Liberalism and Its Discontents by Francis Fukuyama

Liberalism and Its Discontents Reviews

• 
  Meike

  Fukuyama illustrates how classical liberalism has come under pressure from the far right and the far left, and points out some uncomfortable similarities between the political extremes in oder to argue for more moderation and the protection of diversity. "Classical liberalism" in this context means liberal democracy, so a rule of law and a system of formal rules that restrict the powers of a democratically elected executive in order to protect individual freedom; Fukuyama explicity dismisses neoliberalism as he argues that economic efficiency shouldn't trump all other social values, and he also dismisses libertarianism as it devalues the potentially positive impact of good governance.
  
  Then he tackles a topic that has become hip in the realm of PoliSci, and for good reason: Critical theory vs. the scientific method. When knowledge is subjective and language an arbitrary construct dominated by underlying power discourses, how can we as a society agree on an objective reality? This also points to
  Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, as the following proposition is pretty hard to dismiss: "It is this mutual recognition that makes possible democratic deliberation and choice." Identity politics shouldn't be a means to exclusion, but a tool to implement justice and equality as promised by classically liberal declarations.
  
  When it comes to the division between woke progressives and the alt-right (now also featuring COVID deniers) which is particularly extreme in the US, but also rising in Europe, Fukuyama notes: "Both sides quietly entertain hopes that a large majority of their fellow citizens secretly agree with them and are prevented from expressing this agreement only through media manipulations and false consciousness propagated by various elites", and that both sides tend to dismiss government as incompetent or even illegitimate - unfortunately, there is something to that.
  
  So while once again, many of Fukuyama's arguments can be contested (as a German, I'm frequently puzzled by US-American positions on free speech, for example), but the text is a great basis for discussion, as it questions ideological thinking.
• 
  Stetson

  Francis Fukuyama, a giant among contemporary political scientists/theorists, has penned a brief and eloquent defense of liberalism, Liberalism and Its Discontents, which also includes a summary of the criticisms that have been leveled at this political philosophy from both the left and right. On the left, a belief in extreme individual autonomy, an assault on rationality, and cultural intolerance with a deference to the tribal ids of historically marginalized groups threaten the culture of liberalism. On the right, the weaponization of a post-rationality information space and an interest in rolling back elements of democratic and cultural liberation threaten to destabilize the order and legitimacy of liberal democracy.
  
  Due to the current usage of the word “liberalism,” Fukuyama is careful to define his titular term. His usage is aligned with what many often refer to as "Classical Liberalism" but given that this term has also become freighted with new meaning, he also invokes Deirdre McCloskey's term "humane liberalism." He asserts his term refers to the doctrine that emerged in the latter half of the 1600s, during the Enlightenment, and argued for the primacy of individual rights ensured by an effective yet limited government. Fukuyama builds upon this minimalistic definition throughout the early portions of the book, sketching out the meaning of the components of liberal tradition: individualism, egalitarianism, universalism, and meliorism, and then providing the practical, moral, and economic basis for liberalism's superiority to other governing doctrines. Essentially, Fukuyama views liberalism as the best way to protect human life and dignity, promote prosperity, and navigate the tensions created by diverse interests. However, the catch is that liberalism must remain neutral on conceptions of the good, meaning it must tolerate diverse ethical and political frameworks within its big tent; this refers to an idea called subsidiarity, meaning to distribute political power to solve particular problems to those closest to those problems. To complete his beautiful defense, he parries critiques of liberalism by arguing that most of the failures of liberal governance have stemmed from a failure of moderation - either liberal ideas were overextended (i.e. neoliberalism and progressivism) or ignored.
  
  Although Fukuyama ultimately rejects many of the criticism of liberalism, he is sympathetic with certain point even echoing some of them. For instance, Fukuyama dedicates a chapter to a discussion of the excesses and dangers of neoliberalism by which he means an overly eager embrace of free market economics and intense hostility towards governmental regulation and intervention. This countenances left-of-center economic concerns about inequality as within the bounds of liberalism, while also defending the moral importance of private property and the practical efficiency of markets. He also incisively dissects the flaws of Rawlsian conceptions of justice, critical theory, and features of progressive activism like identity-based politicking, which make for some of the most insightful portions of the work. He also skewers more governmental approaches to enforcing conceptions of a moral life, which lands punches against both the left and right but more so on the "common good" conservatives of the new right.
  
  Despite the merits of Fukuyama's claims, there are some apparent limitations, which he mostly glosses over. First, his claim that liberalism and liberal democracy can function without a shared ethical system or moral vision is dubious given that many ideas in the liberal tradition are de facto imbued with moral valence. In fact, the very act of making normative claims about a political doctrine is forwarding a particular moral vision. Moreover, his conception of liberalism seems inevitably to lend itself to conflicts of moral vision among competing factions - conflict that a liberal state is unlikely to definitively resolve given its largely neutral stance. Thus, the purported crisis of liberalism today - I'm dubious about whether there is such a crisis but Fukuyama is not - will continue indefinitely until our government turns to illiberal modes. Second, his defense of liberalism borders on an appeal to purity (aka the No True Scotsmen fallacy) because he dismisses failures of liberalism as misapplications rather than externalities. It is difficult to confidently assess how the application of political ideas actually results in particular outcomes given the confluence of factors that control sociological events. I have some other quibbles and disagreements with Fukuyama, but they sit outside his descriptive claims about liberalism, having more to do with normative and empirical claims about particular political programs. Finally, I think Fukuyama overestimates the importance of ideas. His narrative is almost completely invested in the premise that our political ideas have an almost perfect correlation with the actual realities of human sociopolitical dynamics. I am somewhat skeptical about this. I think many of the purported outgrowths of liberalism may be some of the causes of liberalism itself and that they may be the result of certain material processes beyond the influence of ideology and discourse.
  
