What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case for American Power
A provocative case for why a better world is only possible with American power by Washington Post columnist Shadi Hamid.
From acclaimed author Shadi Hamid comes an urgent and deeply personal argument for why American dominance, despite its many flaws, remains the world’s best hope. Hamid traces his journey from opposing America’s role in the world to reluctantly embracing it—while grappling with how recent events, from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to Israel’s devastating war in Gaza, have challenged his convictions.
Drawing on his unique perspective as both an American and a Muslim who came of age in the shadow of the September 11 attacks, Hamid contends with the contradictions of American how a nation founded on moral purpose so often fails to live up to its ideals. Hamid confronts head-on America’s failures, from the war in Iraq to support for authoritarian regimes across the Middle East. Yet, he argues that in a world where power is a fact and someone must wield it, the alternative to American leadership isn’t a moral superpower—it’s the brutal authoritarianism of countries like China and Russia.
At once idealistic and pragmatic, this is a book about embracing our power as the only moral option in a world beset by tragedy. Because America is a democracy, it retains the potential to correct past mistakes and change for the better. That part is up to us. Bracing and timely, The Case for American Power is an ambitious work on what may be the most fundamental question facing America How should we think about the power we have—while we still have it?
From acclaimed author Shadi Hamid comes an urgent and deeply personal argument for why American dominance, despite its many flaws, remains the world’s best hope. Hamid traces his journey from opposing America’s role in the world to reluctantly embracing it—while grappling with how recent events, from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to Israel’s devastating war in Gaza, have challenged his convictions.
Drawing on his unique perspective as both an American and a Muslim who came of age in the shadow of the September 11 attacks, Hamid contends with the contradictions of American how a nation founded on moral purpose so often fails to live up to its ideals. Hamid confronts head-on America’s failures, from the war in Iraq to support for authoritarian regimes across the Middle East. Yet, he argues that in a world where power is a fact and someone must wield it, the alternative to American leadership isn’t a moral superpower—it’s the brutal authoritarianism of countries like China and Russia.
At once idealistic and pragmatic, this is a book about embracing our power as the only moral option in a world beset by tragedy. Because America is a democracy, it retains the potential to correct past mistakes and change for the better. That part is up to us. Bracing and timely, The Case for American Power is an ambitious work on what may be the most fundamental question facing America How should we think about the power we have—while we still have it?
256 pages, Hardcover
Published November 11, 2025
15 people are currently reading
114 people want to read
About the author
Shadi Hamid
13 books115 followersShadi Hamid is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of the Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam is Reshaping the World, which was shortlisted for the 2017 Lionel Gelber Prize. He is a contributing editor at The Atlantic. His previous book Temptations of Power: Islamists and Illiberal Democracy in a New Middle East was named a Foreign Affairs Best Book of 2014.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
November 12, 2025
Shadi Hamid is an experienced political commentator who many would identify as a member of the post-colonial left, the Spivak, Said, Fanon, Chomsky coalition. Hamid, though, was never associated with the radicalism of this anti-Western cadre (at least to my knowledge). The Case for American Power appears to be Hamid's coming out party against his anti-Westerners, where Hamid critiques the American Left's reflexive oikophobia (fear of home) and blindness to the nature of power, especially in world affairs.
To be sure (a phrase Hamid loves), Hamid does make such a case, though it is halting. It is directed toward those who of his political tribe so it's probably good he avoid a rah-rah tone. However, he does unguardedly profess an admirable love for both the idea of America and the America he lives in today, which I greatly appreciate. After providing Hamid's theory of great power competition, which is basically that it's inescapable and inherently messy, his arguments boils down to the assertion of the superiority of democracy as a political system: America's the most powerful democracy ipso facto it should continue to maintain and pursue hegemony. This position is a bit unavoidable for anyone with liberal leanings and an instinct for self-preservation who has thought beyond the emotional tenor of political rhetoric to the core of political power.
