Weak Strong States

This is the third in the series on the theoretical and analytical work by Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man.[1]

The first two of the series can be found here.

• The End of History and the Last Man
• Pessimism of the West

In the second installment, we discussed how liberal democracies and the political scientists that inhabit them have failed to see the rising tide of liberal democracy around the world.  We examined the reasons for this pessimism based on the failures in the middle of the 20^th century as witnessed in Nazism and Stalinism, and the seeming permanence of Soviet Communism after the fall of Stalinism and during the Cold War period.

G.W.F. Hegel

Liberal democracy was supposed to bring about the final installment of political enlightenment and herald a new and ultimate Age of Man. Inherent contradictions aside, it was supposed to put to an end the horrors of government during the millennia leading up to the establishment of the groundling democracies formed in the late 18^th century in France and the United States.

France and the United States were by no means the most liberal or democratic states that they could be at the time of their respective revolutions.  France suffered under a dictatorship for a brief period that gave rise to Napoleon’s “Empire.”  The United States still enslaved and disenfranchised substantial percentage of its population.  The point is that the dam had burst and it was felt that there would be now no going back.

Hegel was the first to propose that political socialization was a result of a “dialectical” process with each preceding form competing with present reality to form a “synthesis.”  Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.  New and better forms of political socialization evolved to a point where the evolution becomes complete.  To Hegel this completion found its form in liberal democracy, and therefore the “End of History.”  Hegel has been criticized for giving justification for the authoritarian regimes (particularly Nazism) in the 20^th century, but this criticism is faulty.

Karl Marx, took a page from Hegel in the use of his dialectical model and formed the basis for “Dialectical Materialism” and arrived at the conclusion that the End of History was not liberal Democracy but Communism.  Their methods were the same but the conclusions were radically different.

The failures of communism are well recorded and need not be discussed in great detail here.  The successes of liberal democracy not only continued but are spreading ever wider.  It will be the future current successes on which we will concentrate.  Before we can do that however, we must first briefly examine why liberal democracy is the form that has held on and continues to expand and why theories of “Strong” states ultimately fail.  That can be done with an examination of what Fukuyama calls the Weak Strong State.[2]

Let’s begin by defining our terms.  What do we mean by a “strong” state?  What is meant when we speak of “weak” states?

A strong state is one who, by definition, is able to control its political organization and permanence through strict control of the political system.  A strong state tells the people unequivocally who the political are and will be without leaving a choice for leaders to be replaced by a democratic process.  A tool to accomplish this is by strict restriction of liberal policies or rights-rights such as speech, association, and privacy.  All this, again by definition, makes the political structure of such states “illiberal” and “undemocratic.”

The trade-off for the loss of democratic and liberal rights is security.  The people give up these things (theoretically) in exchange for social and economic stability.  It pays here to mention that besides personal liberalness that we can also speak of “economic” liberality where the contrast is between an economy that is allowed to grow and flourish (with some restrictions) on the one hand and an economy that is rigidly controlled and restricted by the state political apparatus on the other.

The “weak” state, on the other hand, is the liberal-democratic state.  It is perceived as weak because the political structure is seen as unstable.  Social and economic security is not as certain as in the strong state because the political environment is not as tightly controlled.  Personal liberties are unrestricted which gives possible rise to uncontrolled outbursts of public sentiment over public dissatisfaction.  Leaders and parties can be changed through the democratic process.  Economic liberalism gives rise to class inequalities and poverty, because of the inequities of capitalism.

The liberal-democratic state though is not weak.  It is strong for the very reasons that it is presupposed to be weak.  It is the very liberal/democratic nature of the political and social process that gives the state the ultimate legitimacy upon which it rests its authority.  It is a state that respects the rights of its population and allows the people, not the government, to decide what should be done when difficulties arise.

Strength or viability therefore rests on the legitimacy of the regime.  Legitimacy is the degree of faith that is placed in the state.  All states, liberal-democratic or otherwise must have some measure of legitimacy to begin with in order to last any length of time.  The greater the degree, the greater the viability.

A strict authoritarian state such as Nazi Germany held a certain degree of legitimacy or else it would not have been

able to rise to the power that it held at its zenith.  No ruler, not even Adolph Hitler can rule solely by force over an entire nation of people.  He needed supporters who believed that he was the best possible choice for running the country and therefore gave their allegiance to him.  It was in his counselors and generals therefore that Hitler and therefore Nazism found legitimacy.  This elite supporting group therefore were available to carry out his commands through their subordinates who similarly gave legitimacy to their leaders.  It was an authoritarian (and very nearly totalitarian) state.  Liberal rights were severely curtailed and of course there was no democratic action.

