Francis Fukuyama: Populism, Polarization, and National Identity
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- Presented as part of the McCloskey Speaker Series featuring Francis Fukuyama, author of Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment in conversation with Elliot Gerson, executive vice president at The Aspen Institute. In 2014’s The Origins of Political Order, Fukuyama wrote about the decline of American Institutions at a time when powerful interest groups were on the rise. Since then, the world has seen an influx of political outsiders who seek to connect directly with “the people”. The people, however, tend to be a small segment of the population who are often defined by narrow identity terms. In his newest book, Fukuyama examines the origins and effects of modern identity politics and explores how countries can create national identities based on the common values of their populace.
The immigration part was intriguing to me. My country, Japan, is accepting millions of foreign workforce while the government never deems them as immigrants. Thus, for better or worse, people don't realize the foreigner population is skyrocketing in Tokyo, keeping people from going conservative in a sense. I only saw the negative aspect of the Japanese immigration policy, and it did make zero sense to me, though I obtained a new perspective on this topic thanks to this discussion. Thank you
Japan government did that to show the west they have the same value
I think immigration generally is only good for the migrants...obviously people migrate because they expect better rewards. They don't migrate because their old home is better. So that is the answer. The foreigners love the prosperity of Japan. So how do you deal with unwanted love? People migrate to US because the natives were weak and they exploit the land because they have the technology/guns to keep the natives at bay. So migration is bad for natives. Even for modern Japanese natives, as more foreigners mean sharing of wealth, competition, dilution of norms whether you like it or not. You probably think, Oh no to be politically correct I have to tolerate such and such behavior..
Dignity politics is something I've never heard of but makes so much sense now
The dignity struggle is so true. He talks about the Arab Spring and Ukraine, but that fight is even broader...here in Chile, in Oct-Nov 2019 we had a huge social uprising which was all about dignity, to the point that the central square in Santiago in which most marches went to was informally renamed "Plaza de la Dignidad" or Dignity Square. People felt unheard and trumped upon for years, and that's what fueled the movement
What is it with all the Fukuyama bashing? -- and it isn't even half-way intelligent or relevant. People hear he writes one bad book (I admit the thesis of The End of History is controversial and generally not well-reviewed) but that book has little to do with this talk. In fact, Fukuyama has redeemed himself since then, especially with The Origins of Political Order, going forward. He is as worthy as listening to now as someone like Timothy Snyder. Fukuyama is spot on as usual. And NONE of your criticisms here have ANY fact based merit. I know his theses well (since Origins...) and will debate anyone who wants to attempt to bash Fukuyama vicariously through me.
What is his evidence on his claim that countries should CREATE civic identities that would take president of people's other identities? What is the evidence he uses on that it could be done AND what is the evidence on how it COULD be done?
@@janijonkkari4890 Obviously English isn't your first language but I think I understand your questions. Civic identities are inevitable because human beings live in civic environments. What is not so inevitable is what the ratio is between the civic identity and other political sub-identities (having to do with ethnicity, religion and or gender identity - anything someone considers existential or self defining). Obviously Murakami's thesis here is that sub-identities are being exalted above civic identity and that is causing unnecessary civic unrest. In France, for example, my understanding is that ALL citizens or permanent residents are considered French and not French-African, for example. That is their way of trying to create a cohesive national or civic identity. But if people refuse to cohere or if there is resistance from the indigenous or nationalist citizenry, then you have a problem. In order to be a citizen of most European countries you MUST pass a test showing that you speak the language. That helps the immigrant in their identity as a citizen of that country. In the US we don't do that. We have peoples who never need to learn English because we accommodate certain other languages in government services and some businesses (Spanish and Chinese in particular) which allows those who don't wish to learn English a means to stand outside the culture that way. It is controversial. I am not trying to say that speaking a shared language alone enables national identity. It doesn't. France is also an example of how that well-intentioned policy fails if other measures aren't taken.
@@canteluna Because he did a lot of damage by being a main architect of the neo-con wars.
@@kayem3824 The usual knee-jerk response is "but he wrote 'The End of History'" (in 1989). Now you're telling me he was one of the main architects of the neo-con wars. Really? I know he supported the war in Iraq as did most of the US government, but he wasn't one of its "architect." You're mistaking him with Bolton, Bremer, Libby, Wolfowitz, Pearl, et al.
In 2006 Fukuyama wrote a book called 'After the Neocons' which is an attack on the right wing in general and its foreign policy in particular- including the mistake of Iraq. In other words, you're only knowledge of Fukuyama is pre 2006. Check the calendar, it is almost 2021 and Fukuyama has written excellent books since then that anyone with an interest in political science would benefit from reading, especially his excellent 'The Origins of Political Order'.
Some people learn from mistakes and change. Some are quick to comment about things they know nothing about.
@@canteluna Leaving the labels aside, what I understand "the end of history" means is the end of the Cold War and the possibility of a free hand at reshaping countries and even borders by whatever means that could include wars.
"End of History, and the Last Man Standing."
He is always well spoken. A good warning to the technocrats they will listen to too late.
Amazing - I cannot wait to hear what you have to say about Covid and Liberal democracy
Love Mr. Fukuyama’s sharing on the stories of peoplehood in his new book in particular.
Finally, someone who is putting it all together. Quite honestly, sensibility is taking a back seat. Perhaps it is the fundamental flaw of democracy. It is prone to the will of demagogues, who harness deep prejudices buried inside of us fueled by genuine grievances. Quite honestly, I feel a clamp down on immigration may temper the flames. I am an immigrant legally working in a foreign country myself. However, I feel this sense everyday of this people not able to make sense of me or my background, which spreads an air of animus. But given that the left will not see that, as they are caught up in their own hubris, I see no way around. We are living in dangerous times, China is rising, Putin declared himself president for life, the UN is all but irrelevant, social media is more dominant than ever.
Perhaps people who act in a dignified way will generally be treated in a dignified manner.
How do you explain the corruption in the democratic countries? Legalizing the lobbying and allowing government officials to trade policies with votes is not a good way to sugarcoat corruption problems.
Fukuyama is so right! We... WE made a lot of racial progress, and we should talk that up just before we talk about changes yet needed. But as far as helping us remember the U.S. is a committed polyglot, we should bring back the Pledge of Allegiance in cultural events, with the added device you can leave out "under God," which was only added, what, in the 1950's?
luar biasa... mencerahkan
How did they manage to wear the same outfit?
IF YOU CAN'T LOVE YOUR COUNTRY HOW CAN YOU EXPECT PEOPLE TO SERVE THEIR COUNTRY?
❤️
This DIGNITY concept is, as Fukuyama admits, an old one, even an obvious one, but often what is obvious is taken for granted and not really noticed, and so needs pointing out now and then. And, on this topic, what I found really fascinating in reading his brilliant The Origins of Political Order, was the way the tensions between the monarchy and the church helped pave the way for democracy. It wasn't a deliberate objective of either institution -- in fact both opposed it -- and that is what is fascinating -- the accidents of history -- especially the ones we benefit from.
It is also important to point out, which he does, that the right -- who usually disdain "identity politics" - engage in them also (e.g. the interests of white people, especially white men, which has spun off into the men's rights movement as well as white nationalism). Unfortunately, it is not enough for whites (especially those on the right) to demand their rights (as if they didn't already have them) but to base them on their supremacy or as the "original" Americans (natives notwithstanding).
And, unfortunately, "identity politics" was inevitable in retrospect because of those groups left out of the expansion of rights (e.g. blacks, LGBTQ, women, etc). In order to get their rights they had to organize -- as groups -- because individual gays, blacks, women, could not get them otherwise. And here is where I somewhat disagree with Fukuyama and political scientists such as Thomas Frank. Both of these authors claim that the Democratic Party lost touch with working class voters in favor of championing the rights of the disenfranchised, as if they championed ONLY the rights of the disenfranchised. I don't buy it.
Thomas Frank, in his book "Listen, Liberal" claims that after the defeat of McGovern in 1972 shows that the Dems essentially abandoned the working class for the new yuppie class. Iddisagree. I think this is a complex issue, but to focus on a couple of issues to help illustrate my point, the facts show that many of the white working class Dems (mostly labor union members) were social conservatives to begin with (they would go on to vote for Reagan, too) and the split with the Democratic Party was, in large part, over the social issues that included the Johnson Civil Rights Act of 65 and the support for the Vietnam war and then Roe v Wade. A lot of these men were soldiers during WW2 or the Korean War and resented the youth that protested against the war. Also, a lot of these conservative union member Dems did not like the idea of expanding rights to blacks or having their wives "liberated". These men voted overwhelmingly for Nixon. What was the Democratic Party to do? It could not ride two horses at once. But they attempted. They supported labor AND the expansion of rights to the disenfranchised -- as they should have. It is too easy to write off as the Dems as being out of touch with the working class. The fact is the opposite. The working class men (mostly) were "out of touch" with the REASON for the expansion of rights simply because they wanted the privilege of these rights for themselves (and that reason is in the whole foundation of our government and values). And, that's where we are STILL.
As for the last election, yes, there were working class white men who voted for Obama previously who voted for Trump this time. I refuse to believe it's because of Obama's policies on labor and trade issues. I believe it is sheer bigotry just as it has been since McGovern. The difference between Obama's and Hilary's policies on trade and labor were minimal. So what it explains the vote for a self described businessman who has ZERO record of doing ANYTHING to benefit anyone but himself. I think the hatred for Hilary, which too many white working class men had been conditioned to feel, is only possible if you turn off your brain and let the right wing bigotry machine massage your sense of victimization and privilege. I'm sure, when asked, a lot of white working class men claim that misogyny had nothing to do with their vote and it was all about trade but I don't believe it. Just as I don't believe that it isn't anti immigrant sentiment in Great Britain that explains Brexit. (Don't get me wrong, I think it is human nature to reject too much social change in a short time, but in the US -- even more than the UK -- we are a country of immigrants and our foundation is intellectual, not blood and soil).
The Origins of Political Order, was the way the tensions between the monarchy and the church helped pave the way for democracy. It wasn't a deliberate objective of either institution -- in fact both opposed it --
Why no one talk about the effects of superstition on Europeans cultures which impacted the world? Both the church are build on Italian fairy stories about being the voice of God on earth.The monarch played along as they want to be spread the belief that a monarch was chosen by God to rule? With Trump nothing much seems to have change.Trump do seems to want to be King.
@@pilihanku9261 Yes. You're right about the tension between the church, the state/monarchy and the aristocrats which resulted in the Magna Carta in 13th c England. The door was opened from there.
As for religion, that's a much bigger more complex story.
Unfortunately, a lot of things still did not change, like how the native Americans are treated today. They are mostly confined in poor areas without hope to thrive in this society.
Ridiculous question: how to generalize about the broader society based on a bunch id Standford undergrads.
Ridiculous non-sequitur comment that is mere elite bashing and completely without any factual underpinning.
@@canteluna It actually is not. It's a classic case of the illusion of the observer. If you are using an unrepresented sample of the population and you think it's representative, you are a victim of the illusion of the observer. It's quite standard danger in research.
@@janijonkkari4890 All you've done is define a problem, you haven't shown where I am guilty of your accusation. You beg the question.
Holy soi.
Fukuyama’s last stand is incredible I don’t agree with him but I do think he really paints a good picture of understanding human relation and humid the government social contracts. However he kind of sounds like your typical MS NBC host here. Not really giving a good take on Trump in my opinion why should my country and I don’t think democracy has anything to do with this around the world he’s claiming that Trump loves Dictators around the world and that’s not what Trump was elected for in the first place and that’s not his instincts his instinct is limiting immigration we want a national identity we can’t create a new one until we have an immigration moratorium. Trump just restricted immigration not enough in my opinion but definitely the best since 1965. Democracy has nothing to do with it Norway is a democracy they don’t have tons of immigration Japan’s a democracy doesn’t have tons of immigration the United States in one form or another up till 1965 it’s immigration policies were decent but they were still a democracy to an extent democracy has nothing to do with the problems of the countries right now I’m indifferent as a Trump supporter as a nationalist.
I disagree with Fukuyama on a few points. I don't believe in the idea of "dignity" as part of democracy. I also disagree that it is actually demanded. Of course everyone wants it, I want it. However it is subjective. What one finds as 'Dignity" others may find as "disrespect" To that end it is a egalitarian concept. I know of no other creature who seeks dignity other than man. In other words the world is a hostile place. It is eat or be eaten, kill or be killed. To intellectualize this thought is to say there IS a "law of the jungle" man, is definitely part of this law. To say since man has socialized his tribe, he is not part of this so called jungle is absolutely NOT TRUE. It is exactly this law of the jungle that established governments, rule of law, and the ability for intellectuals like Fukuyama and others to let their opinions be known. This is a important point. For any group to want to receive "dignity" the act of violence, war has always been necessary. Take for instance the LGBTQ community. There has always been gays, lesbians, transgenders in society, in every part of the world, since society began. Yet, this group, regardless of the land they stand on have always been outcast. The groups inability to organize, perhaps take arms, and fight for their place in society is the sign that their is weakness in this group and as such that they could never lead or sustain a society in their image. To that end the jungle is a dangerous place for them if they want society in their image, which is what is happening now. If this community does reach heights of high politics such that laws are taken in their image/philosophy of life, it won't last because they did not earn it in the conventional sense of governments being established. When you look at the most successful groups in the world, measured by upward mobility, like the Chinese, you will find they experienced the least amount of dignity, have had a large amount of success establishing wealth, schools, factories, in every continent of the world. Dignity was not an ingredient, they never asked for it, and actually didn't need it as they moved up. African Americans have asked, perhaps for dignity more than any other group, and have fought furiously for it. I believe the effort is disproportionate. They receive 'dignity" expressed as "law" and thus have perhaps received more dignity from what ever point Fukuyama can point too, but as a group, they are not as successful as the Chinese in America from the stand point of consistency as to the level of class status. To that end, the idea of dignity is a side note.
Ko
You're missing the broader point by getting bogged down in what you consider subjective. The fact is, our government is set up as a dignity-based social contract. "All men are created equal" is not an ambivalent statement. It is clear, unambiguous and dogmatic. However, the term was interpreted subjectively to mean white men for quite a while. So, other non white men began demanding their their right under the constitution for their own dignity precisely because the term IS NOT ambivalent or simply a matter of subjective interpretation.
All "dignity" has to mean is equal protection under the law. Any attempt to interpret it further where it would not apply equally, is beside the point. Dignity IS the basis for democracy -- self governing -- and even Christianity (which arguably would never have caught on were it not for the fact that what attracted people most to Christianity was the fact that they -- at least in the beginning - were often people whose basic human rights were not respected by government and law. Christianity taught that the lowest in the social hierarchy were valued by God.).
"To say since man has socialized his tribe, he is not part of this so called jungle is absolutely NOT TRUE"
Just because plenty of examples exist of people asserting power over others does not prove that humans exist in a "law of the jungle" society or mindset. In fact, human beings have NEVER existed at that level solely. Think about what that really means. No society could ever flourish and survive who had a "law of the jungle" as a moral code. Why do you think religion exists? Why do parents educate/civilize their children? Why do ALL human societies organize around some form of law and not whim? All you're really saying is that powerful people or organizations will exert power when in their interest to do so. And, without rule of law, that is true. But even that type of social organization can't be called "law of the jungle". Read Fukuyama's The Origins of Political Order. A brilliant book, unlike his End of History, which I don't like.
As for your comments on the plight of LGBTQ, the Chinese and African American, I find these comments particularly offensive and ignorant. You mean to claim these groups haven't "earned" their right to dignity. Because they have resorted to law and legislation rather than by taking up arms -- are you joking? The entire point of a rule of law society is so that we don't resort to violence, that's what courts are for, fool. That these groups demanding rights haven't convinced the people somehow and so legislation would not be effective, is nothing but a stupid right wing talking point that simply exist to make people feel more comfortable with their prejudice and have no place in a true democracy and rule of law society. How do you think Blacks in particular got their rights? After the Civil War there was still Jim Crow and redlining and all sorts of discrimination. I guess they hadn't really earned their equality by your crazy definition. Much of their gains in civil rights came through the courts and legislation AND by educating bigots. Still there are plenty of racists and white nationalists in this country who don't recognize Blacks as their equals. Doesn't matter. What matters is if we choose to be a nation of laws applying equally to all or if we want a kind of populist governance where the majority can trample the rights of the minority simply because the majority subverts the constitution, rule of law and elections.
You don't understand Fukuyama at all. Try reading The Origins of Political Order.
@Astro Mars keep reading
The interviewer starts talking about the need for national identity to exist and says 'One of the problems in Europe is that there isn't a European identity'. What? This just really confirms the stereotype of an ignorant American, right? There isn't such a thing as a nation state of Europe so there isn't a need for a 'European' national identity, Mr Gerson. Unless, you are trying to peddle here some concepts that majority of citizens of sovereign states based on the European continent would be vehemently opposed to.
一看到他，就想起张维维😂😂😂
张公公跟人家聊了一次，吹了十年
FF is wrong(concluding remarks in "End of History") yet widely acceptable and acclaimed by many. Where can you find a profession when you are wrong and yet acclaimed, only in the west, where only argument/debate based on ideology matters most rather than rational and pragmatic thinking based on facts in order to produce positive results/outcome becomes secondary.
What a lazy and ugly comment. I didn't like Fukuyama's "End of History" either. But does that make him wrong forever? Apparently in the world you'd like to see realized it does. I've read The Origins of Political Order and his most two recent works. Brilliant. If you want to argue their theses instead of condemning him eternally for a book he got wrong, I know his theses well enough to argue his points.
liberalism is not the concern of democracy,but at least the people could voice out and elect the person they wanted,but look at those authoritarian countries,they are none electoral and more powerful threat to the democracy system and free world,so stop the bashing within free world,nationalism political parties is not the matter of cause.
Fukuyama is definitely up there with the most intelectually lacking academics. His work is sadly an over-hyped bag of banalities, or as one might call it, western pop-science.
If you want a lesson on how to say nothing of relevance and still reach fame, this is the man to listen to.
You call it "banality", I call it common sense, which is not so common with trolls like you.
obviously you havent read any of his works. If you had, you would know his work is extremely specific and focused and has nothing to do with 'banalities'. I wonder what makes people who haven't read any work about someone develop such strong opinions about their work? Anyways i assume you're part of the new underclass where we have to respect your dignity or risk you throwing us a tantrum and voting for a new caligula.
@@wv9529 Sum up the most interesting thing he's said.
With all the Economic achievements China has shown to the world, we may ask ourselves, when was the last time we heard or read something positive about China? Something goes wrong in our so-called free-media ??????
Fukuyama is a neocon. Why do people still take him seriously?
So your book is not impartial or objective. It has a particular disdain towards Donald Trump.
Fukuyama is a neo-liberal and has difficulty understanding the limitations of that philosophy and its blindspots.
Sorry, but need a stronger condemnation of identity politics.
Only a racist would say identity politics is bad. Why dont you want non-whites to be free from slavery?
phony BS!
The arrogance of these two (especially the interlocutor) is beyond belief.