I'm glad Hamid is coming around to a position that many former liberals and left-wingers came around to again and again in the wake of the world wars, the rise of the U.S.S.R, and the 60s New Left. This time it is a delayed post-woke rear-guard action which current events has sought to undermine Hamid's position on (Israel-Palestine). However, I think he read on those events are blinkered my his own particularism - commitments to an ethnic-religious solidarity that itself is distant from liberalism. Understandably, it is difficult to decouple from such closely held beliefs to favor more abstract normative conclusion. Surprisingly, Hamid strikes a much more sober tone on the subject than he usually does when commenting in real-time on such issues.
Altogether, I generally agree with Hamid and found the work exceedingly easy to digest, but the work would have probably better from a much deeper engagement with the empirical data on which some of his premises rest.
Extended review at Substack
**Disclaimer: I received this as a digital ARC from Netgalley.
To be sure (a phrase Hamid loves), Hamid does make such a case, though it is halting. It is directed toward those who of his political tribe so it's probably good he avoid a rah-rah tone. However, he does unguardedly profess an admirable love for both the idea of America and the America he lives in today, which I greatly appreciate. After providing Hamid's theory of great power competition, which is basically that it's inescapable and inherently messy, his arguments boils down to the assertion of the superiority of democracy as a political system: America's the most powerful democracy ipso facto it should continue to maintain and pursue hegemony. This position is a bit unavoidable for anyone with liberal leanings and an instinct for self-preservation who has thought beyond the emotional tenor of political rhetoric to the core of political power.
I'm glad Hamid is coming around to a position that many former liberals and left-wingers came around to again and again in the wake of the world wars, the rise of the U.S.S.R, and the 60s New Left. This time it is a delayed post-woke rear-guard action which current events has sought to undermine Hamid's position on (Israel-Palestine). However, I think he read on those events are blinkered my his own particularism - commitments to an ethnic-religious solidarity that itself is distant from liberalism. Understandably, it is difficult to decouple from such closely held beliefs to favor more abstract normative conclusion. Surprisingly, Hamid strikes a much more sober tone on the subject than he usually does when commenting in real-time on such issues.
Altogether, I generally agree with Hamid and found the work exceedingly easy to digest, but the work would have probably better from a much deeper engagement with the empirical data on which some of his premises rest.
Extended review at Substack
**Disclaimer: I received this as a digital ARC from Netgalley.
December 31, 2025
The title is maybe a little ‘clickbaity’. It’s more of the author grappling with his perception of the world, the U.S., injustice, and his past. He also talked about his process of finding hope and reconciling with America’s past.
Much of the book was more of a defense of democracy, which I agree with. The book did defend the strength of the U.S. and a defense that America is still on the top of the global food chain, with points that I hadn’t thought of before (population growth versus our adversaries is an example)
I thought it was a good book, the author is careful, not dogmatic and it felt hopeful in a real, grounded way.
Much of the book was more of a defense of democracy, which I agree with. The book did defend the strength of the U.S. and a defense that America is still on the top of the global food chain, with points that I hadn’t thought of before (population growth versus our adversaries is an example)
I thought it was a good book, the author is careful, not dogmatic and it felt hopeful in a real, grounded way.
November 13, 2025
Wait, I know what the world needs right now. A recasting of American exceptionalism as the world’s only hope. A timely justification of making the world in Americas image. An increased reliance and subservience to American power and elitist thinking. American style liberty and politics and its capitalist pursuits
Because the rest of us are just sitting over here saying if only America would come to our rescue and make things right again. We are incapable of imagining society without them and need to sit in perpetual fear of communism taking over the world without them
The grossest book I’ve come across in a long long time
Because the rest of us are just sitting over here saying if only America would come to our rescue and make things right again. We are incapable of imagining society without them and need to sit in perpetual fear of communism taking over the world without them
The grossest book I’ve come across in a long long time
January 15, 2026
This book is a defense of the US-led world order following the end of WWII ad the emergence of the US as a military and economic superpower, arguing that this world order has produced more peace and wealth than any other world order. There is definitely some truth to this argument, but I think Hamid overstates his case in some ways here. In the abstract, yes, democracy is better than dictatorship and most people, if given the choice, would prefer to live in a democracy. But this ignores any of the messiness that can result from US military interventions that are poorly conceived or executed. For every Germany and Japan we have an Iraq or a Vietnam or Afghanistan where hundreds of thousands of lives are lost for no clear reason and the reputation of the US globally is damaged beyond repair.