  Ultimately, what makes this book such an excellent read is that Fukuyama's descriptions of liberal and contra-liberal ideas are amazingly pithy and well-organized. He writes propulsively about abstractions, which is quite an accomplishment. The clarity and power of his mind make for a dazzling display. I recommend this book unreservedly.
  
  Podcast Interviews
  
  https://remnant.thedispatch.com/p/mak...
  
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEDHf...
  
  
  https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
  
  Piece that Inspired the Book
  
  https://www.americanpurpose.com/artic...
• 
  Angie Boyter

  Rereading November 2022 for the Sunday Philosophers. It should be a great discussion!
  4++
  Liberalism and its Discontents is a provocative title that may attract the attention of right-wing populists who think they see an ally as well as leftwing progressives spoiling for a fight. Those who have read Francis Fukuyama’s earlier writing, though, will know what to expect, and Fukuyama provides a well-reasoned examination and critique of how the political left and right have both done damage to the classical liberalism that emerged during the seventeenth century to limit the powers of governments and protect the rights of diverse people living under those governments.
  The book examines the foundational classical liberal ideas of economic liberalism and personal autonomy, including free speech, and explores the core ideas of today’s contemporary liberalism. It also discusses the critique of modern scientific thinking, a critique that both the right and left seem to share. Fukuyama describes how populists on the right and progressives on the left are both unhappy with the way classical liberalism has evolved but states that this is not because of any fundamental flaw in liberalism but because, for example, conservatives see the emphasis on personal autonomy to be a threat to their deeply held religious and cultural beliefs and progressives object to how the rules protect existing elites, which tends to increase economic inequalities and social justice. These manifest themselves in things like calls for book bans and cancel culture. While Fukuyama acknowledges the legitimate “discontents” of both sides, he also recognizes the resulting threats to liberalism’s basic foundations. As an intelligent, rational being, Fukuyama does not try to offer a panacea but states some principles for a modern liberal society and (SPOILER ALERT! ) concludes with a call for moderation from all sides.
  Liberalism and Its Discontents is aimed at an intelligent general reader, and the style is generally clear and not overly pedantic. There are a number of highlights in my ebook and notes like “Well put” and “Too true!”. As a good scholar, Fukuyama cites his sources carefully and has given me several titles to add to my TBR stack as well as an urge to reread some classics. However, it could be improved by defining terms like Overton Window that most people would not know and also by defining more clearly and precisely important terms like neoliberalism. And while I am pleased he did not turn the book into a tome, I would have liked somewhat longer exploration of some topics like the economic elements of alternatives to today and perhaps less stress on identity politics.
  Many people today are concerned about the state of our society, but those who care enough to write about it usually have an axe to grind. This is one of the most well-balanced books of its type that I have read in a long time and is worth the attention of anyone who cares about our future.
• 
  Paul Womack

  Very provocative, and insightful. Challeniging to both right and left as we may find the need to adjust our particular points of view in order to find a more civic communal life together.
• 
  Martin von Haller Groenbaek

  Fukuyama provides a very nuanced and well-balanced account of what liberalism, as in classic liberalism, means today and how it has evolved over time and explains why to a large extent is the victim of its own success. He carefully explains why there is no alternative to a liberal democracy, but that it will have to accommodate its evil twin offspring: rightwing ethno-liberalism and leftwing identity politics by addressing the legitimate concerns of people that have led to up rise. This is necessary if our western societies are to survive the onslaughts of illiberal autocratic societies such as China, Russia and to a lesser degree Turkey and Hungary. The book is really well written and highly recommendable.
• 
  Brian Denton

  An important little volume that should be on every American's bookshelf right now. In it Fukuyama develops three mains ideas. First, he briefly describes liberalism's political and social project. Next, he articulates in good faith the criticism of that project from its enemies on the right and the left. Finally, he concludes by outlining some broad general principles that should animate specific policy in liberal societies moving forward.
  
  Mostly I agree with everything he has to say here. There are some things concerning so-called neoliberalism I disagreed with and I also prefer the consumer welfare standard of antitrust jurisprudence to a more Brandeisian approach. Nevertheless, this is an important book because liberalism properly understood is under sustained assault in our country from the illiberal right and the illiberal left. Our future peace, prosperity and happiness depends on making sure liberalism emerges victorious in these United States.
• 
  Vasco Sabino Pinto

  Fukuyama offers a concise and insightful analysis of the contemporary challenges facing liberal democracies. Despite some references to Rawlsian Theory that may be challenging for those unfamiliar with political science (including myself), the book is generally accessible.
  
  The book is both relevant and timely, especially given the waning trust in liberal principles. However, as already mentioned, the writing tone is inconsistent, every so often assuming a scholarly audience and, occasionally, appearing geared towards a less academic readership.
  
  Overall, it is a worthwhile read. Courage will be needed, but I'll move on to Fukuyama's "The Origins of Political Order".
• 
  Pablo Mallorquí

  Fukuyama se hace socialdemócrata. Un ensayo ameno que analiza el liberalismo (como doctrina política y no económica), cuál es su estado actual en el mundo, sus críticas y sus fortalezas. Me ha interesado bastante su visión porque muestra muy bien cómo el neoliberalismo es una perversión del liberalismo clásico y cuáles son los retos que afronta en las democracias actuales. Me ha interesado bastante.
• 
  António Dias

  Uma perspectiva muito interessante sobre o Liberalismo, os seus excessos e os ataques de que tem sido alvo, tanto à esquerda (politicas identitárias) como à direita (populismos). Leio muito poucas obras de não ficção por quase sempre me saberem a pouco mas este livro de Fukuyama aproxima-se muito de uma obra completa (ainda que curta), que lança as bases para pensar melhor e mais fundo sobre a sociedade em que vivemos.
  
  Talvez venha a pegar noutras obras do autor mas para quem se interessa pela vertigem do tempo que vivemos e por olhar e pensar o mundo em constante transformação, esta é uma óptima introdução.
• 
  Leonard

  This is a relatively short and excellent summary of contemporary problems facing liberal democracies. The rise of identity politics and postmodernism; the far right nonsense under the guises of Trump and Brexit. He also goes against what he describes 'neoliberalism' but in the sense of buying free market ideas on ideological grounds rather than practical policy. And the ongoing dilemma of global social media conglomerates such as Facebook and Twitter that are worsening the problem of civil discourse.
  
  Fukuyama is able to provide readers with sensible and practical guides to fighting against the extremes of the far left and far right. He concludes the book suggesting moderation as they key solution.
  
  An excellent read for those that believe in liberal values over the world.
• 
  Gowtham

  சமூக வலைத்தங்கள் எங்கிலும் சபிக்கப்படும் ஜீவன்களில் லிபரல்கள் முக்கியமானவர்கள். வலதுசாரிகளிடமும் இடதுசாரிகளிடமும் சம அளவிலான விமர்சனங்களை வாங்கி கட்டிக்கொள்பவர்களும் லிபரல்கள் தான். இப்படிப்பட்ட சூழலில் லிபரலிசம்(தமிழில்: தாராளவாதம், சுதந்திரவாதம் ) பற்றியும் அது சந்திக்கும் சிக்கல்கள் பற்றியும் அதன் எதிர்கால நோக்கங்கள் பற்றியும் பேசும் நூல் தான் Francis Fukuyama எழுதி சமீபத்தில் வெளியாகி இருக்கும் “Liberalism and Its Discontents”.
  
  தீவிரத்தன்மை கொண்ட சித்தாந்தங்கள் வலது மட்டும் இடது ஆகிய இரண்டு துருவங்களிலும் தலைதூக்கி வரும் இக்காலகட்டத்தில் நெகிழ்வுத்தன்மை கொண்ட ஒரு தத்துவத்தின் விழுமியங்களை தூக்கிப்பிடிப்பதும் பாதுகாப்பதும் அவசியமாகும். இந்நூல் பேசும் கரு என்பது லிபரலிசம் சந்தித்துவரும் விமர்சனங்களை பட்டியலிட்டு அதற்கான தீர்வுகளை பரிந்துரைக்கும் ஒன்றாகவே அமைந்துள்ளது.
  
  நவதாராளவாதம்(Neoliberalism) என்று சொல்லப்படும் பொருளாதார கொள்கைக்கு மாற்றாக செவ்வியல் தாராளவாதம்(classical Liberalism ) என்ற அரசியல் தத்துவத்தை நிறுவும் ஒன்றாக தான் இந்நூல் அமைந்திருக்கிறது. நிதி மற்றும் பொருளாதார மேலாண்மையிலும் திட்டமிடலில் அரசின் தலையீடு அவசியம் , மக்களுக்கான அடிப்படை தேவைகளை அரசே பூர்த்திசெய்ய வேண்டும், பேச்சு சுதந்திரம் எந்த வகையிலும் பாதிக்கப்பட கூடாது, அதிகார பரவலாக்கம் அனைத்து துறைகளிலும் நடைபெறவேண்டும் , தனிமனித உரிமைகளுக்கு முக்கியத்துவம் அளிக்கப்படவேண்டிய அதே நேரத்தில் வரம்புகளை மதிக்கும் ஒன்றாகவும் அவை இருக்க வேண்டும் போன்ற இந்நூல் கூறும் பல பரிந்துரைகள் மிதவாத சோசியலிஸ்டுகளுக்கும் ஏற்புடைய ஒன்றாகவே இருக்கிறது. அதுபோலவே இந்நூல் பல போதாமைகளையும் கொண்டுள்ளது.
  
