GRADING THE “END”

In a recent article,¹ the political scientist, John Mueller, gives us an update, of sorts, on the ideas contained in a provocative essay published in 1989. Francis Fukuyama claimed, those many years ago, “the end of history.” Of course, this pronouncement was meant to gain our attention – so he did, at least among the scholarly community. The article coincided with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and the downfall of communism. Fukuyama was not arguing that that point in time marked the end of things happening – things we would consider history – but his claim was based on a Hegelian notion of history marching by the drum of ideological conflicts (thesis vs. antithesis: old organizing idea vs. new organizing idea). He saw that, with the fall of communism, our collective experience on the planet was at the point that such an advancement had come to an end. Mueller asks the question: was Fukuyama right?

With this posting, I want to begin presenting a number of pieces that will review this concern that Mueller presents, and comment. I will do this because in this blog I have been very critical of the dominance of the natural rights construct – the mental view associated with pure liberalism². I might have given the impression that my antagonism is deep seated in the sense that I find nothing meritorious with this view; this despite my effort early on to put my opinion in a more moderate context. The Mueller article provides an opportunity to further elucidate and more clearly express how I think a federalist should view the prevailing construct. Spoiler alert: the concern is more one of degree in my disfavor rather than one of profound rejection.

To further state Fukuyama's argument, he saw liberalism – belief in democracy/market capitalism – as the last ideology standing. He gives reasons for its longevity. In terms of democracy, the political component of liberalism, he points out that by 1945 the states run under democratic rule had been tested and revised to become a highly workable system. After 1975, it had spread to all of Western Europe with the conversion of fairly authoritarian states in Greece, Portugal, and Spain. With the fall of communism, Eastern Europe made a stunning move toward democracy, while in Africa many states moved in that direction, predominately South Africa, but others as well, e. g., Botswana. In the '90s, the largest Muslim nation became democratic, Indonesia. Mueller summarizes this development as follows:

Democracy is a governmental form, generally compatible with a vigorous and productive society, that functions rather well when people manage, on average, to be no better than they actually are or are ever likely to be: flawed, grasping, self-centered, prejudiced, and easily distracted. That is, democracy does not require a great deal from people; they do not need to be particularly good or noble, but merely to calculate their own best interests or, if so moved, to peacefully express them. There are, however, no guarantees that anyone will listen.³

Who knew? The secret to democracy is having a nation of unrequited complainers. According to Mueller, there is no need for exceptional cultural dispositions – “democratization” is not necessary. This goes in opposition to the “Third Wave” literature headed by Samuel Huntington. Mueller points out that democracy has spread without substantial economic growth or force. People merely have to be ready to accept a system that allows them to complain peacefully and elites to come around to the idea that democratic rule, in the public sector, is the best way to handle the issues of the political world.

As for capitalism, despite predictions from very insightful thinkers – from Marx to Schumpeter predicting some form of socialism to triumph – again, this mode of “doing business” seems to be the most viable, the most productive. Heilbroner is quoted as commenting: “... a market system of some kind will constitute their [socialist economists] principal means of coordination.”⁴ As with democracy, capitalist states vary and nowhere is there a pure form of the economic system. As such, there are ongoing controversies: perceived antagonism between growth and wealth distribution, need for and extent of regulation, role and rights of labor, etc. But these are “matters of degree” arguments. We see the attachment for the market model in times of crises. While changes are made, as after the most recent crisis, you don't see fundamental changes. We have come to the point that we don't consider trade restrictions, wage and price controls, confiscatory taxes on the rich, or nationalizing “too big to fail” corporations. And challenging movements, such as Occupy Wall Street, are mostly impotent. Our current state of affairs is that even in nations that are not so democratic, Russia and China, the capitalist mode of operating is very much in place. But when combined with some form of democracy – liberalism – we see it not only as prevailing globally, but also as the direction the world is moving toward in even greater numbers in the future.

