Francis Fukuyama still believes that history, if not ended yet, is certainly readying the Fat Lady for her solo.
In case you
Democracy is simply santified theft. I don’t know why libertarians embrace it so readily. Only it has allowed the government to get so huge without moral outrage.
Still, democracy has meant a better life for a lot of people. I like how its caught on so much now that even pissant dictatorships at least try to pretend they have free elections.
Fukuyama’s downfall is sloppy language, and sloppy thinking that results, I think. adlskj may just have alluded to it. Democracy sucks – it’s just mob rule. A Democratic Republic – now that’s another matter. The problem with most of the rest of the world’s liberal political societies is too much “democratic” and not enough “republic.”
My reading of Fukuyama is that he makes a distinction between history and History. He believes, and I largely agree, that the liberal democratic market economy state is the highest point of evolution for the human condition.
The number of these states is steadily rising, and the point of his thesis is this: democracies don’t make war on each other. Ever. By the time Hitler went to war, he was dictator.
The End of History is meant to signify his belief that eventually all states will evolve into the liberal model, and remain there.
Placing a wager on stasis, in regards to the likely outcomes of human societies, is a sure-fire way in which to be taken to the cleaners. Ol’ Frank is wildly off-base in his theorizing. Intellectually speaking, he has been wearing a rain barrel for clothing for some time.
Paul, the “remain there” part is at least half the reason Fukuyama is so full of crap.
I basically agree with your point, but Iran is no way a “functioning democracy.” Iran is in reality what the anti-Catholic bigots imagined an Al Smith or JFK presidency would be: an elected representative completely beholden to a theological overlord. Remember, we’re talking Shi’ite Islam here: Islam regards Church and State as one, and courtesy of the late great Ayotollah Khoemeni, that vision has seldom in previous history been so perfectly realized. Elected QUOTE-UNQUOTE – officials in Iran serve at the pleasure of their theologic overlords, who are jealous of their perogatives, and quick to avenge any slight.
After all, we can imagine a democratic relationship with elected leaders. Can their be a democratic relationship with the Supreme Being? Of course not! Judaism and Christianity have recognized that – our Islamic friends have yet to be disabused of this antique notion.
Iran is about as democratic (or republican, for that matter) as Germany was under Bismark. They get to have elections, but under their constitution no major law can be passed nor in fact may anyone actually run for election without the formal blessing of the unelected cleric-dominated Guardian Council. Essentially what they’ve got is a student government.
Fukuyama and Huntingdon both fall down, by the way, largely because they assume “all things remaining equal” when the exact opposite should generaly be assumed. Fukuyama has the additional penalty points, from what I’ve seen, from missing the fact that democracies (and republics!) are, in fact, willing to shoot each other, just less so. Thebes vs. Athens first pops to mind, but it also seems a minor miracle in retrospect that Great Britain had a succession of PMs that resisted giving in to making war against republican France throughout the 19th century.
(Yes, I know Napolean III killed the republic, but his foreign policy was indistinguishable from what it would have been had he been as beholden to an electorate as our politicians are today.)
There is a school of thought that says humans have drastically reduced their rtae of evolution, because the environment no longer shapes us, we shape it.
Fukuyama is on the same track in claiming that states will not evolve significantly past the liberal democracy, because the power is in the hands of those most satisfied with the outcome.