His new book looks like it’s peak centrism:

A good revolution, as Zakaria tells it, is not initiated by political actors. It occurs when exogenous shocks—in the form of economic or technological trends—are tamed by competent management. Liberalism flourished in the Netherlands and England because revolution was a “bottom-up process” in those countries. When Dutch and English leaders saw fit to intervene in the course of human affairs, they were content merely “to implement, confirm, and codify the transformations that had already taken place in society, beneath the surface of politics.” These revolutions succeeded insofar as they were scarcely needed. A good revolution respects the limits of natural forces. A bad revolution crosses a line and provokes the backlash necessary to maintain equilibrium. Zakaria’s counterexample to the Netherlands and England is France, whose revolution was a “grisly failure” insofar as revolutionary élites “tried to impose modernity and enlightenment by top-down decree on a country that was largely unready for it.” The Reign of Terror and the consolidation of power under Napoleon, Zakaria says, prove that social change “must take place organically.”

Trying to improve things will only lead to worse things