Hamid rightfully condemns both Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Israel's mass killing of civilians in Gaza, but he has too myopic of a vision of U.S. power. For Hamid, the U.S. is exceptional because it was founded on specific principles (what country isn't?) and promotes democracy globally, in contrast to authoritarian regimes like Russia and China. As evidence of this, Hamid cites the "third wave" of democratization after the end of the Cold War. Though this in itself is not insignificant, and I'm glad that Eastern Europe and Latin America ended their dictatorships of the Left and Right, we are now experiencing significant backlash and right-wing populism in many of these countries which suggests to me that the ideological conflicts of the Cold War are not really over yet. Procedural democracy is better than brutal dictatorship but I'm not sure that a lot of these democratic countries have truly democratic institutions. Ultimately, Hamid's position is not false but it's also impossible to prove correct. All nations construct founding myths to justify their own power, and the more powerful a nation is, the more they are likely to see themselves as exceptional. The frustrating thing is that in many ways, America really is an exceptional country, it does a lot of things well, but we refuse to listen to any criticism from less powerful countries and our democracy suffers from exploitation by demagogues and rampant inequality.
For Hamid, the answer is always to just "elect better leaders," since we live in a democracy. This is true on paper, but in reality, foreign policy expertise almost always falls to powerful and experienced policymakers and advisers who share similar interests regardless of party affiliation. This isn't to say that there is zero foreign policy debate or that policymakers never have to justify their decisions to the public, they do, just that just because we can elect different leaders doesn't mean we do. It's probably true that if leaders like Trump, who want to carve the world into spheres of influence like a true 19th century imperialist, Xi and Putin will likewise be emboldened. I don't think that Hamid is necessarily wrong that the other countries do legitimately benefit from the U.S.-led world order, and that it's probably better globally than a Chinese or Russian-led world order, but this does not excuse the U.S. foreign policy that more often than not creates a backlash and more anti-U.S. sentiment. Of course it is much easier to criticize the abuses of American power than to suggest any realistic alternative. The Case for American Power goes against conventional narratives on the Left, and is a sort of conservative argument, but it is worth considering.
Hamid rightfully condemns both Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Israel's mass killing of civilians in Gaza, but he has too myopic of a vision of U.S. power. For Hamid, the U.S. is exceptional because it was founded on specific principles (what country isn't?) and promotes democracy globally, in contrast to authoritarian regimes like Russia and China. As evidence of this, Hamid cites the "third wave" of democratization after the end of the Cold War. Though this in itself is not insignificant, and I'm glad that Eastern Europe and Latin America ended their dictatorships of the Left and Right, we are now experiencing significant backlash and right-wing populism in many of these countries which suggests to me that the ideological conflicts of the Cold War are not really over yet. Procedural democracy is better than brutal dictatorship but I'm not sure that a lot of these democratic countries have truly democratic institutions. Ultimately, Hamid's position is not false but it's also impossible to prove correct. All nations construct founding myths to justify their own power, and the more powerful a nation is, the more they are likely to see themselves as exceptional. The frustrating thing is that in many ways, America really is an exceptional country, it does a lot of things well, but we refuse to listen to any criticism from less powerful countries and our democracy suffers from exploitation by demagogues and rampant inequality.
