Posted on 11/08/2004 5:15:04 PM PST by Ahriman
Fifteen years ago, in the summer of 1989, Francis Fukuyama published his most famous article, "The End of History?" in which he claimed the worldwide victory of ideas of liberal democracy over other rival ideologies. The following decade, which saw the crash of the communist system in Eastern Europe, the demise of the "evil empire" and the collapse of communist ideology throughout the world (including China), proved to be the most liberal epoch in the contemporary history of the mankind and, arguably, in the history of civilization.
Last Tuesday, that epoch came to an end. The sweeping victory of American conservatism and nationalism in the U.S. presidential election, the preference for self-preservation above all else, received overwhelming support across the world's only remaining superpower. The popular vote for Republican candidate and incumbent President George W. Bush, the state referenda banning gay marriage, as well as congressional races, all reinforced the Republicans' unchallenged majority on issues of concern to the Democratic minority.
Thus the United States, the largest and once the most aggressive proponent of liberalism in the world, stated that the liberal idea should be put on hold, put aside, confined to the realm of dreams -- thereby giving carte blanche to the pragmatic use of omnipotent force to confront the ugly realities of today's world.
You have to give credit to Osama bin Laden. In just one day, this fanatic -- using 19 zombie suicide hijackers and four planes full of innocent people -- managed to roll back history by putting the notion of self-preservation back at the center of human values and unleashing a chain of events with unpredictable consequences: The war in Iraq, which has turned into a mess; the fundamentalization of Arab streets across the Middle East that are ready to explode; the confrontation between Europe and the United States; the rise of authoritarian and imperialistic impulses in nuke-rich Russia; the list could go on.
Kerry may have been the more "liberal" candidate in the sense that Rush Limbaugh uses it (more left-wing/socialist), but that's not the kind of "liberal" which Fukuyama was talking about.
Truth is, by the historical (and European, I think) meaning of the term, the more liberal candidate was Bush. And liberalism won.
It's not dead, it's cycling. There will be a peace dividend in the coming decades, and liberals will quickly waste it on our blood, just as they wasted their parent's sacrifice in the 60s and 70s.
"You have to give credit to Osama bin Laden. In just one day, this fanatic -- using 19 zombie suicide hijackers and four planes full of innocent people -- managed to roll back history by putting the notion of self-preservation back at the center of human values..."
An ALMOST redeemable quality of Osama? If not for the attacks of 9/11, would we be wallowing in an even more grand cesspool of LibeRAT excrement? Food for thought...
On second thought...
Nothing can redeem the unredeemable...
BLOW EM ALL TO HELL!!!
i was thinking the same thing.
If he's bought into liberal talking points this far, nothing else he says can be worth much.
Liberalism was invented so that LOSERS could feel proud about one thing in their lives.
Never get between an idiot and its security blanket.
Perhaps it's time to return to the OED definitions and brand Kerry and his ilk as "socialists" and "totalitarians" and lose the cutesy "liberal" tag.
I suspect a translation problem between "liberalism" and classical liberalism.
True. The semanticists of a half century ago suggested that we use subscripts to specify just which one of the several meanings of a word we have in mind, and it's not such a bad idea in this case.
There are "liberalisms" that can sustain themselves in various ways, and "liberalisms" that lack the necessary fiber to preserve themselves or the social order that produced them. So what we're probably seeing is a return to an earlier conception of liberalism. The "bourgeois" or middle class liberalism of the 19th century was much sterner, more individualistic, and less "caring" and self-indulgent than late 20th century "post-bourgeois" liberalism.
When late liberalism looks excessively feeble and unlikely to survive, societies naturally return to the ideas of the older, more moralistic liberalism with its ideas of responsibility, rather than entitlement. You can call it "conservatism" if you like, but it's not "anti-liberalism" in the way that Europeans understand that word.
There's no way that when Fukuyama spoke of "liberal democracy" winning out, he was talking about high taxes on rich people. In the true sense of the word liberal, I mean.
Equally, in the true sense of the word, there's no way that militarily ousting a dictator and attempting to birth a consensual government is a less liberal position than to carp about how costly and risky it all is and say we shouldn't have done it, consensual government will never take root amongst Those People, etc.
Bush was the liberal candidate - in the true sense of the word. There is very little that is liberal about Kerry.
Easy sloppy thinking.....defeatism and pessimism....yawn.
Pure silliness. The best description of liberalism I've ever read was from Lawrence Auster, an ultra-conservative writer. He descibed liberalism as being like the liquid-metal assasin in "Terminator II" - even when you blow it to pieces, it somehow manages to reconstitute itself and attack again.
Remember our euphoria of a decade ago? The Contract with America? The prospect of Lord Hee-Haw / Hildebeast as a one term pres? The prospect of abolishing the education department, PBS/NPR, and all the rest? The promises to repeal stupid and evil laws and treaties? What happened? The classic error of underestimating your enemy. Let's not make that mistake again! It's fine to enjoy the Schadenfreude of the moment, but keep in mind that the enemy is not going away. He's marching in the ranks of the Republican Senate delegation and has promised in no uncertain terms to see to it that we can have any judges we desire - as long as they are liberals!
They still control the vast apparatus of the MSM. They still control all but a few islands of education - from kindergarten through graduate schools. They still control the arts, the popular culture, and trade unions. The vast majority of the truly wealthy are on their side. We should never let our guard down for a minute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.