Nazism, fortunately, was proved illegitimate through force of arms.  A great many horrors were committed before it was brought down and it is equally certain that a great many more would have occurred had it not been defeated militarily.  But, even if it had survived, it could not have endured.  It’s ideology rested on the idea of the superiority of race and the racial right to rule.  To remain legitimate it would have had to constantly been in armed international conflict.  If it had won, then its reason for being would have been eliminated and it would have either collapsed completely or the form of government would have had to violently change.  Violently, because in a system of authoritarian repression, any conflicting ideal would have to be brutally put down.

Soviet communism is a different matter and its persistence, among other things, gave justification for the western pessimism mentioned earlier in this essay and in the second in the series, “Pessimism of the West.”

Authoritarianism differs from Totalitarianism in one crucial respect.  Authoritarianism controls the political/social culture but mainly the political structure.  Authoritarianism allows some social structures to remain either unchanged or with restrictions.  Totalitarianism controls all spheres of life, both political and social.  Therefore, an authoritarian government may allow religious practice even if it is only the state approved religion.  Totalitarian government abolishes ALL religion.  Religion becomes the worship of the state itself.  Authoritarian government may allow state censored press and other media.  Totalitarian government owns and operates the media.  There is no need for censorship because all you are going to absorb from the media is strictly what the government puts out for consumption.  Totalitarianism is 100% all-encompassing.

Animal Farm was about an authoritarian government.  1984 was about totalitarianism.  When an authoritarian government finally loses its legitimacy it is more likely to ease its way into liberal-democracy because there are structures already in place to ease the transition.  When totalitarianism collapses it is more like to collapse completely because there is nothing ready-made on which to form a consensus of acceptable social interaction.  When the state goes, so does everything the state represented.

This therefore is a good explanation of why supposedly strong states are in fact weak and why the truly states of liberal-democracies are not only the best representations of what has become the End of History and why they are sure to endure.  Next in the series will be discussed what Fukuyama calls the “Worldwide Liberal Revolution.”

C.E. Spots

---

[1] Frances Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992).  Second paperback edition.

[2] ibid.  13-38

Obama Admits Screw-Up

President Obama admitted to CNN’s Somebody Cooper that he screwed up on his nomination of Tom Daschle to the post of Secretary of Health and Human Services.  Daschle withdrew from consideration after his tax dealings came under intense scrutiny.

To this gryphon, Tom’s tax miscues are not news.  He’s just one of ten thousand powerful, rich guys who try to get out of their taxes.  Intentional or not, does this really surprise anyone?  No, what got my attention is that the prez said “I screwed up.”

I wonder how long that will last?  I hope the length of his Executive Mansion tenure.  Keep in mind though, he’s new.  This is still the traditional “Honeymoon Period.”  So far, his s**t don’t stink.  That’ll wear off.  Trust me.  I’m not a real political scientist, but I play one on the Internet.

There will come a time when people finally start calling this the Depression that it is, when Gaza starts throwing rocks at Israel again, when some idiot hyper-liberal in his cabinet says something monumentally stupid, or when we witness the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan (ihope ihope i hope) that the press will stop gushing over him, and he will stop being black and become the President of the United States.

That is the time when he will stop being so ready to say, “I screwed up.”  The temptation will be to “spin” or–worse–to lie.  As long as he doesn’t lie in a deposition for a civil suit brought to give justice to a woman charging him with sexual harrasment.  Oh, wait, that was Clinton.

But so far so good.  Keep it up Boss.  When you screw up admit it, promptly.  Every time, even when you’re not as likely to be forgiven for it.  You’ll be the better man for it and we will be the ultimate gainers.  And for God’s sake, keep your John Thomas in its cage, Chief.  I know it’ll be difficult, being a Democrat and all.  But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.  For now.

c.e.s.

Pessimism of the West

Pessimism of the West

This is the second in the series of essays, reviews and commentaries on The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama.[1]

• The End of History and the Last Man

In the first of the series we discussed the premise that the end of history is being demonstrated by the wide spread acceptance of Liberal Democracy as the government of choice around the world.  We discussed the concept that what is meant by the “end of history” is not the end of events or even great and significant moments in world politics.  It is merely a statement that the events of history up until now have led to this point that we have finally reached and are accepting an ideal and universal form of world government.  Before we can go any further we must address the history of the alternatives to Liberal Democracy and why it has not been more widely accepted that this is the inevitable form of the ideal Social Contract.