  
  கத்தோலிக்க கிறித்துவத்தை எதிர்த்த சீர்திருத்த இயக்கத்தின் தோற்றம் லிபேரலிசம் என்ற தனிமனித தத்துவத்தை அடிப்படையாக கொண்டிருந்தது, பின்னர் ஏற்பட்ட புத்தொளி இயக்கமும் தொழிற்துறை வளர்ச்சியும், இந்த தத்துவத்தை மதத்தின் பிடியில் இருந்து பிரித்து மதசார்பற்ற அரசியல் தத்து��மாக ஆகியது. அமெரிக்காவின் உருவாக்கத்தில் இந்த அரசியல் தத்துவம் பெரும் தாக்கத்தை செலுத்தியது, பிரெஞ்சு புரட்சியின் அடிப்படையாக லிபெர்ட்டி அமைந்திருந்தது. இந்த இடத்தில தான் லிபேரலிசம் என்ற தத்துவம் ஜனநாயகம் என்ற அரசாங்க முறைக்கு மிக நெருங்கிய ஒன்றாக தன்னை தகவமைத்து கொண்டது.
  
  அமெரிக்காவில் 13 வது சட்டத்திருத்தம் அடிமைத்தனத்தை ஒழித்து கட்டியது, ஐரோப்பாவில் தாராளவாத ஜனநாயக(Liberal Democracy) நாடுகளின் உருவாக்கம் வீரியமாக நடைபெற்றது. பெண்களுக்கு வாக்குரிமை என்பது 20ஆம் நூற்றாண்டின் முதல் பாதியில் ஐரோப்பா முழுவதும் நடைமுறைக்கு வந்தது. காலனியத்தின் விளைவாக இது மற்ற நாடுகளுக்கும் பரவியது, முதல் உலகோப்போரை தொடர்ந்து ஏற்பட்ட பெருமந்தம் திட்டமிடலில் அரசாங்கத்தின் பிடியை இறுக்கியது, ஹிட்லர் முசோலினி போன்ற சர்வாதிகார கொடுங்கோலாட்சிக்கு இது வித்திட்டது, இதன் விளைவாக நடந்த இரண்டாம் உலகப்போர் பல்வேறு மாற்றங்களுக்கு தொடக்கமாக அமைந்தது . ஐக்கிய நாடுகள் சபை(UN) உருவாக்கப்பட்டது. IMF , உலக வாங்கி போன்ற அமைப்புகளும் இச்சமயத்தில் உருவானவையே.
  
  அனைத்து தாராளவாத ஜனநாயக அரசுகளின் ஒரு பகுதியாக திட்டமிடல்(State Planning) ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளப்பட்டது, சோவியத் ஒன்றியத்தின் அபார வளர்ச்சியும் இதற்கு ஒரு காரணம் எனலாம், ஆசியா மற்றும் ஆஃப்ரிக்க கண்டங்களில் காலனிய ஆதிக்கம் முடிக்குவந்தது, 1960களில் அமெரிக்காவில் நடந்த மனித உரிமை செயல்பாடுகள் விடுபட்டவர்களையும் ஒன்றிணைத்தது, திட்டமிடல் அதிகரிக்க அதிகரிக்க அதற்கு எதிரான பொருளாதார தத்துவங்களும் அறிவுப்புலத்தில் வளர்ச்சியடைய தொடங்கின, வளர்ச்சி குன்றிய சமயத்தில் ரொனால்ட் ரெகன் மற்றும் மார்க்கரெட் தச்சர் ஆகியோரின் வருகை அமெரிக்காவிலும் இங்கிலாந்திலும் நடந்தேறியது. அவர்களது நவதாராளவாத பொருளாதார கொள்கை முற்றிலுமாக அரசின் பிடியை பொருளாதார துறையில் நீக்க வேண்டுமென்றது.
  
  1990 களில் நடந்த சோவியத் ஒன்றியத்தின் சிதைவு பொருளாதார புலத்தில் நவதாராளவாத கொள்கை பரவலுக்கு மேலும் வித்திட்டது. 2008 இல் ஏற்பட்ட பொருளாதார தேக்கம் நவதாராளவாத பொருளியல் தத்துவத்தின் மீதான விமர்சனங்களை அதிகரித்தது, உலகம் முழுக்கவே அசமத்துவம் என்பதும் மூலதன குவிப்பு என்பதும் அதிகரித்தது. பொருளாதார துறையில் நவதாராளவாத கொள்கை பல சிக்கலுக்கு வித்திட்டது, அரசியல் மற்றும் சமூக சூழலில் லிபரலிசத்துக்கு எதிரான சிந்தனை போக்கு உலகெங்கும் எழுச்சி அடைத்தது. டொனால்ட் ��ிரம்ப், ஜைர் பால்சோனரோ, நரேந்திர மோடி, செர்ஜியோ மேட்டரெல்லா போன்ற வலதுசாரி தத்துவ தலைமைகளுக்கு வித்திட்டது.
  லிபரலிசம் என்ற தத்துவம் பரிணமித்த விதத்தை இப்படியாக சுருக்கமாக சொல்லலாம்.
  
  1970 களுக்கு பிறகான சீனாவின் எழுச்சி என்பதை லிபரலிசை பொருளாதார கொள்கையான சந்தை திறப்பால் ஏற்பட்ட ஒன்றே ஆகும். மூன்றாம் உலக நாடுகளில் வசிக்கும் மக்களில் அன்றாட வாழ்க்கையில் இந்த தத்துவம் பெ��ும் மாற்றத்தை நிகழ்த்தி இருக்கிறது என்பதை மறுப்பதற்கில்லை, இன்றைக்கு நாம் புழங்கும் தொழில்நுட்ப சாதனங்கள் அதற்கு உதாரணமாக சொல்லலாம். 1990களுக்கு பிறகு நடைபெற்ற பொருளியல் வளர்ச்சிக்கு சந்தையும் தாராளவாத பொருளாதார கொள்கையும் முக்கியமானவையாக இருந்தன. அதே நேரத்தில் இந்த வளர்ச்சி அசமத்துவங்களும் அதிகரித்தது. உளவியல் ரீதியான சிக்கல்களையும் இவை அதிகரித்தன. உழைப்புக்கும் - உழைப்பாளிக்கும் இடையிலான தொடர்பு அற்று போய், உழைப்பின் அந்நியமாதல் நடைபெற்றது.
  
  கலாச்சார புலத்தில் தேசியவாதம் என்ற தத்துவம் மதம் இனம் நிற���் போன்ற பிறப்பு சார்ந்த ஒன்றன் அடிப்படையில் எழுச்சி பெற்றது, இது பன்மைத்துவத்திற்கு எதிராக நின்றது. உலகமயமாக்களை எதிர்த்தது, புலம்பெயர்ந்த அயல்நாட்டவருக்கு எதிரான மனநிலை பூர்விக மக்களிடத்தில் அதிகரிக்க தொடங்கியது.
  
  மத்திய கிழக்கு நாடுகளிலும் இந்தியா போன்ற தெற்காசிய பகுதிகளிலும் இந்த கலாச்சார தேசியவாதத்தின் எழுச்சி மதத்தை அடிப்படையாக கொண்டிருந்தது. இந்தியாவில் இந்துத்துவமாக அது வெளிப்பட்டது. லிபரலிசத்துக்கு எதிரான தன்மைகளை கொண்டிருக்கும் இந்த வலதுசாரி தத்துவத்தின் எழுச்சியை லிபரலிசம் எப்படி எதிர்கொள்ளப்போகிறது என்பது நம்முன் இருக்கும் கேள்வி, அதற்கு பதிலை இந்நூல் வழங்க முயல்கிறது.
  
  தொழில்நுட்ப வளர்ச்சி லிபரலிச தத்துவத்திற்கு எதிரான மற்றுமொரு சிக்கலை உருவாக்கி இருக்கிறது, சமூக ஊடகமும், பத்திரிக்கை துறையும் பெருமுதலீட்டும் அரசுக்கு நெருக்கமான நிறுவனங்களின் கையில் சென்று சேர்ந்துள்ளது, இதற்கு எதிரான சட்டங்கள் ஏற்பட்டால் ஒழிய பேச்சுரிமை, பிரைவசி, தனிமனித உரிமை ஆகியவற்றை பாதுகாக்க முடியாது . இதையும் முக்கிய சமகால பிரச்சனையாக சுட்டிக்காட்டுகிறார் Fukuyama.
  
  செவ்வியல் தாராளவாதத்தின் முக்கிய அம்சங்களாக சிலவற்றை பட்டியலிடலாம் 1. தனிமனித உரிமைக்கும், சுயமரிதைக்குமான முக்கியத்துவம் 2 . யதார்த்தத்தை ஒத்த பகுத்தறிவு பார்வை 3 . சொத்துரிமை மற்றும் பரிவர்த்தனை செய்யும் உரிமை. Individualism என்பது லிபரலிசத்தின் அடிப்படையாக இருந்தாலும், சமூகத்துடனான தொடர்பும் முக்கியமான ஒன்று, மனிதனின் பக்குவப்படுத்தலுக்கு இது இன்றியமையா ஒன்றாகும். அவன் அந்நியமாகாமல் இருக்க இந்த தொடர்பு அவசியமான ஒன்று. தாராளவாத ஜனநாயக நாடுகளில் தனிமனிதவியமும் கூட்டுவாதமும் சேர்ந்தே இயங்குகின்றன, லிபரலிசம் என்ற அரசியல் கொள்கைக்கு அத்தகைய நெகிழ்வு தன்மை இயல்பிலேயே இருப்பதாகவும் பலதரப்பட்ட பார்வையை அரவணைக்கும் பண்பை அது கொண்டுள்ளதாகவும் சொல்கிறார் Fukuyama.
  
  நாளுக்கு நாள் உலகமயமாக்கலின் விளைவாக பன்மையான மக்கள் திரள் அனைத்து ஜனநாயக நாடுகளிலும் உருவாகி வருகிறது. இத்தகைய பன்மைத்துவத்திற்கு எதிரான குரல்களும் ஒருபுறம் வலுக்க தொடங்கி இருக்கிறது. இந்த குரல்கள் எல்லாம் ஜனநாயகம் என்ற அரசியல் தத்துவத்திற்கு எதிராக செயல்பட தொடங்கியும் இருக்கிறது. ஜனநாயகத்தை வலுப்படுத்த லிபரலிசம் அவசியமான ஒன்று என்றும் அதை பாதுகாப்பது அவசியம் என்று சொல்கிறார் நூல் ஆசிரியர்.
  
  மேற்கத்திய அரசுகள் மேற்கொண்ட காலனிய நடவடிக்கைகள் குறித்தும் அதனால் நிகழ்த்தப்பட்ட வன்முறைகள் குறித்தும் இந்நூல் பெரிதாக பேசவில்லை. CIA ,NIA போன்ற லிபரல் அமைப்புகள் மற்றும் நிறுவனங்கள் ஏற்படுத்திய சீரழிவுகளும் இந்த தத்துவம் வெறுக்கப்பட முக்கிய காரணமாக இருக்கையில் அதை பற்றிய எந்த குறிப்பும் இல்லாமல் இருப்பது போதாமையே. இடஒதுக்கீடு குறித்து இவர் கொண்டிருக்கும் பார்வை மீண்டும் பொருளாதார காரணி மற்றும் தகுதி என்ற அம்சத்தின் அடிப்படையில் தான் அனைத்தும் அமையவேண்டும் என்ற ரீதியில் உள்ளது. (Michael J. Sandel இதுகுறித்து விரிவாக எழுதி இருக்கிறார்)
  
  சமகால ஜனநாயக அரசுகள் நிகழ்த்திவரும் போர்களும் அதற்கான உதவிகளையும் விமர்சனத்துடன் தான் பார்க்கவேண்டி இருக்கிறது, ஆனால் இந்நூல் அதனை முற்றிலுமாக புறக்கணித்துள்ளது.
  
  இப்படி நிறைகளையும் குறைகளையும் கொண்டுள்ள இந்நூல் சமகாலத்தின் அரசியல் சிக்கலை பேசுகிறது. அந்த வகையில் அனைவராலும் வாசிக்கப்படவேண்டிய ஒன்று. Francis Fukuyamaவின் முந்தைய நூலான Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment மிக சிறந்த ஒன்றாக இருந்தது, அதனோடு ஒப்பிடுகையில் இந்நூல் ஏமாற்றமளிக்கும் ஒன்றாகவே இருக்கிறது. இருந்தாலும் அரசியல் ஆர்வலர்கள் தவறவிடக்கூடாத ஒரு நூலாக இதை சொல்லலாம்.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  A Man Called Ove

  We are all centrists :P ;)
  Let me start with what centrism is not - it is not the mean of 2 opposing or extreme political positions. Too often people who are non-partisan like to think of themselves as centrists. Ofcourse partisans are at the lowest ladder, but too often, an honest commitment to an ideology which appeals to one's own conscience is considered centrism. To me, Centrism is recognising the inevitable conflicts between liberty, equality and fraternity. And seeking to balance them..
  To me, Francis Fukiyama is a great centrist and this book is as incisive and thoughtful as it gets.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  He starts by defining and explaining classical liberalism. And then he explains what the Right-Wing (AKA "libertarians"/Conservatives) and the Left-Wing (AKA "left-liberals"/Communists) have made it to be. The former turned into an advocacy of minimum government and free-market neoliberalism. The latter turned it into advocacy of equality of outcomes and identity politics. The great thing is that he explains why the two factions evolved as they did. And the good, the bad and the ugly about their ideologies as of today (the book was written in 2021).
  In conjunction with
  The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad this is an excellent understanding of the flaws of liberal democracy and the growing illiberalism.
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Reader Moshay, kitaab badi honi chahiye lambi nahi" :P :)
  For an author who wrote a 300+ page (acclaimed) book on a one-line idea - that liberal democracy was the best form of government - this was one of the best books on political theory. Half the length and not a word out-of-place.
  This was my 4th book by the author and the best so far.
  PS:- When a person self-identifies as a centrist, i feel like “forgive them father…”. The perfect balance of conflicting ideals and making public policy on them is extremely extremely tough. For evidence, plz look at today’s politics on urgent issues.
• 
  Jukka Aakula

  A very interesting and important book. As a conservative who disagrees with the populist right - Trump, QANON - as well as with the Woke and the libertarians (market purists) - I want to make a point:
  
  According to Fukuyama both conservatives and the Woke people want to have something thicker than the thin values classical liberalism is providing. Conservatives want to find them from the past and the Woke from "antiracism" etc. There will always be some conflict between individualism and collectivism / the sociability of humans.
  
  The conflict will never be solved except in a temporal way - it is a wave motion between individualism and collectivism. I think Jonathan Haidt made the best effort to understand that conflict and how to solve it. Haidt talks about durheimian utilitarism:
  
  "we live most of our lives in the ordinary (profane) world, but we achieve our greatest joys in those brief moments of transit to the sacred world, in which we become “simply a part of a whole.”...
  
  Durkheim said: “What is moral is everything that is a source of solidarity, everything that forces man to … regulate his actions by something other than … his own egoism.”
  
  ... a Durkheimian version of utilitarianism would recognize that human flourishing requires social order and embeddedness. It would begin with the premise that social order is extraordinarily precious and difficult to achieve. A Durkheimian utilitarianism would be open to the possibility that the binding foundations—Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity—have a crucial role to play in a good society."
  
  Haidt talks about the "hive switch" when people temporarily move to a more social/communal mindset. I mean what is happening in Ukraine today - people coming together for a common cause. This hive switch is happening because they really objectively HAVE a common cause - not because of some idiotic ideology. They find solidarity which will probably last for many years after the war. That happened in Finland also after WWII.
  
  Based on that solidarity they will solve many other problems than the Russian invasion - say corruption, and inequality.
  
• 
  Abhiram

  Fukuyama makes a brief but solid defense of liberalism in this book. With little to no exposure to political science, I found this pretty easy to read except when he talks about Rawlsian Theory. A solid and timely read, given the waning trust in liberal principles.
• 
  Emiel de Wit

  Best intressant hoor maar heel saai geschreven.
• 
  Angie

  He means liberalism as in liberal democracy, not liberal as in lefty. He reviews the arguments against democracy and then answers them. A very interesting and concise read among MANY books I've read this year about the failures and hopes of democracy. If you liked "How Democracy Dies" or anything by Larry Diamond, you will like this.
• 
  bussy barbecue

  Content liberals are fuming right now.
• 
  Abhishek

  Liberalism is a big tent. The social contract is that you have a rule of law, a respect for private property, and a respect for human autonomy and choice. Within these constraints you can find governing systems as varied as the neoliberal USA, the welfare states of Europe, and conglomerate-run East Asian countries. These constraints meant that liberalism eventually became the ideological basis of market economy - you can’t have a market economy if the government can change and you lose access to land or goods. Francis Fukuyama charts the global prosperity and standard of living we have now to the liberal world order, and its inherent tolerance for diversity. Liberalism historically had two enemies - communism and nationalism. The world wars were an out-growth of nationalism, and the cold war, communism. That it survived both is to Fukuyama an indication of the strength of liberal ideas.
  
  Liberalism’s current threats are again from the left and the right. The frame of reference here is mostly the USA and Europe (in India, all parties are to the left of USA-center, even if Fukuyama thinks otherwise). Fukuyama’s argument is that both the left and right take issues with liberalism's excesses, misidentify these with liberalism’s core ideas, and in rejecting it are in the process of throwing the baby along with the bath water. An example of this excess is neoliberalism - a divorcing of state oversight and devaluing of the welfare state - that has led to enormous inequality and financial crises. Yes, there has been an increase in aggregate prosperity, but you cannot explain to a voter in the United States that he has lost his job, but someone in Asia has been pulled out of poverty thanks to outsourcing.
  
  Fukuyama’s book charts the growth of liberalism, and offers a defense of liberal ideas. The now fashionable criticism of liberalism from the progressive left in USA is that since liberal ideas emerged from Europe after 150 years of war, it is alien and inapplicable to other countries and groups. Fukuyama rejects that criticism, giving the examples of Taiwan, South Korea and Japan that propelled to first world status using the same operating principles in the second half of the twentieth century. Similarly, he considers identity politics, critical theory, globalization and addresses their premises. In doing this, he’s fair in how he’s characterizing these postmodern arguments and their dominance in academia. I found myself willingly led by him as he argues against these extremes of epistemic relativism. In the end, his defense seems to be that yes, liberalism doesn’t result in equality of outcomes, but everything else is worse. This echoes what Churchill said about democracy. And I agree.
  
  The one liberal ideal I endorse wholeheartedly is its tolerance of diversity - not just race and gender, but also political viewpoints and religious traditions. This tolerance is critical for human prosperity and managing violence. In choosing between which diversity among many it's willing to endorse, the loudest voices on the progressive left are being hypocritical, both in India and elsewhere. Yes, tolerance and liberal ideas emerged in and were adopted by countries that were not liberal themselves. United States gave women representation only in 1920, and enfranchisement to African Americans only in the 1960s. Liberal Britain was also a rapacious colonizer. "But saying that racism and patriarchy were intrinsic to liberalism is to essentialize historically contingent phenomena. The fact that self-proclaimed liberals endorsed illiberal ideas and policies in the past does not mean that the doctrine was incapable of acknowledging and correcting these mistakes..". The world has grown richer since colonialism was dismantled.
  
  While Fukuyama does as he promises with the title, describing liberalism and its discontents, he doesn’t deliver on the solutions to its excesses. His alternatives are more or less commonsensical, but lacking in realpolitik. That’s a very tame end to the book, and left me wanting more. Fukuyama's focus is on the West, aside from some hand-wavy statements on India. I would like to read more about India and its interpretation of the liberal tradition. Sudipta Kaviraj, Udai Singh Mehta, and Rahul Sagar seem to point a way.
  
  ---
  
  Also
  available here.
• 
  Maukan

  A short read but definitely packed with a lot of substance. I would have been curious to read his thoughts on a much more detailed book that could have been 400 pages more. Francis, describes the current decay or threat of liberalism from income inequality, polarized political factions, institutions failing to represent the people, failing to meet economic challenges and failing to meet climate challenges. He offers solutions to save liberalism by ratifying the political construct between citizens and governments. I might be naive because my solution seems overly simplistic and the fact that I can't think of good counter arguments means I am probably missing something.
  
  I think one of the biggest threats to liberalism itself is political donations. Political donations from the wealthy inevitably stall progress for the majority by being able to block policies, potentially popular candidates and donating to think tanks. These think tanks are particularly lucrative,
  
  donors donate hoping to preach deregulation, unmitigated markets and 0 government involvement. This philosophy has ingrained itself on the judicial courts, political representatives, and Americans as a whole. These ideologies preach maintaining a status quo that has become increasingly more resented by a majority on both sides of the isle not just in America but globally. Here is an example of what I mean, Ken Griffin the billionaire who owns Citadel single handedly shot down a tax bill that would have increased his taxes from 5% to 8% potentially costing him over 80 million in taxes so he spent 54 million on lobbying, creating effective adds to curtail bill, selling the bill as a tax on middle class families. In the end he was successful, the initiative failed. We have increasingly seen elites or wealthy individuals play large roles in the political discussions, often times preaching markets while lobbying to destroy markets in favor of political subsidies, decreasing the probability of any competition and creating oligopolies. Bezos, ironically released an article where the content stated that politicians are increasingly using inflammatory rhetoric to gain votes or popularity, why is this so ironic?
  
