Discussion about this post

User's avatar
JP Ferreira's avatar

Congratulations on your new endeavor. I offer a few points.

Fukuyama's thesis was never that the "West" had won or that history, as understood by political turmoil, would never be seen again. He spoke of a specific "History" as understood by Alexandre Kojeve and his integration of Hegelian concepts. Fukuyama, with uncanny clarity, predicted this present crisis of liberal democracy by warning of a left that would erase the individual and a right that would overly praise the individual. All tied up in a thymos state of nature ideal, which is counter to the Lockean concept. Fukuyama went on to flesh out this idea in his two books about political order.

What you are pointing to is the Marxist view of scientific history which is partially what neoconservatives believed in foreign policy and what social liberals believe in domestic policy. Most people like to think they are on the vanguard of improvement for society because they have all the answers.

A counterview is that Americans never really cared about bringing peace and liberty to every corner of the world. This has been made clear by the authoritarian backsliding of American foreign policy since George W. Bush left office. In part, Presidents are responding to domestic political pressure of an electorate that does not care about foreigners but only the price of their goods. I'm not talking about everyone, but the massive middle of the standard deviation curve. In the end, we are backsliding because America no longer defends its ideals abroad and has retrenched to supporting authoritarian regimes in exchange for commercial ties.

A similar situation is occurring in domestic politics. While a few of us decry whenever an institutional norm is broken, most people don't care. They just want to win. And in a system based on respecting the majority's will, it is inevitable that people will get what they want.

Expand full comment

No posts