Preface

The result of history remains the liberal state linked to a market economy as he claimed in 1992.

Yet liberal democracies face 3 inherent threats to their legitimacy.  Thymos, the need for individuals to feel that their dignity is respected.  Isothymia, the demand to be respected on an equal basis.  Megalothymia, the desire to be recognized as superior.  These demands don’t melt away with progress or modernity.  They can be interpreted at the individual or group level.  Individuals, especially those in less successful groups, can deeply feel their lack of respect by the government, economy, institutions, media, and culture.  The superiority craving folks can reach their desires through accomplishments but can also lead populist political movements.  Relatively equal treatment of citizens is a strength of many modern liberal states.

Liberal democracies with market economies surged during the last quarter of the 20^th century, but have struggled in the 21^st century due to economic crises, China’s rise and consolidation into an authoritarian state, resurgent nationalist and religious demands, and the difficulties of building and sustaining a  liberal democracy aligned with the modern international order.

“Demand for recognition of one’s identity is a master concept that unifies much of what is going on in world politics today”.  Universal recognition of human dignity is challenged by partial recognition based on nation, religion, sect, race, ethnicity, and gender.  Threats arise from the left and right.

‘1. The Politics of Dignity

Twentieth century politics was largely a left (equality) versus right (freedom) battle.  Politics today is more often based on identity.  The left focuses more on protecting the group rights of marginal communities: blacks, immigrants, women, Hispanics, LGBTQ, refugees, and workers.  The right focuses more on protecting the group rights of other traditional, rural, religious, national, racial and ethnic communities.  The “classic liberal” emphasis on abstract, universal, individual human rights supported by both the center-left and the center-right has been overshadowed.

Strength of the Soviet and Chinese models, weak Western response to 9/11, growth of terrorist groups, inherent EU tensions, the Great Recession and Euro crisis (Greece), growing inequality and the disruptions caused by rapid globalization have all contributed to a reassessment of the former consensus on the best way to organize politics and economics.

Underlying these changes is the concept of “identity”.   An individual’s “identity” is his perception of his true inner self, often in contrast with the rules and norms of society.  Starting with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, individuals and intellectuals have largely embraced a view of human nature as being intrinsically good, fighting against the constraints of society.  Modern individuals seek to become aware of and develop their true identity based upon introspection and feelings.  Making this identity central to their lives, individuals also demand respect for the inherent dignity of their individual and group identities from society. 

Fukuyama describes Putin, Jinping, Trump, Brexit, Terrorists, Orban, Black Lives Matter and Me Too within this framework of respecting identities.  Respect for identity can be a tool for constructive change or for victimization, populism, and authoritarianism.

‘2. The Third Part of the Soul

Humans are not driven by utility maximization as proposed by economists.  Fukuyama prefers Plato’s view in The Republic.  Individuals are driven by desire and reason, but also by thymos/spirit, the seat of judgement about worth.  Individuals want to feel good about themselves.  They care about their inner worth and dignity.  They want to be respected by society.  Hence, many social and cultural issues become hotly debated political wedge issues.  Abortion is not about minor public policy opinion differences or varied religious perspectives or framing communications as pro-life versus pro-choice, but a judgment about me and my perspective, my community, my essential values that must not be challenged!  It is a personal issue that demands respect.  Individuals who do not receive respect naturally become resentful.

‘3. Inside and Outside

Martin Luther developed the insight of an inner self distinct from an outer or social self.  Faith takes place only in the inner self, independent of the roles and influences of society, priests, and the Church.  With this shift in perspective began “a whole series of social changes in which the individual believer was prioritized over prevailing social structures”.  In traditional human societies social roles were fully defined.  No individual choice was required.  No conflict between “the individual” and society could be imagined. [Fukuyama does not explore the earlier steps towards awareness of individual identity seen in the Renaissance].

Jean-Jacques Rousseau expanded this gap between the individual and society.  The individual is inherently good and largely misshaped by society.  Religious faith was only one dimension of the choices that need to be made.  The depth of the individual’s true nature was hidden and required significant work to explore.  “Original sin” was incorrect.  Most “sins” were created by the demands of society.  Individualism existed before communities.  The real individual could be created.  The “individual” was now deeper, broader, and evolving.  He quotes Charles Taylor, “This is part of the massive subjective turn of modern culture, a new form of inwardness in which we come to think of ourselves as beings with inner depths.”

‘4. From Dignity to Democracy

Christianity emphasizes the central role of humans as agents capable of making moral choices, despite being hindered by original sin.  Hence, there is universal dignity for men.  Immanuel Kant also argued that humans can make moral choices and that human will is worthy of respect.  GWF Hegel agreed that this capacity for moral choice was praiseworthy.  He argued that human history was shaped by the struggle for recognition and that it was natural that political structures that recognized this need would evolve and be passionately adopted.  The stage was set for liberal democracies, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution.

‘5. Revolutions of Dignity

The Arab Spring and color revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine reflect the strong desire of ordinary people for the basics of liberal democracy.  Not a duplication of Europe and the U.S., but a state that recognizes “human agency, the ability to exercise a share of power through active participation in self-government”.  Voting, free speech, free assembly, equal dignity, moral agency as a member of a democratic political community. 

 “Successful democracy depends not on optimization of its ideals, but balance: a balance between individual freedom and political equality, and between a capable state exercising legitimate power and the institutions of law and accountability that seek to constrain it.  Authoritarian governments, by contrast, fail to recognize the equal dignity of their citizens.”

‘6. Expressive Individualism

The “classic liberal” tradition of individualistic identity has 3 sources.  Luther broke the individual free from the collective in order to better relate to God and follow his law.  Kant located the individual as a free moral agent capable of making choices following abstract laws of reason like the categorical imperative or logical golden rule.  Hobbes, Locke, and Mill expanded the universe of freedoms and placed them within a social contract system of political rights such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

Rousseau changed the game completely.  The individual is now clearly first, ahead of society and the traditional God.  The individual is inherently good, but often corrupted by society.  The individual can find that good self by looking inward, deeply and with feeling.  The individual has a moral obligation to find and express that good inner self.  This autonomy applies in all dimensions.  Creative powers become more important.  The garden of Eden story is directly challenged.

The shared moral view of the Christian church was challenged from many other directions: religious wars following the reformation and counter-reformation, the rise of the artist’s creative powers, romanticism and naturalism, the conflicts with the enlightenment and scientific revolution, and Friedrich Nietzsche who declared “God is dead” and that the individualistic superman can now define his own moral values.  The individual expanded to consider faith, rights, politics, values, religion, science, facts, meaning and reality.

“The problem with this understanding of autonomy is that shared values serve the important function of making social life possible.  If we do not agree on a minimum common culture, we cannot cooperate on shared tasks and will not regard the same institutions as legitimate; indeed, we will not even be able to communicate with each other absent a common language with mutually understood meanings”.    Many individuals don’t hear or respond to the call for in-depth exploration, creative expression, and superiority.  They honestly prefer to conform to social norms and interact with their neighbors based on the existing society.

Individual rights were much more widely recognized across the nineteenth century.  Collective identity, in the form of nationalism and politicized religion also began to grow with unfortunate consequences.

‘7. Nationalism and Religion

Luther, Rousseau, Kant, Locke, and Hegel set the stage for an individualistic and universal form of identity.  The equal dignity of all human beings was obvious, worthy of political protection and the basis for individual moral development (at a minimum).  Together with the scientific revolution, Adam Smith, urbanization, and industrialization, it promoted the modern capitalist market economy.  Free trade, free exchange, private property, limited government interference.  More growth, trade, investment, urbanization, profit, industrialization, government support, secularization, experimentation, and science.  Rinse, repeat.  Rinse, repeat.  The growing economy created pressure for standardized education, languages, units of measures and national laws to make trade and investment more effective.  The growing capitalist, trade, citizen, bureaucrat and bourgeoise powers competed against the traditional religious, economic, political, and social powers.

Johann Herder in the late 18^th century began a movement against these universalizing views.  The individual local nation, region, city-state, culture, geography, traditions, customs, food, festivals, saints, music, and religion have a role to play.  Humans mostly live in their smaller communities.  They provide individual and social values which should not be discarded.  They are as real, authentic, and valuable as any newly discovered rights, science, trade, or philosophy.  In a world of overlapping dimensions, nationalism was born.  Nationalism emphasizes a collective identity, a set of rights and demands for respect.  It fights against smaller (US states rights) and larger political groups (EU).  It inspires passion and loyalty.  It often focuses on the collective, organic “will of the people” rather than arbitrary political results.  Nations are subject to capture by business, military, church, and political elites. 

