Foreign policy mandarin Fareed Zakaria has launched a new weekly show called Foreign Exchange on PBS stations nationwide (via SAJA). It’s odd to see the omnipresent guest turn host, even stranger to hear someone with a prep school, Anglicized Bombay accent hosting an American TV show. But, as always, neocons and Zakaria fans (I count myself among the latter) will wet themselves.
Watch the trailer. Here’s the show’s official site and bios of the Zakaria brothers.
Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria: in Chicago on WTTW; in San Francisco on KQED; in Washington, DC on WHUT; in Seattle on KCTS; in Tampa on WUSF; in Denver on KRMA; in Oregon on OPB; in Kansas City on KCPT; in Salt Lake City on KUED; and others; check TV listings.
Anglicized Pakistani ?
As far as i know, Fareed’s from bombay.
Bombay diaspora. And I believe Zakaria is a Parsi name.
cool another self-hating minority! Clarence Thomas, Dinesh D’Souza, Alan Keyes and Uncle Tom must be thrilled….
Zakaria is most definitely not a Parsi name. He is Muslim. His father Rafiq Zakaria was governor of Mahrasthra for a period under Indira Gandhi, and is now one of the country’s better known political writers.
PS– Maharashtra is the state of which Bombay is the capital.
Thanks, fixed.
Now how is Fareed a self-hating minority?
Can’t a brother be a conservative and get some respect?
Apparently not.
cool another self-hating minority! Clarence Thomas, Dinesh D’Souza, Alan Keyes and Uncle Tom must be thrilled…. Now how is Fareed a self-hating minority?
Can’t a brother be a conservative and get some respect?
I’m not as familiar with Zakaria as the others, but from what I’ve heard from him, he’s much more thoughtful than any of the other three real people mentioned. Dinesh D’Souza and Alan Keyes are jokes and Clarence Thomas is scary.
While the show looks promising, the preview might have been better without the digitized sound of a dripping faucet in the background. And was it just me, but didn’t the TV set remind you of when Krusty the Clown interviewed George Meany, head of the AFL-CIO in 1961?
My bad, I jumped to conclusions….Its just that the alarm bells go off when I hear conservative and minority next to each other.
Plus he’s from my hometown so he can’t be THAAAT bad…heh
Fareed’s Homepage & article archive
I’ve been a fan for a while – his award winning Why They Hate Us, post-9/11 screed remains to this day one of the best written Mid East analysis articles I’ve ever read.
His name was whispered as a long-shot option when Condi moved on from her post as NSC Director and there’s still a chance that he’ll land a gig like that in a future administration.
I’m still amazed by how virulent & axiomatic the “Race Explains Everything” meme is on the left side of the fence.
Fareed is a liberal globalist kinda like Friedman of the NYT. Hes a neo liberal who believes in globalism and free trade. His support for the Iraq War was out of his Neo Liberal and not Neo Conish beliefs. On most social issues hes just a plain old liberal. What time is his show on ?
It doesn’t “explain” everything, but it is implicated in a whole lot more than the “Can’t-we-all-just-be-AMERICAN” crowd would like to believe.
Fareed is from Mumbai. THink went to Cathedral School. Son of former Gov. of Maharastra and muslim scholar (rather scholar of indian variety of islam). Fareeed’s elder brother was a VP at Merill Lynch in NY. (Zakaria can be a parsee name)
He seldom talks about India – perhaps does not want to drag his family in any controversy back home. He is not your typical conservative muslim, i dare say he probably likes his martinis.
I wish he had gone back to India. (slightly hypocritical since i am here in amreeka) India needs muslim heroes (besides bollywood khans) who his co-religionist can look upto. He is someone who could have helped straighten out many Indian issues as they relate to religion and politics.
Too late i guess, he is already an american citizen.
“He is not your typical conservative muslim, i dare say he probably likes his martinis.”
He used to be the wine critic for Slate.
Well, he sucks up to bush administration , there is no doubt about it. He was the one who was advocating that U.S should goto war just to save the prestige. (“If we have threatened Saddam with military actions, or else our prestige is at stake”). The man has been eyeing a cabinet postition for a long time, but apparently there are lots of self-loathing minority members out there – now, people have learnt the trick, I assume.
But you were precisely using Race as the single variable that determined the ideology that Zakaria should (in your view) subscribe to. And not seeing that, it’s so easy to simply call him an “uncle tom”?
Oh yeah, Zakaria sucks up to Bush big time –
“After the greatest terrorist attack against America, no one was asked to resign, and the White House didn’t even want to launch a serious investigation into it. The 9/11 Commission was created after months of refusals because some of the victims’ families pursued it aggressively and simply didn’t give up. After the fiasco over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, not one person was even reassigned. The only people who have been fired or cashiered in this administration are men like Gen. Eric Shinseki, Paul O’Neill and Larry Lindsey, who spoke inconvenient truths.” – Newsweek, May 17, 2004 http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4933882/
From the same article, “The events at Abu Ghraib are part of a larger breakdown in American policy over the past two years. And it has been perpetrated by a small number of people at the highest levels of government.”
And more evidence of Zakria puckering up, “Leave process aside: the results are plain. On almost every issue involving postwar Iraq—troop strength, international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali Sistani—Washington’s assumptions and policies have been wrong. By now most have been reversed, often too late to have much effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the much broader effect of turning the United States into an international outlaw in the eyes of much of the world.”
My main criticism of Zakaria is not that he is pro-Bush or anti-Bush, I think his biggest flaw is he puts an unwarranted faith in Arab elites (and to a lesser extent, otheer Muslim despots) to effectively modernize their nations. In The Future of Freedom, he had a short piece that Musharaff was the better than any of the politicians currently in Pakistan, a notion I disagree with strongly.
But the idea that his ethnicity should determine his opinions is indicative of lazy thinking.
KXB, Musharraf is better than both Mia Nawaz Sharif and Benazir for Pakistan.
I was a regular reader of newsweek for a couple of years and I can show that 90% of the time he sucks upto Bush administration’s view of the world. Also, when he had the remotest chance that he could be part of the administration (times of last two elections), his rhetoric was unbearable. And to your comment about ethnicity, I don’t care rat’s ass about his ethnicity or anyone else’s for that matter. But, when a mediocre analyst like him gets so much attention, it makes me wonder what makes him appealing to conservatives other than his ethnicity.
Why does he mostly write on Arab / Middle East issues and not so much on India? If he ever becomes Sec of State, I do not think it is going to benefit India particularly.
I am yet to read anything really original from him in his articles.He is overrated and overhyped for the sole reason that he is a Muslim republican, a poster boy for the conservatives.
His endorsement of Musharraf was a shocker.
Damning with faint praise. And there’s the whole ‘what’s good for the world’ question, as in preventing nuclear annihilation.
Did you miss the whole war thing? Don’t worry, there’ll be more rolling around soon.
IMO he’s quite an interesting thinker and an above-average writer.
“Musharraf is better than both Mia Nawaz Sharif and Benazir for Pakistan.”
That is not saying much though 🙂 Musharraf is a dictator who is systematically stifling any possibility for Pakistan to return to democracy.
He writes about India from time to time. For instance, after the tsunami. http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/011705.html
Although his writing is usually thoughtful and insightful, I think he gets away with bs or suck-up pieces by just sounding erudite. http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/031405.html I can’t name a SINGLE country that was better off after a US invasion, and toppling a government that you set up in the first place DOES NOT count.
Anyway now that he’s on the idiot box, needs to work on screen presence..in the trailer, he’s as wooden as the boards he’s standing on. Just being the former editor of Foreign Affairs won’t hack it.
Getting back to the show, I think he should run the show in a Crossfire format and invite Vinod and myself to battle it out one week as “guests from a highly esteemed blog.” I’ll even shave my head like Carville if Vinod wears a bowtie like Tucker. 🙂
Vinod already wears a bowtie, a monocle, spats and argyle socks. He wanders about with a walking cane muttering something about John Galt and looters.
You seem to know a lot about the variable(s) that go into my thinking. A tad presumptuous? Could it be possible that I read about Zakaria and determined he was an uncle tom because he really is an uncle tom? (And not just because he’s a brown Rightist)…that alarm bells went off, but were not heeded until further supported by fact and detail? Not every minority conservative is an uncle tom. But not every such person isnt.
It is lazy to simply correlate politics with one’s race on a 1-to-1 basis. Its worse than lazy, dangerous and irresponsible even, for Zakaria to turn his back and espouse policies (such as the administration and its iraq policy, racist “homeland security” practice, etc) that marginalize his fellow minorities, especially when anti-minority media biases and popular misperceptions are omnipresent (e.g. common misbelief of an Al Qaeda – Hussein link).
One may contest that dude owes no such duty. But no person lives in a bubble. No society on earth has ever been based on a purely libertarian view, for pure liberty is anarchy.
For those wondering why he doesn’t say more about India, check out his book “The Future of Freedom.”
Nice, thought-provoking chapter on why India’s democracy is actually in some ways too successful! (Everyone votes, sure, but local interests dominate so much that the central government is currently quite weak)
It is lazy to simply correlate politics with one’s race on a 1-to-1 basis. Its worse than lazy, dangerous and irresponsible even, for Zakaria to turn his back and espouse policies (such as the administration and its iraq policy, racist “homeland security” practice, etc) that marginalize his fellow minorities, especially when anti-minority media biases and popular misperceptions are omnipresent (e.g. common misbelief of an Al Qaeda – Hussein link).
