Fukuyama on US Election

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Widely known for his book, The End of History and the Last Man, and his
most recent book, Trust: The
Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, Francis Fukuyama, has been
launched to prominence with
his argument that society has entered a new and lasting phase. He claims
that the change is so dramatic
that it might be accurately depicted as representing the end of history.
Fukuyama derives his argument
from the writings of Kant, Hegel and a critical, selective reading of
Marx.  This new phase represents the
worldwide triumph of neo-liberalism (democracy/market fundamentalism) over
the collapse of
Communism. History has ended in the sense that there is no more room for
large ideological battles.
Fukuyama relates his theory of history to Karl Popper's criticism of
historicism and attempts to denote
the connection between Fukuyama's account of history, and that of the
Christian religion.  The impact of
Fukuyama's work upon the philosophy of history and its importance in
evaluating the recent course of
international relations and US foreign policy have been celebrated in
conserative circles.

The Italian Marxist thinker, Antonio Gramsci, dveloped while in Fascist
prison, the concept of cultural
hegemony. If you can occupy peoples' heads, their hearts and their hands
will follow. Antonio Gramsci
explains how one dominant class can establish its control over others
through ideological dominance.
Whereas Marxism explains social structure as shaped by economic forces,
Gramsci adds the
crucial cultural dimension. He showed how, once ideological authority --
or "cultural hegemony" -- is
established, the use of violence to impose change can become superfluous.
Today, the world lives under
the virtually undisputed rule of the market-dominated, ultracompetitive
(yet not fair competition),
globalized society with its cortege of manifold iniquities and civilized
violence. Many public and private
institutions in all nations that genuinely believe they are working for a
more equitable world have
unwittingly contributed to the violent triumph of neoliberalism.  As many
on this list know, perpetual
prosperity is a mere empty promise of market fundamentalism.

The term hegemony is now proudly used even by Allan Greenspan, Chairman of
the US Federal Reserve
Board, to describe US financial preeminence and structural advantage.
Unlike ideology, politics deals not
only with moral validity, but also with power.  The ideology of capitalism
appears rationally operative
empirically because capitalism has the hegmonistic power to construct a
"real" world that is capitalistically
consistent and rational.  No matter how many socio-economic disasters the
neo-liberal system of market
fundamentalism has visibly caused, no matter what financial crises
neo-liberlaism engenders, no matter
how many losers and outcasts it creates, market fundamentalism is still
made to seem inevitable, like an
act of God, the only possible economic and social order available to
humankind.
Economic slavery is preferrable to starvation, according to neo-liberal
doctrine which poses slavery or
death as natural alternatives.  The World Banks has estimated that
globlization has created 200 million
poor people around the world in the last decade.  Yet claims of
globalization's contribution to global
properity contine unabated.

Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man has been hailed as
an optimistic work,
constituting the most important contribution to substantive philosophy of
history since the works of
Marx.   But it seems clear that Fukuyma is merely the quarterback of the
cutural hegemony team. The
fall of Communism is an undeniable fact, but it is not an undeniable basis
for theory, unless one
subscribes to the rationale of trial by ordeal and the theory of might is
right. Twentieth century
Communism failed for varied and complex reasons, but it is hard to argue
that defective moral
compass to be the leading cause.  The fall of global Communism in fact
removes the fog on the mirror of
truth that had obscure the ugly face of market fundamentalism.  Fukuyama
in fact echoes Coolidge's
famous pronouncement of economic theory: "When people are out of work,
unemployment will result."

Like Marx, Fukuyama argues that human beings are biologically driven to
establish moral values, and
have unique capabilities for reasoning their way over the long run to
spontaneous order. But social order
ebbs and flows in long cycles as societies adjust to constantly changing
technological and economic
environments.  Yet Fukuyama's list of moral issues is rather curious.

In his WSJ article: What Divides America (November 15, 2000), Fukuyama
continues with his cultural
hegemonic theme:

"But what are Americans sharply divided over?

It's clear that they are not divided over foreign policy, management of
the economy, crime, welfare or
other traditional issues that used to separate left and right. Both
candidates tried to grab hold of the
electorate through tried and true political appeals that had worked in
earlier elections. But the real issues
in American politics have become cultural ones that can only indirectly be
addressed through politics and
public policy."

Fukuyama then proceed to identified the cultural battle as sexual
politics: "... failed to grasp fully the
change that has taken place, which is, as political scientist James Kurth
has explained, the feminization of
American politics. It is not just that women vote in greater numbers than
they did, but that they constitute
the key vote that has swung toward the Democrats in contemporary
elections. Foreign policy, strong
national defense and tax cuts were key parts of the traditional Republican
formula that brought Ronald
Reagan to power. But these issues are also pre-eminently male ones, and
have consistently failed to gain
much traction among women.
Mr. Clinton woke up to the feminization of American politics and the
cultural issues this spawned much
sooner than the Republicans, and rode it to two election victories. Of the
Republican candidates running
last spring, Mr. Bush had the most appeal among women because of his
knowledge of, and concern for,
social policy issues. He managed, in the end, to do better among married
women than Mr. Gore. How
politicians play this issue is very complex, because women are not a
homogeneous voting block and have
very different interests on a variety of issues. But on the whole, this
shift spells trouble for conservatives
more than for liberals.
The single most important social change to have taken place in the United
States over the past 40 years
concerns sex and the social role of women, and it is from this single
source that virtually all of the "culture
wars" stem.
They'd better start thinking fast, since the cultural issues are the only
ones still capable of stimulating
voter passion."

Now sexual politics has been around for a long time and it is bizarre to
identify it as the new goal post in the cultural war, while huge numbers
of people aroung the world are dying daily from hunger, disease,
malnutrition, war, pollution, and what have you, most of which caused by
some wanting more than
others. In the order of moral concerns, sexual politics does not rank
among the top.

The fundamental aspect of US foreign policy after the Cold War is that the
US, viewing itself with the
equivalence of the all-inclusive Roman Empire at the height of its power -
an invincible singular global
superpower with no effective opposition, no longer feels the need for a
foreign policy.  This is in keeping
with the view of the end of history.  Historically, China, at various
times during the height of its culture,
such as during the Han, Tang and Qing dynasties, also enjoyed such
hegemonic advantage in the then
konw world, and had no need for a foreign ministry or policy.
US foreign policy has become merely a sub-unit of domestic policy.  Its
neglect by the election has little,
if any, to do with it being a male issue.

The world is at a critical crossroad, and wise leadership in the world's
sole remaining superpower is very
important.  Large issues of survival are at stake for human civilization,
issues of societal vision, of social
justice, of a just peace, of environmental symbiosis, of the balance
between community and individual
freedom... the list goes on.  The powerful have a special responsibility
because they possess the means to
solve these critical problems for the good of all.  Complacency about the
end of history will only lead us
into an abyss of destruction.

As to moralism, the goal of stimulating voter passion is a poor moral
compass, to say the least.
Fukuyama appears to be hosting gentile tea parties for concerned middle
class American ladies who
would be psychologically fulfilled going home with party favors of perfume
bottles filled with empty
moralism.

It is nothing but snake oil philosohpy.

Henry C.K. Liu