Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough


The Future of Freedom
By Fareed Zakaria

Narrated by Ned Schmidtke



Fareed Zakaria published “The Future of Freedom” in 2003; a lot has happened since then.  This Indian born American, a Yale and Harvard educated government policy wonk, has written a fascinating treatise on a glaring weakness of democracy that continues to resonate in 2021.

The recent storm in Texas caused massive failure in the energy and water services of the state. The disaster fills the headlines in today’s papers.

The line between Nanny State and Freedom has been clearly drawn in two WSJ’ articles addressing the “…Texas Power Grid…” failure. On the one hand, the Republican governor says private industry failed by being free to make their own decision about hardening the power grid against extreme weather events. The governor argues government should intervene in the private sector energy business to insure against future catastrophic failure.

The inference of the Governor’s argument is that profit motive is not enough to incentivize Texas energy producers to invest in backup systems for catastrophic weather events. After all, those energy producers that hardened their production and distribution systems would make more profit because they would be able to continue service to the public. The governor’s implication is that government should either incentivize or demand private sector backup investment. He implies self-interest and profit are not enough to make an unfettered private sector invest in hardening. To some, this is a “nanny state” argument.

In contrast, in the WSJ’ editorial page (on the same day), Holman Jenkins writes “A cold snap that touches all of Texas with subfreezing temperatures is a once-a-century event.” The implicit meaning of his argument is that disasters will always occur; get over it, and stay out of private sector business. To like-minded Americans that argument is a part of being free.

The world is in the midst of the Covid19 pandemic; struggling with death, government dysfunction, climate disruption, and economic hardship. In American democracy the difficulty is in knowing where to draw the line between Nanny State, and Freedom.

Zakaria notes that an unexpected consequence of sunshine, sunset, and open meetings laws change the way elected officials represent their constituency.  Zakaria implies the “swamp” in Washington D.C.  is created by an incorrect interpretation of the Republic outlined in the American Constitution.

Zakaria argues lobbying and population poling have replaced individual conscience in the American electorate.  His argument is that the consequence of lost individual judgment is confused, and conflicted legislation.  Zakaria suggests frequent political grid lock is exacerbated by lobbyists who do not represent the public at large.  He argues population poling (surveys of constituent interests), and industrial lobbyists distort public interest.

the lonely crowd

Americans have become indoctrinated to be more interested in “keeping up with the Jones-es” than being individuals.

Zakaria’s argument reinforces a belief outlined by David Riesman in “The Lonely Crowd” in 1950.  Riesman, a Harvard educated sociologist, conducted a study that suggests Americans are becoming more “other directed” rather than “inner directed”.  His point is that Americans are more concerned about what other people think than what individuals think for themselves.

Elected officials are “Mad Men & women” manufacturing public interests created by lobbyists.  Elected officials sell lobbyist’ ideas as though they are their own opinions.

Zakaria implies surveys of the public are designed and conducted by lobbyists and special interests who hire pollsters with motives to advance private interests rather than public good.  The lobbyist appeal is “other directed”.  Zakaria infers it is not what the “I” (elected representative) thinks, it is what the “other” (lobbyist or special interest) sells.  Public interest is unrepresented.  It is distorted by private interest being sold by falsely characterized political representatives–the men and women who hold political office.


Zakaria suggests a “Mad Men” advertising process invades 20th and 21st century American politics. 

Elected officials are not “inner directed” and representing what they think is right but what others think is right.  Poling becomes a primary source for decisions.  Elected officials are influenced by interest groups, not by any clear reflection of their constituency or the American public.

In Zakaria’s reality, it is not possible to capsulize opinion of the American public.  Zakaria is saying original framers of the Constitution focused on a Republic that separated church and state and focused on freedom of choice based on the conscience of elected officials. Elected officials were meant to vote for what they, as representatives of a State and nation, believed. Fareed Zakaria argues too many elected officials do not vote what they believe but vote what special interests and media trolls promote.



The truth, consequence, and viciousness of this cycle of public-interest-deceit is: 1) there is no way of accurately knowing what the public believes and 2) being re-elected becomes more important than voting for what one believes is right.  Zakaria suggests the framers of the constitution expected elected representatives to vote their individual conscience based on being popularly elected.  He argues that lobbyists and a minority of Americans falsely define public interest and unduly influence representative’ decisions.



This slippery slope is made slipperier by lobbyists who are interested in perpetuating their high paying jobs.   Lobbyists push for 1 year laws with sunset provisions so they can be “helpful lobbyists” next year to get similar legislation passed.  Zakaria infers sunset laws have little to do with public interest.

The goal of lobbyists and their employers is to push elected officials to vote for legislation that benefits their private interests.  Zakaria’s point is that elected officials do not base legislative decisions on their conscience as representatives of their public constituency.  Representatives create legislation and vote based on what lobbyists convince them is in the public interest.  Zakaria suggests in today’s American government “public” interest is narrowly defined by lobbyist, and a minority that pays for government access and something to gain.


The election of Trump is a reflection of a government that looks at freedom as a transactional paradigm for American Democracy. What is good for Texas private industry is good for its people.

A part of Zakaria’s argument is that American Democracy is increasingly dis-respected by many outside countries, but more importantly, it seems dis-respected by a growing number of voters in its own population.  (One could argue that is why America elected a non-politician to head its government.)

Zakaria is not saying democracy is not the best form of government in the world, but today’s democracy fails to operate as a Republic.  He believes it is in danger of dissolving into a chaos of unpredictability and dysfunction.  And so it did, on January 6, 2021.

Zakaria implies freedom is diminished by political representatives that fail to vote their conscience.  Public interest is a fiction manufactured by lobbyists working for special interests.

Author: chet8757

Graduate Oregon State University and Northern Illinois University, Former City Manager, Corporate Vice President, General Contractor, Non-Profit Project Manager, occasional free lance writer and photographer for the Las Vegas Review Journal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: