Book Review: Arthur Herman's "1917: Lenin, Wilson, and the Birth of the New World Disorder

I enjoyed having my framing of the modern world reset by Arthur Herman’s1917: Lenin, Wilson, and the Birth of the New World Disorder. Herman makes a strong case that the common aspects of Vladimir Lenin and Woodrow Wilson’s leadership style changed the stage on which modern politics plays out. These two men rejected traditional leadership focused on realpolitik and national interest; instead, they promoted a new world order built on principled visions to which they demanded allegiance. Wilson spearheaded “the emergence of the United States as a global hegemonic power” that he believed was the best source for an “... end to violence in international and human affairs.” Lenin “triggered the emergence of a world revolutionary movement that would be come to be known as communism” (p. 11) They both were driven by “…a sense of the utter rightness of their vision and ideas… [that] made opposition virtually an immoral act of betrayal.” (p. 65) Note "immortal;" this marrying of politics with an almost religious fervor led to both an inability to compromise and a dehumanizing of the opposition. Of course, discounting intellectual diversity leads to blind spots and, for these leaders, ultimately their greatest failures: for Wilson, the US rejection of the League of Nations; in Lenin’s, the disintegration of the Bolshevik revolution into a terror state led by Stalin.

Herman's entertaining narrative is convincing. I appreciated how the story isn't dominated by background but yet provides the information you need to understand the implications of Lenin and Wilson's actions. Chapters alternate between the two leaders so you can see both the similarities of their leadership styles and the differences in their approaches. My biggest takeaway was that the success of their approach, despite their “shared dogmatic belief in the rightness of his own mission, which brooked no opposition or even criticism” (p. 14) became a model that many future visionaries used to impose their principles on people. The power of ideas, regardless of their implications. Herman's easier on Wilson because of his relatively peaceful actions and, honestly, his goal of setting up and sustaining a (white) power structure led by elites. Lenin is savaged for his violent tactics aimed at fostering a revolution to permanently change global power dynamics, noting it's a template used by many modern terrorist organizations. But the similarities outweigh their differences, and Herman concludes that despite their divergent aims, their uncompromising leadership is the genesis of many of our modern global dilemmas.