|
Fukuyama looks beyond neoconservatism, sort of
While I have disagreed with Francis Fukuyama on various points over the years, ranging from immigration to the culture wars to the meaning of Islam, his article, “After Neoconservatism,” in the February 19 New York Times Magazine, in which he declares that he is no longer a neoconservative, makes a useful contribution to the debate. At least it helps us understand the debate better. Particularly interesting is his explanation of how the neoconservatives, who once were suspicious of social engineering, came to embrace the most ambitious social engineering scheme in history, their by-now demonstrably insane project to democratize the Muslim world. As Fukuyama sees it, the fall of the Soviet empire convinced the neoconservatives that America could end all tyranny everywhere—that (to paraphrase the biblical story of Babel) there was nothing that America, under the leadership of the neocons themselves, could not do. And so the neocons cast aside their hard won wisdom about the limits and the unintended consequences of social amelioration projects, and turned into starry-eyed (and I would add power-mad) utopians. Also enlightening is Fukuyama’s remark that his “End of History” thesis is not, as some people may have believed, the basis of the neocon democratization doctrine. The End of History sees a gradual change leading to the inevitable end result of liberal democracy, while the neocons are seeking to force that end result by means of aggressive American intrusions into other countries’ politics. Adopting a characterization used by Bernard-Henri Levy, Fukuyama calls his own position “Marxist,” meaning that the universal democracy is the inevitable end result of historical forces, and the neocon position “Leninist,” meaning that the neocons want to force universal democracy into existence through revolutionary action. However, just as Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, despite the differences between them, share the same historical assumptions and the same goals, so do the neoconservatives and Fukuyama, since Fukuyama, while adding the caveats that democracy can’t be rushed, and that it must be preceded by modernization, still thinks the Muslim world must inevitably become moderate and democratic, based on a modified Hegelian-Marxist view in which history naturally progresses toward the inevitable end point of liberal democracy, instead of toward the inevitable end point of the classless society. Similarly, the neocons think that all humans, including Muslims, share the same aspirations to freedom and democracy, and that these aspirations must inevitably bear fruit. Like the neoconservatives’ view with which it has so much in common, Fukuyama’s view is fundamentally mistaken. As Western intellectuals have done over and over in their attempts to understand Islam, Fukuyama is imposing a Western theoretical construct on top of Islam that does not fit it. He is failing to consider the unique nature of Islam itself, its unchangeable doctrines, its divinely mandated imperative to conquer the world, to dispense with all human government and impose the divine sharia law on the entire human race. It is these uniquely Islamic doctrines that determine the historical course of Islam, not any Hegelian process of history. For example, the reason Muslims express violent hostility toward the West is not that they’re still in some relatively backward stage of the historical process, e.g., poor, or unhappy, or culturally displaced (a view Fukuyama has picked up from Olivier Roy), or frustrated at having been “left behind” by Western progress. No. They express violent hostility toward the West because their religion tells them to. According to the core teachings of Islam, the whole non-Muslim world is by definition at war with Islam, and since the West is the most powerful part of the non-Muslim world, they hate the West the most. Furthermore, their aggression is greatly amplified by the West’s ongoing surrender to Islam, expressed most fatefully in the acceptance of mass Muslim immigration into the West, an immigration that Fukuyama has never criticized. While indulging in fancy theories about a utopian democratization of Muslim countries that will supposedly make Muslims less dangerous, Fukuyama and his erstwhile neocon comrades continue to support the very immigration policies that are infinitely increasing the Islamic danger to the West. Bottom line: Islam is not going to be democratized either by neocon forceful methods or by Fukuyama gradualist methods. The West cannot change Islam, and Islam cannot be changed. Of course Muslims could cease being Muslim, and that would be wonderful, but is extremely unlikely. Therefore the only viable way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to roll back Islam from the West and contain it permanently in its historic lands, something that will require unending alertness and vigilance on our part. As hard as that will be, it will be a heck of a lot easier and safer than trying to assimilate Muslims with ourselves.
For all the cogency and intellectual interest of his writings, Fukuyama’s thought remains, at bottom, superficial. This is seen, first, in his lack of interest in the doctrines and history of the religion he seeks to reform. It also seen in the fact that the actual policy he advocates as an alternative to neocon-style democratization consists of nothing other than the same old tired leftist bromides of international aid efforts, “development,” and coalition-building that have been pushed by Democrats and UN types such as John Kerry. Fukuyama thus has nothing positive of his own to offer—he is merely recoiling from the spectacular folly of the neocons. To grant him his due, this makes him more rational than they. But given the fact that the neocons have become crazed ideologues, that’s not saying much. Email entry |