The main idea behind this ideology is “collective problem solving,” in which, through open democracies, countries could come in and fix “problem countries” openly. By fixing these countries, their nation will be stabilized, which would then be stable within the global economy. There have been a few versions of Liberal Internationalism: one could use, for example, Bill Clinton and his role is the Civil War and genocide in Rwanda. Rwanda could not even help itself, so Bill Clinton took a stand in order to help them so that they did not affect more people. This compliments one of Zakaria’s points on economic globalization and the reformation of the 21^st century. Zakaria believes that America, and any country in general, needs to create respectable relations with other countries. This can be achieved through one main act: responding to problems that are pressing and need addressing. This goes for every country, not just America, and according the Zakaria, “this power shift could be broadly beneficial” (218). Of course, countries would be able to achieve global unity with open markets and free economies.

With the growth of big businesses and economic expansion, leaders of nations have become greedier and more power-hungry. Countries have been affected by the idea that more is better and that they can improve their international relations by appealing to the other country’s interests rather than their own. This has led to an up-rise in social injustice, for leaders of countries are neglecting the people of their countries. Social injustice is completely immoral, and Sachs, Aiello, Bello, and Davis all present pressing examples of social injustices that are going on today. One would think that humanity has moved past cruelty, but social injustice has surfaced itself as a new, 21^st century version of torture; one that needs to be addressed if we want to succeed as moray, global citizens.