Fukuyama calls this non-acceptance of the goodness and inevitable triumph of Liberal Democracy “Our Pessimism.[2] In the west we have been pessimistic about achieving a final form of universally acceptable government because of the witness of the past 100 years.  The horrors of World War I, the bloody scourges of Stalinism, the death camps of Hitler, “total war” encompassing the wholesale destruction of civilian populations and resources-all these things disproved what was believed earlier that the progress and civilization of man would remove from our history the barbarities of our ancestors.  Indeed, it was these very progresses that enabled evil to find more ultimate ways to express itself.

Liberal Democracy was confronted by two challengers to the “preferred” method of government-Communism and Fascism.  Fascism, under the Nazis, was defeated by force of arms.  Soviet Communism continued and became the main challenger to the Liberal ideal.  In our own times, it became widely accepted that the Soviet regime was not only here to stay, but that it was even an acceptable alternative.  It appeared to have legitimacy for the Soviet people.  They were apparently willing to trade liberal democratic practices for the security promised by the Soviet state.  But it was not legitimate as was quickly proved when the Soviet Union disintegrated in the late 1980s-early 90s.

The collapse came as a total surprise to the west.  Secretary of State Henry Kissinger as late as the 1970s expressed the views of most western political scientists when he said,

. . . today, for the first time in our history, we face the stark reality that the communist challenge is unending . . . We must learn to conduct foreign policy as other nations have had to conduct it for so many centuries-without escape and without respite. . . . This condition will not go away.

Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who later served on the National Security Council and was the first female U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, wrote a famous article in 1979 comparing right-wing Authoritarian governments to left-wing (communist) Totalitarian governments.  She provided that authoritarian governments  were susceptible to democracy and liberalization but there was no provision given for change on the left.  Totalitarian regimes (in contrast to authoritarian) controlled their populaces so ruthlessly by expropriating every form of social intercourse including previously internalized values and traditions, that they were therefore rendered virtually immune reform.

The history of this century provide no grounds for expecting that radical totalitarian regimes will transform themselves.

All of our best and brightest were proved incredibly wrong when it finally happened.

Liberalism and Democracy are not necessary partners.  A country can be liberal without being democratic, and it can be democratic without being liberal, but because of our pessimism it was felt for a long time that we would not see both coming together in countries currently under the sway of the left or the right.  Our world would be evil upon evil without end, amen.  The horrors of the twentieth century destroyed our belief in the inexorable goodness of men and our rational western philosophies left us incapable of defending any other view.

But, as stated, we were wrong.  And we were wrong for a variety of reasons but the most important one is that other forms of government besides Liberal Democracy are confronted by inherent contradictions that sooner or later erode the legitimacy which is necessary to constitute a civil society of whatever stripe.

Please note that this is not to say that there are no contradictions in the theory and/or practice of liberal democracy or economy.  There are more than a few.  What this IS to say is that in a Liberal Democracy there are institutional remedies through both the liberal and the democratic processes with which these contradictions are addressed.  The ability to correct contradictions  therefore leaves intact the legitimacy of the government which it needs to exist and operate.

Liberal Democratic states are visibly weak, but are inherently strong in this respect.  Next we will examine the forms of government that are visibly strong, but suffer invisible inherent weakness.

---

[1] Frances Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992).  Second paperback edition.

[2] Ibid. 3

Ready, Set

I went to Barnes and Noble today and got fresh paper copies of the New York Times, The Economist, and Foreign Affairs.  I also got a copy of Samuel P. Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order to supplement my readings and series on The End of History and the Last Man.

Are you Ready?

I’m Set.

(somebody say “GO!” )

c.e.s.

(but first I’m going to take a nap.  )

Serial

The next and second in my serial on Francis Fukuyama’s book The End of History and the Last Man will appear sometime on Saturday, January 31, 2009.  This coming Saturday.

Hope to see you there.

The first in the series may found here: The End of History and the Last Man.

c.e.s.

The End of History and the Last Man

The End of History and the Last Man

This will begin a series of essays and commentaries on The End of History and the Last Man[1] by noted political scientist Francis Fukuyama.  Continuance of the series will depend on popularity of them in this blog.  Popularity will be judged on post views and comments left.  No small percentage will be given to comments given.  It is my hope that this will stimulate interest in the subject and conversation on what has been presented here.  Footnotes are provided for appropriate citation and may be followed by clicking on the footnote number within the text.  This first post will be by way of introduction to the topic and the man.

