I spent a decent portion of the weekend re-reading Francis Fukayama’s “The End of History and The Last Man.” When published in 1992, Fukayama’s work sent critics, especially conservative critics, into paroxysms of ecstasy. “Bold, lucid, scandalously brilliant,” gushed Charles Krauthammer. “Exhilarating and sobering” proclaimed George F. Will. “Provocative and elegant” said some guy from U.S.A. Today.
The thesis of “The End of History,” or at least its shorthand, is by now probably familiar to most of you: The fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism showed that liberal democracy was the culmination of all political systems. The historical search for the perfect (or least crappy) system of governance had ended, and liberal democracy was the victor.
In recent years, Fukayama’ work has become a subject of mockery. Although he never proclaimed and explicitly declaimed that his thesis meant things of historical consequence would stop happening, that’s largely how his book has been bastardized, particularly by those who probably haven’t read it. Especially after 9/11, anti-Western triumphalists have enjoyed sniffing whenever the mood strikes them, “End of history? Ha!”
Even amongst those who have read the book and presumably understand it, Fukayama has emerged as an often convenient punching bag. In his outstanding new book, “The War of the World,” Harvard professor Niall Ferguson manages to take a gratuitous swipe at Fukayama in the opening pages.
CONFESSION TIME: MY INTENTIONS FOR RE-READING Fukayama were less than noble. I was having a conversation recently with another writer (a name you’d all recognize) and we agreed that Fukayama’s initial support for the Iraq war and his subsequent denunciation was pathetic. Yes, “pathetic” was the word we settled on. In truth, I went back to “The End of History” this weekend after a 12 year absence to see how poorly it had aged.
I was shocked to see that “The End of History” not only has aged well, it has matured magnificently. The triumphalism that critics larded upon the book is oddly absent. Fukayama’s writing was far more cautious than his fans’ (including this one’s) reactions. Fukayama wasn’t saying that we had reached the ending of history’s story and that all had turned out well. All he was saying that the search for “the best” system of government had been resolved; that didn’t mean the story was over or that even the most interesting parts had been written.
In two particular areas, Fukayama was almost eerily prescient. The first was his treatment of Islam. Fukayama mentions Islam on the grand total of three pages in his master-work. But each time he mentions it, he does so to acknowledge that in terms of developing political systems, the Islamic world has been largely off the grid for the best millennium. He also acknowledges the threat that Islam poses to the “victor,” liberal democracy:
“The appeal of Islam is potentially universal, reaching out to all men as men, and not just to members of a particular ethnic or national group. And Islam has indeed defeated liberal democracy in many parts of the Islamic world, posing a grave threat to liberal practices even in countries where it has not achieved political power directly.”
Remember, this was written in 1992, a year before the first attack on the World Trade Center.
THE OTHER AREA WHERE FUKAYAMA was extraordinarily prescient was in describing what kind of people might emerge from the comfort that liberal democracies produce. He makes repeated mention of the C.S. Lewis phrase “men without chests” to characterize the kind of loathsome creatures that might emerge from our splendid modern societies. Fukayama was writing 15 years ago; I bet he’s surprised at how rapidly chestless we’ve all become.
The Bush 41/Clinton years marked a signal decline into chestlessness. Both presidents presided over numerous misguided attempts to make life fair. Bush’s “Americans with Disabilities Act” remains (with the arguable exception of campaign finance reform), the single most damaging piece of legislation of the past 25 years. It wasn’t so much the provisions of the Act that were so harmful, although they represented an unacceptable amount of governmental overreach into private sector affairs. It was the message that the act gave to all Americans – If life has treated you unfairly, we’re from the government and we’re coming to help.
Clinton continued this philosophy during his eight years in office. Although his effort to socialize medicine and ensure equally mediocre medical treatment for all was thankfully thwarted, Clinton tried to rectify numerous wrongs done to people by fate. There was no matter so picayune that it could escape the notice of his Oval Office. Be it mandating the time a delivering mother spent in the hospital, the existence of Midnight Basketball programs or extending paternity leave by government fiat, the Clinton government tried to instantly gratify any and every citizen’s desire.
But we have never looked as chestless as we have during the past three years at war. We literally fear antagonizing our enemies in Iran and Syria. Domestically, the burden of deaths equal to 5% of those suffered in Vietnam has been repeatedly cited as evidence that we must withdraw from the greatest challenge of our era. For all his “bring it on” posturing, has there ever been a more chestless national figure than John Kerry? (Okay, Jimmy Carter, but you catch my drift.) If America is to prevail in this generational challenge, we better find our men with chests in a hurry.
IN SHORT, FOR ALL THE DERISION it has taken since 1992, the conservative critics had it right at the time: Francis Fukayama’s “The End of History and The Last Man” was and remains a masterpiece.
Complaints? Compliments? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.