For Hamid, the answer is always to just "elect better leaders," since we live in a democracy. This is true on paper, but in reality, foreign policy expertise almost always falls to powerful and experienced policymakers and advisers who share similar interests regardless of party affiliation. This isn't to say that there is zero foreign policy debate or that policymakers never have to justify their decisions to the public, they do, just that just because we can elect different leaders doesn't mean we do. It's probably true that if leaders like Trump, who want to carve the world into spheres of influence like a true 19th century imperialist, Xi and Putin will likewise be emboldened. I don't think that Hamid is necessarily wrong that the other countries do legitimately benefit from the U.S.-led world order, and that it's probably better globally than a Chinese or Russian-led world order, but this does not excuse the U.S. foreign policy that more often than not creates a backlash and more anti-U.S. sentiment. Of course it is much easier to criticize the abuses of American power than to suggest any realistic alternative. The Case for American Power goes against conventional narratives on the Left, and is a sort of conservative argument, but it is worth considering.
December 4, 2025
The Case For American Power is longer than it needs to be, and probably shouldn't be a book at all.
The core argument is simple: assume that some imperial power must be dominant, then assume that democracies are better than autocracies. Therefore, it follows that American dominance is preferably to Chinese or Russian dominance, insofar as the former is a democracy, and the latter autocracies. (Democracy is better, because warts and all, as it allows for less tyranny from elites.)
What I found interesting, was Hamid's argument (146) that the way we think about hypocrisy in individuals should not apply to nations, and that a nation that can be charged with hypocrisy (like America) is preferable to one that cannot (like China or Russia) with regard to its political ideals.
I'm not totally convinced by this argument, but Hamid is likely very right that vices that we attribute to individuals, are probably not the right kind of vices to also attribute to nations. Nations and humans are not the same kinds of things, and probably have different vices and virtues. I think I would have found it more satisfying it Hamid spent more time writing about this issue.
Finally, near the very end, I also found it amusing how much Hamid naively claims ethical nonmonogamy and polyamory necessarily means infidelity (161). It seems safe to say, that at time of writing, that this author is not in a polycule, nor did anyone familiar with one edit this book.
The core argument is simple: assume that some imperial power must be dominant, then assume that democracies are better than autocracies. Therefore, it follows that American dominance is preferably to Chinese or Russian dominance, insofar as the former is a democracy, and the latter autocracies. (Democracy is better, because warts and all, as it allows for less tyranny from elites.)
What I found interesting, was Hamid's argument (146) that the way we think about hypocrisy in individuals should not apply to nations, and that a nation that can be charged with hypocrisy (like America) is preferable to one that cannot (like China or Russia) with regard to its political ideals.
I'm not totally convinced by this argument, but Hamid is likely very right that vices that we attribute to individuals, are probably not the right kind of vices to also attribute to nations. Nations and humans are not the same kinds of things, and probably have different vices and virtues. I think I would have found it more satisfying it Hamid spent more time writing about this issue.
Finally, near the very end, I also found it amusing how much Hamid naively claims ethical nonmonogamy and polyamory necessarily means infidelity (161). It seems safe to say, that at time of writing, that this author is not in a polycule, nor did anyone familiar with one edit this book.
January 12, 2026
Shadi is a great twitter follow. I enjoyed the book. It is important to evaluate the strengths of liberal democracies versus autocracies around the world. Shadi is right in saying a government is not a human rights organization and should not be held to the same standards. We should, however, be pushing for the gov. to live up to its own aspirations and ideals. The only pushback I did not see addressed is any downsides to the UN becoming more powerful and being able to push back on some of the US's counterproductive adventures. I suppose for the time being, it's not even close to being feasible.
November 30, 2025
Shadi does a really great job here synthesizing a series of views related to power, America's usage of it in history, and a progressive perspective and potential vision going forward. I've teetered between being anti-American power and wanting to embrace it, and I find Shadi's argument compelling. Are America's particular sins throughout world conflict unique to America? This is the kind of book I'm curious to have a conversation about with a variety of groups of people.
January 17, 2026
Hamid covers great ground in this work—a political science perspective on democracies and autocracies, our perceptions of American progress, and what all this ultimately means for the potential of American power to do good.
June 19, 2025
scum. the us does not and should not rule the world. anyone who thinks otherwise is either a cia agent or tool. scum.
Read
November 15, 2025review forthcoming for Reason magazine
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews