author's poor judgement in sullying a fine history with a sophmornic opinion editorial. Three stars.

"God and Gold literally changed the way I looked at the world. Mead manages
to make incredibly important subjects both easy to understand and
surprisingly engaging. The book has neat literary allusions throughout and
is never dry. Mead has a terrific ability to weave in fun stories and great
little anecdotes, so it's a fun read even while you're undertaking a serious
study of history, economics and religion. I only wish my other reading for
school was like God and Gold. I think every college student should read
this book to understand how the world actually works."

Mead is a master of making complex history of American thought accessible and lively. God & Gold is a fearless account that dares to examine how the English-speaking powers created the institutions we hold most dear--and how they have fought to defend them. It isn't politically correct; but it's brilliant. Mead's work is formidable, and has academic rigor; but this isn't some dense intellectual history. It is an accessible read, and one that makes the reader much, much smarter.

There are few works and fewer scholars who can skillfully bridge and interweave topics like history, economics, and foreign relations without any one of the three areas suffering. Mead is just such an author and this is just such a book.
Even more than his previous works, in this volume Mead manages to make linkages between these topics to present a remarkably fun, remarkably cohesive account of how Britain and later the United States, came to be the world's superpowers.

Beyond being a simply stellar set of ideas, it is simply one of the best written books of the year. It was the first time in a long time where I found myself simply unable to put a history book down until I finished it.