DesiOne, I agree with the underlying premise of your argument–that Fareed Zakaria (and pretty much everyone else with some kind of privilege who’s not totally evil) has an obligation to look toward how his views and actions impact the welfare of the less privileged. However, I think that progressives/socialists/anarchists/whatever (like me) often confuse the minority/majority dichotomy with the privileged/disempowered dichotomy (and in the U.S. further conflate it with race/identity politics).
The two ways of looking at social justice are obviously related because it’s generally easier to systemically oppress minorities within a given society, but it’s issue of disempowerment that cuts to the heart of the matter. For example, people in the 3rd world are a numerical of the world’s population, women are a numerical majority in the United States, Blacks under Apartheid were a numerical majority.
I don’t think it’s a matter of rhetoric alone; using a power/social roles framework rather than an identity framework also lets us escape traps from conservatives who pretend that treating people decently is somehow giving “minorities” “special rights” that everyone else doesn’t have when we see that those steps are in place to protect the disempowered. It keeps people like one idiot I knew who was of White South African ancestry from claiming to be “African American.” And it lets us effectively critique the claim that privileged minorities like Condoleeza Rice or Clarence Thomas (or some of us) somehow can speak to the suffering of everyone else in “their group” simply by claiming membership.
this thread is getting a little long winded but lemme try and boil down the logic I’m seeing from you here –
1) All brown people should be opposed to Bush & his policies 2) Zakaria is NOT sufficiently opposed to Bush & his policies 3) therefore, Zakaria is an Uncle Tom
I’m taking issue with the first half of #1 — “All brown people should…”. It’s a blanket, race-based prescription.
For you, to not be loyal to the Race’s prescribed politics is prima facie bad. For me, Zakaria’s politics should NOT be prima facie determined by his Race.
Reductionist and simplistic. Not worth responding to.
Interesting approach, I would agree with it but I think it has problems practically speaking. Orienting yourself along the power dichotomy actually enhances the disconnect between the empowered minorities (Zakarias, etc) vs. the disempowered ones (cab drivers, etc). Ideally a power-based focus would mean ALL the empowered (white + minority) would help the disempowered…but in reality it is more likely to engender in-group collaborative behavior. So poor whites and poor non-whites would unite….but so would rich whites and rich non-whites. And given that the poor have such limited resources, it would be pretty disastrous. Practically speaking, power comes from the size and ability of your community/network group….especially in a globalized economy with large network effects. Emphasizing racial and minority connections is the best hope that poor people have. Because it means rich M’s help poor M’s, and rich W’s help poor W’s too. Of course I’m not advocating racial segregation, but I am advocating racial and ethnic awareness (tossed salad not melting pot), and political action in line with this awareness.
As the richest racial/ethnic group in the US (ahead of Whites) according to the 2000 Census, South Asians have a good thing going economically. It would be a shame to deemphasize this connection when it can be used so powerfully to combat a hostile political enviroment.
Hmmm, vinod wears a bowtie, monocle, spats and argyle socks? Eh, I can top that: I wear a tiara and Republican Party Issued Jack Boots. Also, if there are any Republican Party types reading this thread (fat chance) could you please stop addressing the missives with a Mr? Hello, I’m a girl.
PS Desione, how can you be both a socialist and an anarchist? Ok, ok, I know classical anarchists came out of socialism, but how can you both oppose the state and heirarchical arrangements, and then want to use the state to promote social justice? Hmmm, I guess we’re talking about the Great Leap Forward, right?
Also, are anarchists and extreme libertarians just the same thing? Enquiring minds want to know….
No no…i’m no anarchist. I’m against anarchism and its lesser form, libertarianism, which says “leave me alone, don’t put any societal duties on me.”
Ideally a power-based focus would mean ALL the empowered (white + minority) would help the disempowered…but in reality it is more likely to engender in-group collaborative behavior. So poor whites and poor non-whites would unite….but so would rich whites and rich non-whites.
I hate to break this to you, but this is how the world already works. Elites support elites, even though they have obvious rivalries. There are obviously gradations (e.g. the Indian government has less power and influence than the U.S. government) but it has power. Similarly, the more people identify with the empowered, the less they give a $hit about the disempowered–like all the desi citizens that don’t care about undocumented people or all the rich desis that don’t care about Dunkin Donuts employees.
And given that the poor have such limited resources, it would be pretty disastrous. Practically speaking, power comes from the size and ability of your community/network group….especially in a globalized economy with large network effects.
That’s why you organize.
Emphasizing racial and minority connections is the best hope that poor people have.
Ultimately, all this leads to is a different dominant racial/ethnic/religious group with the same power divides.
I don’t believe classlessness can exist in the real world, but I think it’s like equality or freedom or safety–something you work towards as an ideal. The alternative is “the American dream” model where the smartest, most talented people leave their disempowered communities, gain wealth and power, and throw a few sops back down, if that.
