Francis Fukayama is the man who predicted the “end of history”. He has recently put forward a new theory: the unlikelihood of successful human government in view of the fact that human beings are hard wired to favor their relatives first, their friends second, and strangers absolutely last. In many parts of the world, he says, tribal structures remain under the veneer of the impersonal state, and re-emerge once the state disappears, as it has with Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria and Iraq. In advanced societies elites use the government to advantage their friends and allies, instead of the wider population. Today, Fukayama finds this phenomenon at work in the United States in the guise of interest-group lobbying. He believes that no state should introduce democracy until it has developed an effective government that serves the people. This applied to the US, where in the 19th Century the country had partial democracy, but weak government. Thus the US was run on a spoils system in which politicians wooed the electorate with promise of jobs and favours. Democracy was a means
by which parties vied with one another to loot the country. He points out that only in the 20th Century did the US develop a professional bureaucracy.
Well, well, well. Mr Fukayama is a noted conservative and yet speaks well of a strong government with a functioning bureaucracy. And who was foremost in developing that? Presidents such as FDR. And who still excoriates it? Why, the Tea Party!
The fact is that we need an active, competent government that invests tax money in schools, ports, roads and bridges, that looks after the most disadvantaged, that puts money into law and order, and restrains the most energetic capitalist spirits among the populace. This is wholly consistent with Epicureanism, which advocates the pleasant life. Life as advocated by the Ayn Rands of the world is not pleasant; it is the law of the jungle where the nost ruthless win.
One of the reasons why northern Europe is so successful, amongst other things, is because it is so nationalist. Northern Europeans do what Fukuyama suggests- to put the interests of the nation above local or sectional interests. In contrast, Tea Partiers are the ultimate tribalists, they put themselves above the United States. Despite their claims of patriotism, they are anything but. For instance, Tea Party hero Rand Paul is voting against cutting the use of coal because his home state of Kentucky will be affected. Never mind the fact that cutting coal is a necessary aspect of dealing with global climate change eh Mr Paul…
Epicurus lived in a time of tribalism-each of the city states to their own. He preferred to shun this form of immature politics in favour of small friendly communities. In the modern world, we should have strong and efficient nation states like those of Northern Europe, bound by a strong sense of identity and responsibility towards the rest of the world.
In short, I reject the conservative notion of free-market capitalism and the ‘night-watchman’ state, but I also reject Leftist notions of a weak national identities, unrestrained internationalism and out of control multiculturalism. Small homogeneous nations bound by mutual responsibilities are the way to go.
Well said. I agree.