Gone are the days of feudalism, fascism, and communism. Today, we have a growing liberalism or some form of authoritarian rule, which is becoming more and more scarce. I consider liberated federalism a view ensconced within liberalism – a form of it. While the natural rights view is a more pure form of it, it places, for a federalist, too much emphasis on the individual. Liberated federalism does not abandon the notion of a strong individual, but defines the liberty of the single citizen more in line with the obligations of the compact, solidifying them to the whole, as more binding. It shifts emphasis from the ideal of being free to do whatever one wants as long as one does not hurt others, to a liberty more in line with the admonition of being free to do what one should do to advance societal welfare. As such, laws, under this view, should encourage this form of freedom – as the Affordable Care Act does and the other laws we have from the New Deal and Great Society legacies. Free to act as one should does not call for force to implement; it calls for persuasion and modeling. And when coercion of some form is needed, a conclusion arrived at reluctantly, then liberated federalism calls for gradualism – an easing into change. I know that these laws are often not initially popular. After all, we live in a time of natural rights thinking. But, if these programs are, in effect, good for the society, the majority of that society will benefit from their effects and, eventually, become popular – look at Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, I agree mostly with Mueller: Fukuyama was correct; history, as he defined it, might very well be over. The current concerns over Russia's moves in the Ukraine give us pause. But this is not a battle of ideologies as such; it is reflective of one of the challenges liberalism faces today, not from other ideologies, but from more practical ambitions of nationalism, as in Ukraine, and fundamentalism – in those areas of the world not yet converted to liberalism. These will be addressed in future postings.

1Mueller, J. (2014). Did history end? Assessing the Fukuyama thesis. Political Science Quarterly, 129 (1), Spring, pp. 35-54.

2The term, liberalism, refers not to the position on the political spectrum we associate with progressives and the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Instead, it refers to the philosophic position which, as this posting will describe, is a belief in democratic principles and capitalism.

3Op cit. Mueller, p. 38.

4Ibid., p. 38.

JUST THE MEANS, MA'AM

A Family Affair is a 1937 film. It is the first of a series of films known as the Andy Hardy films with Mickey Rooney – whom we recently lost . This first edition also stars Lionel Barrymore and Spring Byington. The plot line concerns a judge, Barrymore, who holds up an aqueduct project that will in the long run be detrimental to the interests of local citizens, but which promises a host of short-term benefits. While the film's basic political conflict is relatively simple – moneyed interests versus the common good – it does demonstrate how political pressure on elected officials, the judge being one, can be strident and difficult to ignore. The film illustrates how decisions by officials, be they representatives or judges, can negatively affect a vast array of people who have at their disposal a wide range of political resources: money, emotional leverage, family ties, friendship, expertise, maybe even brass knuckles, and the like. When the stakes are high, you can count on them using these sources of power. What I want to focus on is the notion that technocratic projects, such as an aqueduct project, seem to have a certain level of inertia simply because they are technocratic.

Part of the natural rights' bias for positivist thinking is a prejudice toward favoring ways to control what is – both in our social and natural environments. This world we live in, for the pure technocrat, is one of objects. Our role, according to this view, is to control it. In order to control it, we need to know it. Hence, after an array of ways to accomplish this aim over the centuries, science has been developed – it has proven itself to be an awesome option to attain that knowledge. “Knowledge is power, and the aim of science is control and manipulation. Nature has no worth or meaning save as an inventory of natural resources.”¹ We, as a people, have drifted toward having an exploited relationship with nature. Nature has no use other than to provide those resources that are instrumental to the way of life we have developed. We have been exploiting nature to ever higher degrees of degradation and term it a good thing, as progress. And we seem very intent on enjoying the short term benefits such exploitation accrues and are oblivious to the long term consequences which promise to be ominous. But just don't blame it on science.

The growth of science in western nations, including the US, has happened in a transnational cultural tradition hospitable to the scientific-technocratic view with supportive religious beliefs. Judeo-Christian dogma is well-steeped in the biblical claim: man has domain over God's creation. The impetus for this posting comes from yesterday's 60 Minutes broadcast. One of its “articles” was about Pope Francis. The pontiff's namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, was known for his concern for the poor and other marginalized people. This present leader of the Roman Catholic church seems be following the saint's example. St. Francis was also associated with a view of nature as the object of his love, not as the target of his exploitation. He has been called the patron saint of ecology. He apparently saw nature as a venue in which to get to know God. Unfortunately, this saint's view of our natural surroundings did not have much of an effect on Christian thinking. Instead, what we seem to have, first, according to Philip Selznick, is a logic of dominance. The world, as stated above, is seen as made up of objects. We are free to pretty much control and manipulate these objects. Second, in our thinking about how to use this world, we treat ends, goals, aims, as given. Our emphasis is on processes to attain poorly conceived objectives. We spend scant interest on justifying these things we seek.² We want something and that seems to be reason enough.

From this perspective, the plot of A Family Affair has a more insightful angle. In its more “Hollywood” treatment, the film attempts to point out that this area of doing business is a dangerous source of short-sightedness. It is the same scientific community that is now beginning to warn us of how this short-sightedness is about to bite us if we don't change our ways. But then again, that is not what we have come to expect from that community. We have come to expect procedures from them, not aims: means not ends.

1Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, p. 54.

2Ibid.