Quite simply: if Lawrence thinks that Fukuyama supports liberal democracy, when exactly why
is "liberal democracy" a term that he and Fukuyama use as an insult? Neocons despise liberal
democracy. It produces equal rights, tolerance, diversity, and all those things that the
neocons dislike. Does bin Laden has legal rights? Does Lawrence really want the USA to take
a legal approach to bin Laden and deploy lawyers in the World Court? Of course not.
I said Fukuyama was brilliant and an excellent writer. He knows that he can't come out and
say "down with the US Constitution!", so he hides behind rhetorical arguments. Lawrence
writes that after the Berlin Wall fell, Fukuyama was seen as a triumphalist ("the West has
won!"). Fukuyama himself rejects that view. Fukuyama writes that liberal democracy shall
win, but he means that in an ironic sense.
Here is a central passage, which I originally pointed out to Lawrence several months ago:
"The end of history would mean the end of wars and bloody revolutions. Agreeing on ends, men would have no large causes for which to fight. They would satisfy their needs through economic activity, but they would no longer have to risk their lives in battle. They would, in other words, become animals again, as they were before the bloody battle that began history. A dog is content to sleep in the sun all day provided he is fed, because he is not dissatisfied with what he is. He does not worry that other dogs are doing better than him, or that his career as a dog has stagnated, or that dogs are being oppressed in a distant part of the world. If man reaches a society in which he has succeeded in abolishing injustice, his life will come to resemble that of the dog."
Read that last sentence once again:
Lawrence asks:
I confess to having trouble following the thought processes of Irene and
Andreas. Just why Andreas has concluded his note with "Lawrence is taking a stand on both sides: he applauds Fukuyama for processes that will result in world peace, and he rejects anyone who talks about world peace. We know where he really stands." What could Andreas possibly mean by this?
and then he answers himself:
The military will be needed to fight against Rogue states bent upon aggressive military action against Liberal Democracies. In other words we still need to fight wars against hostile malevolent forces bent upon the destruction or domination of LiberalDemocratic nations. We don't want to give up our means of defense until it is clear that it is no longer needed.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