I am advocating racial and ethnic awareness (tossed salad not melting pot), and political action in line with this awareness.
And I’m advocating “ethnic awareness” (i.e. identity politics) that’s in line with our political analysis. If we don’t understand human relations in terms of power (which breaks down by race, class, gender, and many other facets), then we can’t understand why resource distribution and human welfare happens in some ways rather than others.
As the richest racial/ethnic group in the US (ahead of Whites) according to the 2000 Census, South Asians have a good thing going economically. It would be a shame to deemphasize this connection when it can be used so powerfully to combat a hostile political enviroment.
It would be a shame to put being South Asian over being decent to all people that are suffering, both for pragmatic reasons (above) and idealistic reasons. Again, at the end of the day, a Bangaldeshi or Indian working in Dunkin Donuts has more in common with a Mexican restaurant worker than with a software engineer, much less Bobby Jindal.
Oh and one more thing:
I would agree with [power analysis rather than race politics] but I think it has problems practically speaking.
I’m drawing this from practical experience. The most successful activists in New York’s desi activist scene are the ones that do issue based organizing (even if it has a race/ethnicity component to it)–Restaurant Opporunties Center, Families For Freedom, Andolan Organizing South Asian Workers. They do community building, provide social/resource support, and a variety of other tactics that helps people while trying to change what’s undermining the situation of people like them.
Further, where I’ve seen things go wrong is where people wield identity politics like a sword–for example, not acknowledging power as management within an organization and attributing everything to gender or class or race. Or excluding people on the basis of their membership in a particular social class without looking at the multiple ways people get screwed (gender, sexuality, class, etc.).
Social change is complicated, but it isn’t brain surgery if you pay attention to who’s fcuking who over and how in particular situations.
Zakaria’s premise of the “modern” Arab world as a series of failed ideas (from Why They Hate Us) is a pretty substantial failure in thinking.
As for the Uncle Tom stuff, I’m curious to know how many people are actually buckin’ The Man and not sucking up or sucking from the system in some way…
I feel Jindal has more in common, which is why he has a duty. This is our fundamental difference in viewpoint. We disagree, all good.
By the way, what is your view with respect to organizations like SAYA (clearly a successful organization), which are decidely race/ethnicity first? Also out of curiosity, which orgs are you involved with? There are a fair number of NY-based sepia peeps it seems, there should be some sort of community calendar on here (aside from dispersed postings and comments).
Lastly, saw your blog, love your take on the reward of F-16s given to pakistan…”How About Giving Them Food, A$$holes?” hahah good stuff.
As a throwaway line, it begs the question: why do you believe it’s a failure in thinking?
Well, to start with, it wasn’t the ideas that failed…
And then, he seems to purposefully ignore the influence of the British on government…
I feel Jindal has more in common, which is why he has a duty. This is our fundamental difference in viewpoint. We disagree, all good.
No. Must. Convince. Desione.
🙂 Okay, so we’ll disagree, but I still don’t understand how you could think a Dunkin Donuts worker has more political interests in common with Bobby Jindal than her coworkers without overemphasizing the effects of race to the detriment of class.
By the way, what is your view with respect to organizations like SAYA (clearly a successful organization), which are decidely race/ethnicity first? Also out of curiosity, which orgs are you involved with?
Well, I’ve always heard good things about SAYA as a moderate organization that does service work and creates community among desi youth. Like I said, I’m not against using race/ethnicity as a factor because racism/ethnicity can be a way to bring people together in the service of a larger political analysis, particularly to combat race/ethnicity based discrimination. You should note though that most of SAYA’s office is in Queens and I think that most of their youth are probably working class (not a fact…just my best guess).
But I’m not getting further into the mine field of evaluating NY desi organizations in this public a space 🙂
This is frustrating. Why do desis have to write on India? Do we have an India-oriented chip in which that’s all we write about? And what about the desis who aren’t Indian? Should they all be writing on India, too? I feel like this is like asking why all Chinese emigrants don’t write about China. It makes sense that he’s not talking about India right now. American security policy isn’t talking about India right now – nearly everything has taken a back seat to Iraq and the Middle East. It’s logical to me that someone who does IR-security would focus on geopolitical hotspots.
I’m not a huge Fareed Zakaria fan (as in not a fan at all, but I do think that people should read The Future of Freedom to get a sense of where he is – I would also put him closer to the Thomas Friedman neolib/neocon camp), but some of this slander has me a bit stumped. I understand when people get upset about Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas – over 80% of the African American population either votes or identifies as Democratic, and there is a fairly strong consensus on some key community issues. But how many desis aren’t Republicans? Maybe I’m really ignorant, but isn’t it like 40-60%? And I do think he’s more cogent, intelligent and interesting than Dinesh D’Souza, who from my p.o.v. is just walking on another planet!