The Columbia Critic

A place to debate anything we want to. We'll talk Columbia campus issues. We'll talk up the homosexual problem. We'll talk China. And we'll talk without resorting to partisan rhetoric. We may be left. We may be right. But we aren't going to be quoting any party line. We're leading the discussion. But feel free to chime in. Hannity and Colmes this is not.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Fukuyama's Piece in the NY Times

Fascinating piece. I am not going to go too far to explain the nuts and bolts of it. Read it. I am currently doing as much. And trying to figure out how to respond.

I feel as if I agree with a lot of the analysis he offers about the failure of neoconservatism, although I can't quite say I follow his tract completely. As he himself argues his work believes that there is an unavoidable marxist (materialist) development that will eventually end in modernized society and associatedly in liberal democracy. I have never been one for a materialist assumption of futurity, so I can't quite agree. But Fukuyama, someone I once dismissed as being just one of those neocons...he is gaining greater credence in my view. And I look forward to his new book.

An interesting place wehre I think we cross is in our view of hegemony and the associated strong response. Interesting, huh Brian? Quotation here:
Radical Islamism is a byproduct of modernization itself, arising from the loss of identity that accompanies the transition to a modern, pluralist society. It is no accident that so many recent terrorists, from Sept. 11's Mohamed Atta to the murderer of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh to the London subway bombers, were radicalized in democratic Europe and intimately familiar with all of democracy's blessings. More democracy will mean more alienation, radicalization and — yes, unfortunately — terrorism.



  • At 11:38 PM, Blogger Brian said…

    I'd recommend, in addition to reading Fukuyama's piece, reading Brookings fellow Ivo Daalder's response on TPM Cafe:

  • At 4:36 PM, Blogger Sean said…

    Hard to believe, but I actually agree with the guy. It is a GREAT piece. Particularly because it is a constructive piece.
    "What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world — ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about." Yes.
    "The Bush administration has been walking — indeed, sprinting — away from the legacy of its first term, as evidenced by the cautious multilateral approach it has taken toward the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. Condoleezza Rice gave a serious speech in January about "transformational diplomacy" and has begun an effort to reorganize the nonmilitary side of the foreign-policy establishment, and the National Security Strategy document is being rewritten."
    Praise Allah. It took Bush a number of screw-ups to reach this point. My question to everyone you think that this change will continue? Is there hope for the Bush administration, perhaps not to reverse the effects of its past policies, but at least to generate a new and effective national security posture? If so, what does he need to do? And if anyone says immediately pull out of Iraq I'm gonna have a hissy...


Post a Comment

<< Home