[a bit of bitterness…perhaps]
Longtime readers of ObWi or Tacitus may have noticed that one of my fiercest pet peeves is for the book The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama. At the height of the battle between progressive and conservative ideas (or at least my awakening into it), this arrogant suck-up prances in, draped in his court-jester finery, holding up very flattering portraits to history’s “worst monsters” (Reagan and Thatcher, et al.) and blandishes them into believing he was offering only a mirror. They had done it. They had beaten back the evils lurking in the darker corners of progressive ideology. Conservatism had triumphed, never to be seriously challenged again. Onward and upward, nothing could stop them now. Forward into the glorious future!!!
At the time, with the Berlin Wall falling, the USSR crumbling, and the Democrat and UK Labor parties rushing toward the center, it looked as if the Policy Planning Poodle might have actually been on to something.
But, thankfully, before I was totally brainwashed, along came Tony Kushner.
I’ve fallen in love with Tony Kushner (figuratively, mind you). It may have been his acceptance speech at the Emmy’s, or the panel discussion I attended where he graciously gutted the notion that the conservatives have the moral high ground when it comes to compassion, or this simple predicition in his devastatingly beautiful play, Angels in America, spoken by the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg:
History is about to crack wide open. The Millenium approaches.
History has indeed cracked wide open. From the “war on terror” in which the intergrity of sovereignty and state boundaries means less and less; to South America, where a majority would choose a dictator over an elected leader if that provided economic benefits; to Russia, where Putin is stripping away democratic processes that even the Soviets valued, “liberal democracy” as defined by Fukuyama doesn’t seem quite as sturdy or inevitable as he had predicted.
Had the staunch conservatives gone too far? Had they simply believed their own press and let down their guards? Or was it always a bit more complicated than the tenents of the free market or property rights suggested? Does it require genuine compassion to balance the needs of the poor with those of industry? Does globalization carry responsibilities beyond those to the stockholders? Or was the “End of History” simply too hot for the wings of Francis “Icarus” Fukuyama’s mind.
Leave the future to the angels, Francis. There’s plenty for you to focus on in the here and now.
[/a bit of bitterness…ahh, that feels better]
What’s that business about Reagan and Thatcher being “history’s worst monsters?” Perhaps I misunderstood, but as I read it it sounds like a truly ridiculous statement.
It’s a line borrowed from the Simpsons where Homer calls Jimmy Carter “history’s worst monster.” It’s come to suggest a leader whose policies you found highly objectionable.
I thought it was more common place than it must be though, so thanks for asking.
Yikes. Are you feeling okay?
Good post, Edward, and a reasonable assessment of the current state of dystopia.
Heh. “History’s worst monsters.” I like it. I may use it on my spouse during our next tiff.
Yikes. Are you feeling okay?
Yes…why do you ask?
Good post, Edward, and a reasonable assessment of the current state of dystopia.
thanks…although, you might note how Bernard misinterpreted that “worst monsters” bit if your spouse has a good left hook or is prone to make you sleep on the couch. 😉
While I’m not a great fan of Fukuyama’s enthusiastic fan club (and his ever growing ego), I still think there might be the germ of an idea here, and recent events don’t necessarily refute him. If you squint generously, you might sum him up thus: Democracy/Capitalism beats up every other ideology. (Anyone else got a better single sentence?)
If you point to big wars (Napoleon, WWI, WWII, Cold War), this still holds. However, his sample size is very small (how many other ideologies are there?). In any event, any state that retreats from democracy/capitalism (as Peru and Russia are) isn’t a refutation of Fukuyama. He can just point at them, shaking his head, and forecast their loss of wealth and power (compared to the “correct” democratic and capitalist states). When they get poor enough, they will return to the fold, he might argue.
I’m not sure I buy the overall theory but “retreats” from the winning ideology are permissible in his theory. Retreat/regress just gets you poorer and weaker. And isn’t that where most people have forecast where Peru and Russia are going?
although, you might note how Bernard misinterpreted that “worst monsters” bit if your spouse has a good left hook or is prone to make you sleep on the couch. 😉
Hmm, good point. While the spousal unit can take a verbal punch quite well, she’s the type of person that would help you dispose of a body. I may keep that verbal jab one for emergencies.
In any event, any state that retreats from democracy/capitalism…
Um, those two are not synonyms. One describes a political system, the other an economic system. Either may exist without the other.
Crap. Out, damned italics.
Hey, ObWi guys, can you fix that orphan tag problem from a technical standpoint?
Edward, perhaps I should expand a bit.
The thing is, Fukuyama already has been making amends for his hubris. His latest book is a sobering look at the difficulty of nation-building, and a frank re-evaluation of the errors of the “Wahsington Consensus” of which he was a part.
So I don’t think he merits your ire, given his capacity for admitting that he may have been wrong.
<++ungood,
Certainly, they can exist separately. Fukuyama argues that they mutually support the other, and that having one pushes you into having the other. And having both is the “right” answer (the end of history). I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m arguing that Edward’s points about Peru and Russia are not inconsistent with Fukuyama.
I’d agree with you in general baltar (I did acknowledge that I had at one time thought Fukuyama was onto something*), but I believe there’s more to it than simply “Democracy/Capitalism beats up every other ideology.”
What that implies, and what really offended me about F’s book, is the notion that since Democracy/Capitalism is as good as it gets, anything goes within it. Because Democracy/Capitalism is the ultimate good (or as good as mankind is capable of), the extremes of Democracy/Capitalism are acceptable.
The “end of history” suggests a coup de grace that dismisses the need for further diligence, compassion, and collaboration. Fukuyama, of course, predicted regression, but I don’t believe he thought there could be any harm from “too much of a good thing”—something I’m proposing here may be part of our current problems. Capitalism is perhaps a bit too unbalanced.
The problems in Peru and other South American countries suggest this is true. Without a progressive domestic agenda to ensure some distribution of wealth, the poor will opt for a benevolent dictator.
I had a conservative on a blog once argue that as far as he was concerned there was no more need for progressivism in the US. Things were acceptable as they were for him.
“For him.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
*I’m being a bit melodramtic on purpose here, hoping to spur some discussion on what’s an otherwise rather dry topic…no swiftboats or forged memos to kick around here.
My own take on what Fukuyama should have said is that Democracy and Capitalism beats up everything, so progress into the future is best grounded in them. It isn’t that progress isn’t possible. It is that progress is most possible by using those two systems.
In 1988, just before all this went down and when we were all really worried about nuclear war, I was assigned (in a freshman class) to present Fukuyama’s account of how nuclear war might erupt in the Middle East. It all went pretty much as you’d expect until we got to “And then, when the attention of the world is on the Middle East crisis, North Korea invades South Korea.” I made fun of him pretty hard, and discounted “The End of History” when it came out shortly thereafter.
Now, while the attention of the world was on the Persian Gulf, North Korea has gone and built itself a mess of nuclear bombs. I feel that I owe Fukuyama an apology.
Here is Francis Fukuyama’s induction into the Order of the Shrill, anyhow.
So I don’t think he merits your ire, given his capacity for admitting that he may have been wrong.
I noted that I was “perhaps” still bitter, didn’t I?
When Francis’ book was at the top of the world’s best sellers lists, when he was the darling of the conservative consiglieri, he had no interest in allowing for the chance he might be wrong.
He can keep squirming for a while, IMO.
Here is Francis Fukuyama’s induction into the Order of the Shrill, anyhow.
Yeah, I know…I should let up and welcome him home…arrogant &*%$ …you can interpret that either way.
Edward,
I’ll agree with most of that (which doesn’t help your attempts to get a debate going). I’m not sure I love my one sentence either, as it leaves out a whole mess of issues.
But given a wide variance in capitalism (Sweden, Germany, US, Hong Kong) and a fairly wide one in democracy (Japan, US, France, Brazil), isn’t their room at the “end of history” for variations on a theme? I always read Fukuyama more for the external issues (did capitalism/democracy really beat everybody? will other ideologies arise?) than the internal/consistency problems (what is democracy? what is capitalism?). The fact that some capitalism fails to be compassionate isn’t Fukuyama’s interest, as I read the stuff.
Are you arguing that since some capitalist states regress, because the capitalism fails to be compassionate (the people reject it), Fukuyama is wrong? That’s an interesting line of attack, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
“Now, while the attention of the world was on the Persian Gulf, North Korea has gone and built itself a mess of nuclear bombs. I feel that I owe Fukuyama an apology.”
The thrust of your point is fine, but unless you are counting the entire 1991-2004 period, North Korea built itself some nuclear bombs well before we started seriously looking at the Persian Gulf again.
I’m not arguing that Fukuyama was “wrong” per se. I’m arguing that he hadn’t considered or planned carefully enough against some of the predictable consequences of his argument. That he had some moral obligations when offering up such a powerful, definitive thesis, especially as he then let his celebrity go to his head and didn’t bother to stop the abuse of his ideas among those who only sought power.
As Matt points out, he’s tempering his arguments now.
I want him to go back in time and do it then.
“I want him to go back in time and do it then.”
Jesus H. Christ. Not satisfied with flying cars, Edward Underscore demands time machines!
For my part, I’m satisfied that Fukuyama is doing important work in battling back the more dangerous aspects of neoconservative utopianism.
By the way, in his new book, he declares that he favors a narrower government scope of action because he is “pro-growth,” but doesn’t generally see a problem with countries that decide they want to do more.
Jesus H. Christ. Not satisfied with flying cars, Edward Underscore demands time machines!
I’m learning from the Rovians…demand something really outrageous (like drilling in ANWR) and then folks will think your less-alarming ideas are rational in comparison.
i think that the evidence is pretty clear from around the planet that a lot of people prefer stability to progress.
looking at things another way, an outside observer of the US model might see a materialistic, consumer-driven, arrogant, aggressive and insular society where much of the working class appears to be working ever harder simply to stay in place.
this same observer might conclude (and believe himself quite rational in his decision-making) that a theocratic socialism would be a better place to live.
many people, after all, find both dissent and competition unpleasant. (oddly enough, some of these people are to be found in the republican party.)
let the americans lead in new inventions, this observer might think. we will obtain the benefit of their hard work while living our peaceful quiet existence where everyone is more or less equal and dissent quietly suppressed.
Francis (the water lawyer, not the author)
I think that horse has left the stable, fdl. Globalization will find its way to your doorstep, even if you wish to stay in your quiet little village. Mass communication has made sure of that.
“Progress” is human nature I believe. But how that’s defined is debatable. I don’t think even the folks in a quiet village wish to merely exist, doing the same things day after day, year after year. Having children and understanding your neighbors and worshipping God better all represent “progress.”
Kushner opens the second part of his playscript with this thought from “On Art,” by Ralph Waldo Emerson
The US may move too quickly for some folks (how else does one explain Canada? …kidding…), the cities most definitely do, but there are ways to live at a pace one is comfortable with, without ALWAYS insisting others go that same pace. Generally speaking, that’s pretty much what we really debate every four years in this country.
Sebastian, actually, I’m not positive that North Korea even has one nuclear bomb now; and IIRC at least one source I’ve read has speculated that they had one as far back as 1987, when we could be excused for thinking we had bigger fish to fry.
But the operative term was “a mess of nuclear bombs.” NK’s uranium enrichment program–which is the thing I think you’re referring to–is AFAICT not thought by anyone to have actually produced a bomb yet. If it continued, it could be expected to produce a nuclear bomb in a few years. The plutonium reprocessing that North Korea began in 2002 and has now completed gives them enough material for several bombs, right now.
I’m sure I’ve linked to this Fred Kaplan article on the topic before but it’s impossible to link to it enough. The distinction between uranium and plutonium is critical.
They had plutonium in 1994.
I am not a good person to comment on Fukuyama, since when I tried to read ‘The End of History…’, I just got annoyed and stopped, which is something I rarely do. But I just couldn’t figure out what exactly he meant by ‘history’, and why on earth he would think that it had ended, or would end, or whatever. If history was supposed to be the grand clash of ideologies or something, I thought: well, that’s a pretty dumb view of what ‘history’ is, and anyways, human nature being what it is, I’m sure we haven’t seen the end of grand clashes of some kind, especially since the idea that globalization would proceed essentially harmoniously, with a few little backslidings but without provoking major ideological battles, struck me as just a wild conjecture, on a par with the writings of with bad “futurists”.
If, on the other hand, he wasn’t really making a claim about history at all, but instead trying to argue for the normative claim that capitalism/democracy was best, then I thought: I’ll just wait for the version that doesn’t require me to untangle the basic thesis from all this ‘history’ stuff, and that moreover presents a more nuanced view of what ‘capitalism/democracy’ amounts to; or better yet, I’ll just go read really good economists and political theorists, who do a better job of arguing for these sorts of claims in any case. So I ended up throwing the book away, which is (also) something I only do very, very rarely.
Sebastian–Do you mean the plutonium rods that were put under UN seal in 1994, the seal being broken in 2002, or do you mean something else? If something else, could you provide a link or other documentation? We’ve been over this more or less endlessly, and I don’t think it’s productive to rehash the discussion unless one of us has some new information.
So I ended up throwing the book away
Now you offer that suggestion.
Actually, I read it for a book club, and the discussion emblazened the arguments in my mind.
Edward: “emblazened”? i have no idea what you mean.
but i stand on my earlier post. while the US and Western Europe may be largely urbanized, that’s not so much true of big chunks of Africa, south America, and Asia. look at DarFur for example. the only reason globalization is beating a path to that door is genocide. time has otherwise largely passed that place by.
Francis
emblazened
That’s not a word?
I was sure it was…not the first time I’ve just made one up…what do you call it when they brand a cow’s hide…what is that action…doesn’t “emblazened” suggest branded with fire (blaze) or something?
time has otherwise largely passed that place by.
In some ways, sure. But relative to what?
“Emblazened” gets 4500+ hits on google, Edward, so if it’s not a “real word” you’re in good company (well, lots of company, anyway…) But it doesn’t get any dictionary hits, so I suspect it is a word of recent invention, derived from “emblaze” or “emblazed”, which means “to blazon”, to decorate with a coat of arms, or, more broadly, to decorate with bright and glittery symbols.
As far as I know, it doesn’t have any connection with branding.
Emblazoned. Nothing to do with fire, really. From French blason, for shield. About adorning things. As you were.
Matt:
“On 22 April 1997, US Defense Department spokesman Kenneth Bacon officially stated, “When the US-North Korea nuclear agreement was signed in Geneva in 1994, the US intelligence authorities already believed North Korea had produced plutonium enough for at least one nuclear weapon.” This was the first time the United States confirmed North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons.”
GlobalSecurity
“Based on the known number of shutdowns of the 5MW(e) reactor and the estimated operating history of this reactor, this evidence indicates that up to 10kg of weapons-grade plutonium was removed from the spent fuel prior to 1994.
The IRT-2000 reactor may have contributed to an additional 4kg of plutonium resident in spent fuel.[4] However, there is essentially no open source evidence that North Korea extracted this much plutonium from the IRT-2000 spent fuel. But North Korea did admit to having separated grams-worth of plutonium from the IRT-2000 spent fuel prior to the trilateral safeguards agreement signed in 1977. Presumably, this plutonium would be weapons-grade or close to weapons-grade quality. However, the exact composition of the plutonium depends on the operating history of the reactor, which is not known. ”
Nuclear Threat Initiative
“There is evidence to suggest, however, that in 1989 North Korea removed and separated plutonium from a large amount of fuel – if not the entire core – from this reactor and that the fuel now under safeguards is not the original core.
To resolve this essential issue once and for all, the IAEA must gain whatever access it deems necessary to verify North Korea’s nuclear past. If IAEA tests and inspections show the safeguarded fuel to be the original core, than many of the nuclear questions in North Korea fade away. If, however, it was determined that this core is not the original, tensions on the peninsula would heighten. North Korea would be required to provide a new, full accounting of its nuclear activities to avoid another dangerous standoff with the IAEA, the United States and the international community.”
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report dated December 2000.
OK. Still, I stand by my comments about “a mess of nuclear weapons”–it matters greatly how much plutonium NK has, since we have to worry about them proliferating nuclear material, and it is indisputable that they reprocessed a lot of plutonium in 2002-4 when our attention was focused elsewhere.