Thanks for this! I'll be linking this for my classes when we teach Fukuyama. I guess I thought Fukuyama, towards the end, struggled to distinguish between liberalism and democracy. It may be legitimate, for instance, for a nation to create laws to narrow migration parameters. However, the current system imposed by Trump is expressly racialised, which, to my mind, makes it incompatible with liberal values. It strikes me that liberal values will clash with the democratic will of the people, and that's the point. So, I found Fukuyama's blending of these two distinct systems on the question of immigration less than convincing.
Agreed—I think that, generally, managing or restricting immigration/membership in a political community is legitimate from a liberal standpoint but explicitly racial standards for exclusion or inclusion are not.
More broadly I agree with you that conflicts between liberalism and democracy can happen, the question of whether Trump may carry out the democratic will as expressed through his election via illiberal means or means that violate the rule of law being a prime example discussed in the episode.
Definitely. I think an interesting question would be what grounds are legitimate from a liberal standpoint to limit migration. If we took a Rawlsian perspective, we may struggle to find good grounds unless we wish to restrict migration from already wealthy territories.
What an absolute sidestep to a great question by Jaime at 27:20. He's basically saying, "We've made the rule of law as so it would be impossible for Donald Trump to carry out the public will." He also did not address the illegality and covertness in the way they were allowed to come in the first place. It was, Frankly (pun intended), pathetic.
I dunno, man. Last time I checked on Frank's Twitter, he had a picture of a Ukrainian drone destined for Russia, with some kind of macabre message on it addressed to Putin. To me, he's an intellectual crusader, using universalist arguments to justify America's wars, violence, and expansion, cut from the same cloth as Napoleon. He creeps me out.
The crisis of Western universalism lies not only in its waning credibility outside the West but in its internal contradictions—embodied by figures like Fukuyama, who uphold an aging ideological order while ignoring its coercive underpinnings. Moreover, the selective enforcement of constrained liberal norms, as seen in the political exclusions of France and Romania, exposes the hollowness of Fukuyama's claims to neutrality and universality. As Bruno Maçães points out, the imposition of Western values is increasingly perceived by those from, say India and China, as a vehicle for geopolitical control rather than a genuine path to shared human flourishing. However, even many in the West demand a more pluralistic and honest reckoning with the limits of liberalism. Liberalism has no answer for the scepter of the Deaths of Despair and difficulty of the Meaning Crisis. Fukuyama will honestly confront neither.
25:37 FF: "Liberalism asserts the universal equal dignity of all human beings."
22:50 FF: "What would've really made me say 'I'm completely wrong about The End of History' is if there was a powerful movement that was based on a different set of principles -- that tried to reassert the need for hierarchy -- in human social affairs, and that that was something that suddenly a lot of people started marching to. And I just haven't seen that since I wrote that article."
WTF?
What about Shariah? Mosques are full. Fertility is up. Marchers march at Mecca as ever. It is the fastest-growing religion in the world.
What about Hindu-nationalism? The largest gathering of people ever was at the Maha Kumbh Mela. Isn't the caste system still practiced in India?
What do Jewish nationals think of gentiles?
I mean, that's just off the top of my head...
I can't tell: are you guys being polite to a guest that you admire? What am I not getting?
Thanks for this! I'll be linking this for my classes when we teach Fukuyama. I guess I thought Fukuyama, towards the end, struggled to distinguish between liberalism and democracy. It may be legitimate, for instance, for a nation to create laws to narrow migration parameters. However, the current system imposed by Trump is expressly racialised, which, to my mind, makes it incompatible with liberal values. It strikes me that liberal values will clash with the democratic will of the people, and that's the point. So, I found Fukuyama's blending of these two distinct systems on the question of immigration less than convincing.
Agreed—I think that, generally, managing or restricting immigration/membership in a political community is legitimate from a liberal standpoint but explicitly racial standards for exclusion or inclusion are not.
More broadly I agree with you that conflicts between liberalism and democracy can happen, the question of whether Trump may carry out the democratic will as expressed through his election via illiberal means or means that violate the rule of law being a prime example discussed in the episode.
Definitely. I think an interesting question would be what grounds are legitimate from a liberal standpoint to limit migration. If we took a Rawlsian perspective, we may struggle to find good grounds unless we wish to restrict migration from already wealthy territories.
What an absolute sidestep to a great question by Jaime at 27:20. He's basically saying, "We've made the rule of law as so it would be impossible for Donald Trump to carry out the public will." He also did not address the illegality and covertness in the way they were allowed to come in the first place. It was, Frankly (pun intended), pathetic.
I dunno, man. Last time I checked on Frank's Twitter, he had a picture of a Ukrainian drone destined for Russia, with some kind of macabre message on it addressed to Putin. To me, he's an intellectual crusader, using universalist arguments to justify America's wars, violence, and expansion, cut from the same cloth as Napoleon. He creeps me out.
The crisis of Western universalism lies not only in its waning credibility outside the West but in its internal contradictions—embodied by figures like Fukuyama, who uphold an aging ideological order while ignoring its coercive underpinnings. Moreover, the selective enforcement of constrained liberal norms, as seen in the political exclusions of France and Romania, exposes the hollowness of Fukuyama's claims to neutrality and universality. As Bruno Maçães points out, the imposition of Western values is increasingly perceived by those from, say India and China, as a vehicle for geopolitical control rather than a genuine path to shared human flourishing. However, even many in the West demand a more pluralistic and honest reckoning with the limits of liberalism. Liberalism has no answer for the scepter of the Deaths of Despair and difficulty of the Meaning Crisis. Fukuyama will honestly confront neither.
https://www.noemamag.com/the-attack-of-the-civilization-state/
Couldn't shake this one, had a quick re-listen.
25:37 FF: "Liberalism asserts the universal equal dignity of all human beings."
22:50 FF: "What would've really made me say 'I'm completely wrong about The End of History' is if there was a powerful movement that was based on a different set of principles -- that tried to reassert the need for hierarchy -- in human social affairs, and that that was something that suddenly a lot of people started marching to. And I just haven't seen that since I wrote that article."
WTF?
What about Shariah? Mosques are full. Fertility is up. Marchers march at Mecca as ever. It is the fastest-growing religion in the world.
What about Hindu-nationalism? The largest gathering of people ever was at the Maha Kumbh Mela. Isn't the caste system still practiced in India?
What do Jewish nationals think of gentiles?
I mean, that's just off the top of my head...
I can't tell: are you guys being polite to a guest that you admire? What am I not getting?