Mar 27 2006
Fukuyama’s Recent Clarifuscation
Realistic Wilsonianism
The term has grabbed attentions from the Economist and the New Yorker recently.
His argument: the “War on Terror” vastly overstates the scope of the problem.
The jihadist movement is not global war comparable to the world wars or the Cold War. The movement is instigated by Muslims living in the West (not literally but I guess he meant they constantly feel threatened?) but NOT those living in the Middle East (yet we are at war with them).
Fukuyama flirted with neocons but recently spoke against them (e.g. Karuthammer).
But Rummy’s comparison of jihadism to facism is not totally without reason: both ideologies can be tagged by: economic devastation, failed liberalization, demagoguery, anti-liberalization and racism. The difference, of course, is between German efficiency and Oriental hoodoo-ism.
I read part of F.F. essay “End of History” but did not understand what he meant. His apologists argued he didn’t mean that literally. Rather he was referring to end of ideological struggle that has defined modern history. So he seemed to imply in the beginning part of the essay.
Not sure Communism can define the whole of modernity (nationalism, imperialism, etc.)? Plus, Hegelian historicism does not have an “end”. Dialectic denies the existence of terminal stage or teleological meaning. Then how can one title one’s essay “End of …” and goes on quoting Hegel?