LIBERALISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS

This is the best book I have ever written on liberalism ever!It illustrates the virtues and flaw that Liberalism faces and how to remedy them.

Rising income inequality, growing threats of terrorism, cultural despondency, religiousfundamentalism, immigration woes, etc are some of the trends that have gravely affectedthe idea of liberal states in the world. Liberalism, notwithstanding its inherent resilience hasbeen marked by certain inconsistencies lately, which have given rise to illiberal politicalculture in some areas on the world and have dwindled the liberal quotient of thosesocieties. The recent conflict of Russia-Ukraine has given further steam to this trenchantdichotomy and has furthered the chasm between an open liberal and an imperiousauthoritative world order, not to mention, their otherwise perennial hot and coldrelationship in the last century.From his seminal work, The End of History and the Last Man, where he argued that liberaldemocracy was essentially “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution”, the author,has come a long way in defending the present liberal order which inevitably marks ourreality. He has attempted to “lay out the theoretical grounding of classical liberalism, andsome of the reasons why it has generated discontents and opposition”. In the verybeginning itself, the author, in a lucid manner, has explained the nuance of classicalliberalism- a moot point running through the book, “as of peacefully managing diversity inpluralistic Societies".As per him, the idea of tolerance and the respect for human autonomy (borrowed from thephilosophical traditions of Kant)-individual agency and his choice for the self-actualisationwithin a moral framework, and its relationship with the liberal thought, is a touchstone forassessing the efficacy of these values. Another important facet of his argument he a cleardistinction that he has marked between democracy and liberalism. Just like Fareed Zakaria,he too has touched upon the fact of the rising illiberal democracies.The author says that there “are many legitimate criticisms to be made of liberal societies”. Itseems that he has attempted to singe the liberal outlook too, for its sphere, whenexpanded, on either side of the ideological spectrum, has engendered aberrations in thelarger framework its own order, thereby leading to the phenomenon of identity politics onthe extreme left and complete state withdrawal in the form of tearing down governmentprotections and regulations- neoliberal order, on the right. By focussing on certain“historically contingent phenomena”, he acknowledges the defects that liberalismpossesses.The author has come down heavily on the neoliberal model of capitalism, which “provided ahighbrow justification for the pro-market, antistatist policies pursued by Ronald Reagan andMargaret Thatcher in the 1980s”. He considers neoliberal philosophy the main reason forthe creation of income inequality, global financial crises, environmental problems in theworld. Admittedly, he, alike Rawls, appears as a social egalitarian while dealing with theseissues. The author, rightly so, accepts that these vicissitudes of societal dynamics created abacklash in the form of protectionist and anti-globalisation movements and thus gaveenough leeway for the liberal philosophy to occupy the vacuum by creating conduciveatmosphere for their logical expression by the aggravated masses.On the other side, he has remained particularly critical of the left liberals who, unwittingly,at times, have given rise to ‘group identities, which have hindered an individual forexercising his own agency and then aiming to “write off that entire element of society aspart of a racist, patriarchal power structure that is illegitimately clinging to its formerprivileges” for creating a state based on ‘‘epistemic relativism’. He believes that this aspectof left liberals has given more steam to the ideas of conservatives, who bank on thesedeceptive means to create states based on ideas like racial purity,ethno-religiousnationalism, etc.By referring to some of the critical theorists ranging from Herbert Marcuse to Foucault, andtheir critique of the liberal states in the form of latter being exploitative, eurocentric,individualistic, exclusionist etc, was skilfully countered by the author with his focus onmeritocracy, welfare states, multiculturalism, upward economic and social mobility, etc.Despite accepting the prevalence of ‘vetocracy’ in American polity, he’s sanguine about therole of a liberal state bound in a time-tested rule of law.There are two distinctive facets of this book which I consider as the major hallmarks interms of their normative sense for determining the adequacy of certain liberal principles inpresent times. The first is the author’s exposition and thence an attempt to reconcile theprinciple of universalism with that of an idea of modern nation states. He apparently findslittle contradiction between these values, for he believes that states having a fixedterritoriality can, within a paradigm of rule of law, establish its writ by wielding its legitimatepower. He says “National identity as a liberal and open society is something of which liberalscan be justly proud..” The author, nonetheless, accepts that “if national identity is based onfixed characteristics like race, ethnicity, or religious heritage, then it becomes a potentiallyexclusionary category” which can generate a potential conflict with universal values and anation state.The second facet that appears endearing is his attempt to remediate liberalism’s flaws byadequate mainstreaming of certain ideas like Individualism, federalism, welfare state,privacy, tolerance and the freedom of speech. The author believes that these principleshave to be underpinned by a certain ‘moderation’ (just like Buddhist idea ofMadhyamāpratipada), for “moderation is not a bad political principle in general, and especiallyfor a liberal order that was meant to calm political passions from the start”.Be that as it may, the book falls short from assessing some of the essential changes thathave animated some of the societies in South and South East Asia, where culture, religionand concepts like Asian Values have permeated the liberal values lately. Additionally, thebook has taken a quite bland approach vis-a-vis the state’s domestic capabilities and theprocedural aspects attached therewith, in promoting or hindering such values.Therefore, it can be said that this sleek book, running for 192 pages, has, by overriding therecent ideological attacks, from both sides of the spectrum, emerged as a sterling androusing defense of classical liberalism and is an absolute page turner. The book has beenwritten in an extremely lucid and simple language with least possible usage of subject-specific jargons, thus making it quite amenable to the needs of a general reader. If Mill was‘a prophet of empty liberty’, Fukuyama is a ‘prophet of modern liberal etiquette’.

Well up to Fukuyamas previous work summarising major historical movements and both persuasive and clear for the general reader as well as the student of politics . Obviously a mainly American focus although other regions are discussed .Well worth buying and the only discussion I would have liked to have seen expanded on is the role of lobbyists and corporations in buying influence in democracy. There is also a little too much equivalence drawn between the role of identity politics on the left and the current attacks on democracy and attempt to produce the suppression of voting rights on the right. Overall though a neccesery read in 2022.

Too soon to review as I am still reading this book.

Fukuyama writes beautifully, as he always does, and he sets out the case for liberalism and its basic tenetsvery clearly. His history of liberalism greatly enhanced my understanding and I agreed with his proposalthat no other ideology has emerged to compete with it.His review of the discontents covers both leftist progressives and rightist conservatives but my problem is that he suggests no practical solutions: just "try to behave better". Tell that to the tech giants!Nick Hampton

Fukuyama has been derided for his assertion that history ended, but in fact he is a hugely interesting, clear and engaging thinker. His insights and the clarity of his discourse are unparalleled.

A great book, describing the tensions in modern political life. It should appeal to anyone regardless of ideology or politics. Challenging at times but mostly easy to read and entertaining as well as thoughtful and entertaining.