Francis Fukuyama

Het klassieke liberalisme verkeert in een staat van crisis. Dat dit systeem, dat is gebaseerd op fundamentele beginselen van gelijkheid en de rechtsstaat en dat de rechten van individuen om hun eigen vormen van geluk na te streven benadrukt, niet altijd zijn eigen idealen waarmaakte, is geen geheim. In het Westen werd aan veel mensen gelijkheid voor de wet ontzegd. Wie meetelde als volwaardig mens met universele rechten werd eeuwenlang betwist, en pas recent is deze omissie gerepareerd.

De principes van het liberalisme zijn de afgelopen decennia door zowel rechts als links tot uitersten gedreven: neoliberalen maakten een cultus van economische vrijheid, terwijl progressieven zich richtten op identiteit boven universaliteit. Het resultaat, stelt Fukuyama, is toenemende polarisatie en een toenemend gevaar voor onze democratie. In dit heldere verslag van de huidige politieke onvrede biedt Fukuyama een essentiële verdediging van een liberalisme voor de eenentwintigste eeuw.… (plus d'informations)

Interesting non-fiction by the guy who brought us The End of History and the Last Man.
Author has some insights & some historical knowledge but also some exaggeration, political bias & some generalization - as well as a few factual errors (e.g., Nixon won a landslide by a in '68 - it was 0.5%; England was a liberal society when the Industrial Revolution began - uhh- not in anyone's dreams). Of course, history did not end in 1997, either.

The author has a scholar's broad & deep knowledge of some areas but also the overreach that many experts have when opining outside their areas of expertise. Still, it is worth reading because of the depth & insights he does have ... but with one's eyes open.… (plus d'informations)

3.5 stars: there is nothing really new here, and there is nothing horribly, terribly wrong here, either. I wish that there was a little more explicit attention paid to e.g. the history of "identity politics" as used to justify slavery, Jim Crow, etc. Then again, maybe Fukuyama felt that, especially in a short work, the obvious didn't need to be stated (if you don't understand that the power of white racism was nigh 100% expressed through identity politics, up to and including making it legal to own, torture, kill, etc. people, then you are hopelessly lost; to state it as boilerplate just to prove you know it is nothing but virtue signaling...) Nonetheless, there were a couple of moments where I was left with of a bit of a sense that a false equivalency was being made.

The biggest drawback for me was that the book, for being so short, zoomed out to the broad international, then to the US, then to the EU/EU region, back to the US, etc. A tighter focus would have helped make his point more strongly.

Some reviews seem angry that Fukuyama falls into the trap of claiming that activists/minorities/women/etc. invented identity politics or some such. I do not get that read at all. Modern IP (60's - 10's) is a creature of the left. The never-quite-gone-away and neo-nativist IP of white identitarians is a reaction to that left IP. That doesn't deny the fact that there is continuity with white racisms of the past, or that racism is an animator of those politics today.

What is new, what the book is about, is the growing (and some would say already outsized) role IP plays on the left, how that has displaced (imperfectly) more universal groupings, and where all that, in tandem with the already existing white racism and white identity politics that is being consolidated by the right, will lead us. I think reviews like e.g. Mehrsa's somewhat miss this point.

It critiques like that (couched as a critique of historical accuracy) that makes me reflect on the confusions --or the continuums-- that I sum up as Identity Politics != politics with an identity != having social identities != tribalism != personal identities.

A critique of the book that I would give, and a critique of the critiques I've read, is that they don't seem to acknowledge how grievance/desire for respect can move separately from political, or even social, activity. Though, I suppose, it depends on what you mean by the word. A desire for acceptance isn't necessarily the same as a desire for dignity/respect...

There is definitely a lot here to think about, even if ultimately I think the book leaves a lot to be desired.… (plus d'informations)