 Francis Fukuyama is a Bernard L. Schwartz professor of international political economy at John Hopkins University and is a member of the President’s Council for Bioethics.  He has twice served on the Policy Planning Staff of the U.S. Department of State.  In 1981-82 he was a member of the U.S. delegation to the Egyptian-Israeli talks on Palestinian autonomy.  It is also noteworthy and will be mentioned later, that he was a student of political scientist Samuel P. Huntington.

In The End of History, Fukuyama argues that the evolution of political ideology has come to an end with the widespread acceptance of Liberal Democracy.  He notes with importance that a shared definition of “history” is prerequisite to the most basic understanding of his thesis.  The end of history is not the end of time, nor is it the end to events of greater and/or lesser political importance.

Rather, he argues that “liberal democracy constitutes the endpoint of mankind’s ideological evolution and the final form of human government, and as such constitutes the end of history[2].”

Hegel and Marx both viewed history in a similar light and posited that there would come a point in which mankind’s longings for political satisfaction would be met.  For Marx it was the communist state.  For Hegel it was the liberal democratic state.  We may relapse into authoritarian forms of government but the inexorable trend toward liberal democracy is just that, inexorable and will eventually ideologically overwhelm all other philosophies of government.  The reasons he gives for this advance are dependent on two variables;

• Economics, and
• The ’struggle for recognition.”

We. In the west, have become extremely pessimistic about the possibilities presented by this belief.  Our pessimism is based on the horrors and atrocities we witnessed in the 20^th century.  And no less, perhaps, by the upsurge in international terrorism most poignantly demonstrated in the September 11^th attacks on the World Trade Center in NYC and the Pentagon in Washington D.C.  However the lessons we should have taken from these tragic events is that, fundamentally there are glaring contradictions and weaknesses in seemingly strong dictatorship, be they of the Left or the Right.

Much commentary and criticism comes from Fukuyama’s acquaintaincship with Samuel Huntington, in light of Huntington’s own work, The Clash of Civilizations and the remaking of the world Order.  Huntington speaks of a much different theory that Fukuyama presents.  Huntington postulates that far from being the end of history, what we see emerging in the political world order is conflicting cultures and ideologies clashing along geographic “fault lines.”

In the following essays here in the Aerie, we will concentrate on Fukuyama’s end of history hypothesis, that liberal democracy is not only here to stay, but that it encapsulates the pinnacle of human desire for government.

c.e.s.

The two links here for Samuel Huntington will take you to two separate locations.

---

[1] Frances Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992).  Second paperback edition.

[2] Ibid.  xi

Abortion

A hot blog here posted the scenario:

Did you know you can stump anti-abortionists with one simple question? Just ask them this: If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?

I’m not going to credit the blog from which this came because for one thing by the time I got to see the post it already had 375 comments.  I was going to weigh in but mob scenes just aren’t my style.  He doesn’t need my support.  I see his blog on the front page all the time.

But, for another reason, I think the guy is a faker.  He claims to be a religious sceptic but from my previous research he is anything but.

He claims to be a “former” Christian searching for truth.  My observation of his rhetoric is that this is a cover to protect himself from attacks that are “faith” based.  If you claim to be a “former” believer and are now just “sceptical” then you have some claim to innocence for attacks against those people who claim belief.  “I used to be one of you, so I understand.  Please give me room for my doubt.  But that is not the way he comes across to those of us who are discerning.

Let’s go back to the scenario he proposed.  You answer it too.  I welcome comments of all types from any position you might hold, but first I will give you my answer to;

Did you know you can stump anti-abortionists with one simple question? Just ask them this: If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?

It’s easy enough for me.  I am not what one may consider an anti-abortionist.  Neither am I pro abortion.  Do I believe it is murder?  No.  “Murder” is a legal term.  It is a word used in the law to describe unlawful taking of life.  At the present time, being legal, you cannot call it murder.  BUT, you can call it “killing.”

Killing is done by the government with lawful executions.  Killing is done by soldiers during war.  Killing is done when the “plug is pulled” in hospital rooms.  Killing is done by persons acting in defense of self or others.

This begs the question I realize but is important to set up my response.  It begs the question because the scenario set up by the other blogger is “What IF abortion is made illegal.”  that, then, would make it murder, not killing.