  Politicians are increasingly becoming more hateful towards the other side because it does 2 things, angers the other side while building support from their own base. When these politicians need more donations to be able to run, it creates a cycle where their whole agenda is culture war rather than any substance. If they're receiving large donations, chances are their economic policy will have to be favored by the donor class which makes their economic policy vastly unfavorable to the majority so they turn to culture war topics and this is ironic because billionaires like Bezos inflame these issues then turn around and act like they don't understand why all our political discussions are so insane. This is another fascinating example of the circular chain of events, an individual becomes rich enough to:
  1. Create a monopoly,
  2. Generates large sums of wealth,
  3. Lobbies to ensure their monopoly stays intact,
  4. Repeat steps 2-3
  5. Becomes more involved in politics and acts like they need to do something to solve the problem they created.
  6. Repeat steps 2-6
  
  When popular policies are blocked from corporate America, when it gets harder to rise up through income brackets, when housing, insurance and food costs rise more than salaries. You get a squeeze and from that squeeze comes anxiety then depression then distrust in institutions then conspiracy thinking.
  
  I think a counter point to what I am putting on the table is regardless of donations, tech algorithm's are designed for engagement which generate hate on both sides. I am not sure how much wealth or economic class has to do with that but it is certainly fascinating.
  
  Francis, alludes to Jan 6th, whats interesting is in this past mid-term election, Republicans did poorly, barely winning a majority. Jan 6 election deniers all lost, anti abortion candidates all lost as well. Which is very comforting to say the least. Work still needs to be done but a majority of Americans whole heartedly rejected Trumpism and anti abortion candidates. Which also personifies the difference between the supreme courts views and the rest of the country which ironically could spark unconstitutional claims from voters who feel disenfranchised.
  
  This brings up an interesting race in the upcoming presidential Republican primary in Trump Vs Desantis. Trump going through 800 law suits and the same political ties he lambasted Clinton for in 2016 are ever more prescient for him. Taking 100 mill from the Saudi's to host their golf tournaments, a potential Trump hotel in Saudi Arabi, not to mention the 2 billion Kushner received from the Saudi Sovereign fund. I mean the list is endless, its much harder to label yourself as a populist but Trump will Trump as arguably one of the brazen liars of all time. Trump slowly trying to goad Desantis into the mud where he excels the most by calling him "Meatball Ron" or calling him a "groomer" for partying with his high school students which is in fact creepy.
  
  I don't think any other Republicans can beat Trump, he's already coming out and stating he will assemble a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. I believe running on this could be monumentally popular, especially as he goes around the country saying things like "They spent 100 billion in Ukraine but nothing {insert state here}", if I was his advisor this would be a popular line. Not to mention as Republicans work to try to cut social security he is stating that he will protect it. Of course, this laughable considering he tried to cut it himself but failed. Will see how the Republican primary goes, my guess is that the Biden vs Trump rematch is the most likely outcome and that is depressing. Trumps election bid will signal just how much Americans care about democracy. It will be the ultimate of tests. Will see what happens.
  
  Overall I enjoyed this book. I would put it around the 3-4 stars category but going to give it 4 stars.
• 
  Matt Schiavenza

  Francis Fukuyama is best known for his essay The End of History, which, in the popular imagination at least, argued that the world had settled on liberal democracy as the only legitimate form of government. Obviously, events in the past 30 years have proven otherwise. And while Fukuyama’s actual argument was more nuanced than his critics allow, he’s absorbed an unfortunate reputation for being a Pollyanna.
  
  Liberalism and its Discontents is an account of why liberalism, which seemed so triumphant in 1989, has fallen onto hard times. Fukuyama describes threats to the tradition from both the left and right and argues why liberalism remains as relevant and desirable today, despite its very real flaws.
  
  The book is more valuable as a political history of the last 30 years than it is as a guide to the future, but it’s very much a useful reminder that liberalism, by and large, means something to a lot of people and shouldn’t be discarded so easily by its critics.
• 
  Jamie

  Of the many books on offer about the "crisis of liberalism", and why growing segments of Western societies across the political spectrum are becoming disillusioned with liberalism, democracy, and capitalism, Fukuyama's is the best I've read by far. Liberalism and Its Discontents manages to describe the problem and prescribe solutions in terms both accessible to everyday people while still containing substantial analysis for more educated readers to chew on. That Fukuyama does this in less than 200 pages is a marvel. For those who may have seen or heard Fukuyama in interviews without ever having read him, don't prejudge his writing by his lack of spoken charisma. I almost made that mistake, and I'd have missed out. 5/5
• 
  Philemon -

  Written in 2021, this is a very wise and timely review of what liberalism is and preview of the troubles it's facing and in some cases provoking. The core idea of liberalism, that all people are created equal and should have the same rights and perhaps the same opportunities as well, is one that is bound to rub roughly against many real-world conditions, as Fukuyama explains. It's history has been and probably always be fairly messy. Is liberalism now under acute attack? It appears to be. Democracy is always an experiment in progress. But Fukuyama believes the American people will not accept unrestrained authoritarianism in government. I hope he's right.