The End of Fukuyamaism

Francis Fukuyama writes of his parting of the ways with neoconservatives in today's NYT magazine. I have to admit I find Mr. Fukuyama among the most interesting (and frustrating) third-way commentators on the scene today. A thoughtful observor, he is periodically tempted to The Grand Theory That Explains Everything. The trouble with grand theories is that they are forced into generalization and as they generalize are subject to death by a thousand op/eds. We’ve been down this road several times with Fukuyama, The End of History (all states evolving toward democracy) and The Great Disruption (in which the good professor decides that birth control is the key to understanding all of the current state of Western culture), to name just two over-arching theories that didn’t hold up to second and third readings.

Today Fukuyama lays out a compelling critique of the Bush Doctrine and says that he takes leave of the neoconservatives. (We’ll have to wait and see whether any of the other neocons notice that he’s gone missing.) Much of what Fukuyama has to say seems indisputable. The grand vision of democracy promotion that lies at the heart of the Bush Doctrine appears to have run aground on the particularities of Muslim culture. (Note of thanks to my good friend at A Mind that Suits who introduced me to this idea that conservatives are drawn not so much to grand visions as to attention to particular historical and cultural circumstances as the main touchstones for policy.) Democracy ain't beanbag and the people of the Middle East don't seem particularly keen on it or prepared to participate in it as a bunch of little Edmund Burkes. When the vote is permitted, the radical Islamists thrive (Iran, Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, for examples.) We are spilling blood and treasure to install democracy in a culture that is, essentially, pre-democratic in nature.

Here's where Fukuyama's argument becomes circular in nature. He says the Bush Doctrine won't work while arguing at the same time that the unreconstructed "realist" school (prop up your strongman and extract as much oil as you can) is also unsustainable. In fact, he goes so far as to say that to the extent that we are dealing with democratically elected radicals we are at least dealing with governments that to a significant degree reflect the people they represent (careful readers will recognize this as one of my own reflections on the Hamas victory several weeks ago. Do you think Dr. Fukuyama is reading Dr. Potomac?) This realignment between governments and the governed, Fukuyama says, is a healthy thing in the same way that letting poison seep from one’s veins is healthy. I, then, ask this question: if the Bush Doctrine is failing by creating results like a Hamas-led PA, and if this type of Arab government is the lesser of two evils, then how, again, is Bush Doctrine failing?

The rest of the Fukuyama analysis is pure blather about the need for greater multi-laterialism, and, get ready for this, multi-multilateralism. We need, he says, a variety of sub-global organizations (more NATOs, not more UNs) that can provide political cover for American intervention and avoid the political inconveniences created by unilateral action.

Well, okay, but I am still left with the view that this prong of the Fukuyama Doctrine is whistling past the graveyard. The problem we are facing vis-à-vis the Muslim world is not a lack of political institutions to serve as a front for united action but the evaporation, in a very short period of time, of the political and civilizational will to confront radical Islam at all. Rioting in Paris in 2005 and the more recent unrest over cartoons of the Prophet have met with a shockingly flaccid response, particularly by the American media who have been, shall we say, appeasement-minded in the instance. In short, our major outlets have said, “We won’t reprint the cartoons because we don’t want to gratuitously inflame passions.” I can’t resist making the point that this logic was absolutely nowhere to be found when it came to releasing the latest round of Abu Ghraib torture photos last week. These pictures were not new revelations and were inflammatory of Arab passions in the extreme. The logical conclusion from these nearly contemporaneous episodes is that our own media is more than happy to inflame Arab passions so long as the graphics in question portray the U.S. in the worst possible light. This is no way for a society to wage a protracted twilight struggle against terrorism.

I have the uncomfortable sensation these days of living not through an end-game but through the opening moves of a new world war, and one that we are terribly unprepared to wage at the level of morale, where wars are won and lost. On our side we have technology, prosperity, reason and tolerance. But our will to fight for birthrights has been undermined by decades of cultural relativism and reflexive victimology. Our adversaries have the irreplaceable advantage of being untroubled by their own inhumanity and intolerance. They make no apologies and will meet each of ours with greater and greater demands. In this conflict, what the radical Islamists lack in material assets they more than make up for in their dark passions. The storm clouds gather and we ignore the signs at our own peril.