The answer to which I am not stumped is that any person who is violation of the law should be punished by the law.  That seems pretty simple to me.  Do you punish them with life in prison?  No.  But we don’t punish all murders with capital punishment or life in prison anyway.  And you have to distinguish between the person performing the abortion and the person upon whom the abortion is performed.

There are different levels of complicity (guilt).  This is recognized in non-abortion related “murder.”  Second degree, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc. etc.  Then you have persons charged with being accessories to murder.  It gets complicated and not nearly as simple as the poser would have you believe.

The point of the post I saw this in was not to look at it legalistically as it would naturally be if abortion were ever again made illegal (which it won’t).  The point was to make right-to-lifers look stupid.  And THAT my friend is gross stereotyping and bigotry of a Liberal stripe.

What do YOU think?

P.S.  Oh why not and what the hell, here is the link.  Now I can’t be blamed not giving fault credit where it is due.  Draw your own conclusions.

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/01/21/how-to-stump-anti-abortionists-with-one-question/

P.P.S.  Do we punish illegal drug-users to the same extent that we do the poeple who provide the illegal drugs?  Not to the same extent that we did about 40 years ago (which coincidentally is about the same time that abortion was legalized).  Why?  That’s a rhetorical question. Answer it if you feel so inclined.

“Fair Use” under United States Laws

“‘Fair Use’” is a concept in copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.  For example, the preceeding sentence is almost verbatim the first sentence from the entry on Fair Use at Wikipedia, but I can safely post it here because it falls under the Fair Use doctrine. 

Fair Use (from Wikipedia)

The following information on “Fair Use” comes from the above cited source.  While portions of it may be nearly verbatim it is paraphrased and includes scholarly review and commentary which is original.  Additinal sources may be used in the process of this post.

Fair Use provides for citation or use of copyrighted material in another’s work under a four-factor balancing test.  Fair Use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Here are  the four factors used in the balancing test:

1.      the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2.      the nature of the copyrighted work;

3.      the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4.      the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Once again, using this post as example, under the four prong test above:

1. The “purpose and character” of the use of the Wikipedia information in this post is strictly non-commercial.  The author here (Gryphon) receives no compensation expressed or implied from the posting of this information.  It should for my purposes here be considered “educational.”  The intent of copyright law is to “stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public” in that protection of one’s work promotes creation of new work with the knowledge that it protection from UNfair use.  It does not ”supersede the objects” of the original for reasons of personal profit.”

2. The nature of the copyrighted work from Wikipedia is itself considered educational.  The site is a “dot org” site and (by definition) is itself a non-commercial entity.

3. The amount of information used here is only a small portion of the original text found at Wikipedia on “Fair Use” and is not intended to replace it, but rather to supplement it by added use of commentary and example.

4. I have no grand illusion that my little post is going to deprive Wikipedia of any of its present or future use by the Internet public.  Their “market for or value” is not going to be touched by what you read here.

It is important for me as it should be important for others when using material fom other sources that full credit be given to those sources.  It is the only fair and proper thing to do, law be damned.  Let me slightly rephrase that so you don’t misunderstand my meaning.  It is the only MORAL thing to do.

Once again, for example, although under “Fair Use” it is permissable to use without giving them credit for what they add to the above information without the consent of Wikipedia, it is morally unacceptable to me to do so I try to be meticulous in giving credit where credit is due.  If I fail (which is rare) then it is out of error rather than intent.

Another example are those works that are now in the Public Domain.  When I Poe (such as I have done with Eldorado, Lenore, and Annabelle Lee, I am reproducing works that are no longer under copyright if indeed they ever I would feel under no legal obligation to cite my sources because they are public sources.  Shakespeare is an other such example.  Even though, STILL, this may be the case I still take pains to inform others of my sources.  A great resource for me for Public Domain materials is one that I link in my blogroll and that I provide in this post as well: Gutenberg.Org

Well, that’s about all I have for this go around.

Ta Ta

G.

 

UPDATE:

One way that you might tell if someone is plagiarizing is by differnet formats within the same post.  I seem to be having some problems with being used

THIS post which is the reason for the “update.”    A careful plagiarist will know their HTML and be sure to check for inconsistencies.  owever I SUCK at HTML which (although is not the reason I am so damn honest) would make a good reason if I were so inclined.

I really screwed up in trying to reformat the HTML on this post.  I lost some of the text and I haven’t a CLUE what it was only that it is now gone.  Bear with me.  I am a work in progress.

G.