The migration from traditional, agricultural societies with integrated community, social, political, economic, and religious norms, values, and beliefs to secular, urbanized, industrialized, multicultural, individual, separated values societies has played out for 500 years.  Rural to urban in Europe for centuries.  Rural to urban in the US for 150 years.  Immigrants to the US for 150 years.  Immigrants to Europe for 75 years.  Rural to urban migration across the world for 75 years.  In each case, there are strong conflicts between the integrated set of community oriented traditional values and the more diverse set of individual oriented values.  Sociologists decry the breakdown of traditional societies and the anomie or anxiety created.  Some individuals and families make the transition into the new world, while others struggle to adapt.

Passionate and sometimes violent nationalist, religious and populist reactions take place.  Individuals and groups who feel that they, their groups, and identities are out of place, react negatively towards the society that does not embrace them.  “Deplorables”.  “The Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres”.  “Hang on to their guns and religion”.  “You didn’t build that”.  Nationalism, radical Islam, and U.S. populism share these roots.  “Radical Islam by contrast offers them community, acceptance and dignity”.  Fukuyama closes the chapter with the proviso that these groups clearly also represent other dimensions of political, social, economic, and religious life.   

‘8. The Wrong Address

The 20^th century was dominated by a single left versus right political spectrum.  The far left (communism) and far right (fascism) were discredited by the end of the cold war and the results of WW II.  The center-left and center-right mostly competed on the same left versus right dimension focused on economic issues.  Equality, redistribution, fairness, labor, safety nets, and the welfare state versus economic opportunity, growth, property rights, innovation, entrepreneurship, capital, and freedom. 

In the US and Europe, income and wealth inequality have risen back to 1875 robber baron/laissez faire levels after contracting in the post-WW II era.  Yet, the center-left and populist economic left politicians have not benefitted from the reduced relative status of the working and middle classes.  The global financial crisis in 2007-10 sparked by the reckonings of unconstrained greed throughout the US banking and mortgage system did not benefit the political left, which was seen as complicit in globalization and “the third way”. 

Fukuyama doesn’t delve into the political details.  Instead, he simply refers to the growing political dimension of “identity”.  Nationalist, populist leaders have been able to position these situations and others as part of the disenfranchisement of “the people” by unelected, self-appointed elites.  Nationalist leaders in India, Japan, Hungary, Turkey, Poland, and the US have capitalized on these concerns.  [Fukuyama fails to highlight either the “traditional to secular transition conflict” outlined above or the bewildering complexity of modern life described by Robert Kegan in “In Over Our Heads”]

‘9. Invisible Man

It’s not “the economy, stupid” as claimed by James Carville.  It’s my dignity. [Fukuyama does not emphasize the possibility that once a society reaches a certain level of economic success, that it might then turn to non-economic dimensions as being much more important].  Relative status, qualitatively, matters to everyone.  No one wants to be Ralph Ellison’s “invisible man”.  The loss of status, like the loss on investments, has a strong negative emotional effect.  This matters to the middle class and the working class.  The loss of relative status is very painful.  Immigration becomes a major issue because immigrants can be viewed as the cause of a loss in status/economic position.

“The nationalist can translate loss of relative economic position into loss of identity and status; you have always been a core member of our great nation, but foreigners, immigrants, and your own elite compatriots have been conspiring to hold you down; your country is no longer your own, and you are not respected in your own land.  Similarly, the religious partisan can say something almost identical:  You are a member of a great community of believers who have been traduced by nonbelievers; this betrayal has led not just to your impoverishment but is a crime against God himself.  You may be invisible to your fellow citizens, but you are not invisible to God”.

’10. The Democratization of Dignity

Modern liberal democracies in North America and Europe were founded on the individualist view of identity.  Through time they expanded the set of citizens whose rights would be honored, thereby fulfilling their early idealistic promises about universal rights.

In the second half of the 20^th century, the “therapeutic society” emerged in the West, championing Rousseau’s ideas.  “Philip Rieff  … argued that the decline of a shared moral horizon defined by religion had left a huge void that was being filled by psychologists preaching a new religion of psychotherapy.  Traditional culture, according to Rief, ‘is another name for a design of motive directing the self outward, toward those whose communal purposes in which alone the self can be satisfied’.  As such it played a therapeutic role, giving purpose to individuals, connecting them to others, and teaching them their place in the universe.  But that outer culture had been denounced as an iron cage imprisoning the inner self; people were told to liberate their inner selves, to be ