Fukuyama, Hegel, & Hosni Mubarak

I am one of the few who still think that Francis Fukuyama's thesis in his great National Interest article "The End of History?" You can read the piece here. Fukuyama presented an Hegelian account of history as a dialectic process always pitting opposed forms of civilization against one another. The last chapter in that great dialogue consisted of the contest between liberal democracy and communism. Writing in 1989, Fukuyama speculated that the dialogue had reached a conclusion. Liberal democracy had won, and there was no viable alternative on the horizon. History is at an end.

Contrary to what many of Fukuyama's critics seemed to think, he wasn't arguing that nothing more would happen, nor that we would all live happily ever after. He was arguing that previous history could be interpreted as a great drama, as Hegel had argued, and that that drama seen its climax. Whether what comes next is good or bad is another thing.

Without endorsing Hegel in more than a qualified sense (his was a useful interpretation) I think Fukuyama is largely right. There is no real alternative to liberal democracy as a model for modern civilization. To the extent that a nation achieves such a regime, it will be as happy as possible under this sun. It is far from clear how many nations can achieve it, or whether those who have can sustain it. If history is indeed come to an end, that end may be tragic rather than triumphant.

The current uprisings in the Arab world bring these thoughts back to mind. The Egyptians are revolting. If you don't believe me, ask Hosni Mubarak. He is clearly trying to hang on to power, but he also sent his family abroad. It looks like his regime is at an end. The conflagration began in Tunisia, and it has spread to Yemen. This is something.

Our esteemed Vice President said that Mubarak is not a dictator and shouldn't step down, and that the current uprisings in the Middle East "weren't comparable to the popular uprisings in Eastern Europe that brought down the Iron Curtain." Isn't there some bunker somewhere that we can stash this clown?

Mubarak is a dictator. Everyone but Joe Biden knows this, though perhaps someone has now explained it to him. There are two reasons we have supported Mubarak. One is that he was an ally (read: our Son of a Bitch). The other is that he seemed preferable to the militant Islamists. That's reasonable policy, but it involves a great risk. We may have helped to stifle genuine democratic elements in the Egyptian population. If those forces triumph, they may see us as an enemy.

Biden aside, the Administration has been trying to walk a very narrow line. They don't want to repeat Jimmy Carter's great error and help to usher in another Iran. They also want to be seen as encouraging reform. President Obama's remarks on Egypt Friday night tried to have it both ways. That may be all that our President is capable of, but it is hard to see what else he could have done.

Working to advance democracy in the Middle East is probably the right policy. This is another example of Obama morphing into Bush. At least that is a policy. The stakes are rather high.

Militant Islamists represent a coherent and dangerous challenge to modern civilization. That doesn't mean that Hegelian history has started up again. Unlike Marxism-Leninism, militant Islam has failed to generate alternative forms of social and economic organization. The Iranians spoke, in the early days of their Islamic revolution, of an "Islamic banking system". No such system emerged. Islamist regimes are dependent on the modern world for their technology and almost all their effective institutions. They are modern regimes that try, with all their heart, to say no to modernity.

Fukuyama is probably right. History has ended. The question before us now is whether it will be a happy ending. Stay tuned.

Comments

[larry kurtz]

You're being a little hard on an administration that has let Paul Zuckerberg direct the revolution, Doc. End of his story? You might be on to something. Maybe it's orbital forcinghttp://www.sbg.ac.at/ipk/avstudio/pierofun/transcript/EMI.pdf

[Stan Gibilisco]

In my view, history always ends at the present moment! I suspect that some of humanity's greatest adventures and challenges lie ahead.

In 500 years, today's events will constitute history.

In 50,000 years, we might reasonably suppose that today's events will fall into the purview of archeology -- if archeologists exist.

[Donald Pay]

I think there are powerful forces lined up against modern liberal democracy. Radical Islamists are just one such force. Conservative Christianity is another. Multinational corporate power is another. Narco-paramilitaries, pirates, and the anarchic forces in failed states are another. State-corporate authoritarian states are another. To what extent the US has moved from a liberal democracy closer to a state-corporate authoritarian state is something we could debate. The world is a hell of a lot more complicated than the sugar-coated analysis of people looking back at history during the immediate post-Wall period.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: Conservative Christianity is "a powerful force lined up against modern democracy?" You must be smoking some of Larry's doctored weed. None of this contradicts Fukuyama's point, which wasn't looking back to the Post-wall period, but to ancient Greece and Rome.

[Jimi]

Donald,

"I think there are powerful forces lined up against modern liberal democracy. Radical Islamists are just one such force. Conservative Christianity is another. Multinational corporate power is another."

Wait.....you said that wrong.....

"I think there are powerful forces lined up against modern liberal democracy. Radical Leftists & American Democratic Socialists are just one such force. Obama is another. Crony Capitalists are another."

There....Fixed it For You! :)

[Miranda]

The End of History was one of my favorite readings from class - probably because the thesis seemed so radical, but it was challenging to try to find something to contradict it. I still reject the idea that history has necessarily ended.

There are a few reasons for this. One is that history need not be good to be history. One can see a thesis and antithesis still meeting and producing something new. Second, man could change. Suppose, for instance, man evolved, not just physically, but also morally. Suppose he became completely altruistic. Would Liberal Democracy be necessary? Would it be the best form of government? Perhaps not. Or suppose most men went entirely mad. Would majority rule be desirable?

[larry kurtz]

Ms. Flint, thank you for exonerating me: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1101.4968

[larry kurtz]

How is South Dakota any different, Ken? You've got a rubber stamp executive for an authoritarian governing body TEAtering on the brink of violent unrest.

[Miranda]

Mr. Kurtz: Oh no! You're on to me!

More seriously, though, democracy is of little use to slime molds. If we can evolve from the slime mold state into a man, is it really so preposterous to suggest that we might evolve into something completely different from what we are? Unless, of course, we've reached not only the end of history but the end of man. I suppose man COULD be the final thesis.

I am not saying that either of the scenarios I gave are likely to happen, I am only trying to point out that concluding that history has ended could be premature.

[Miranda]

Also: South Dakota isn't anywhere close to Egypt. Our TEA parties have, in some cases, been more like potlucks than protests.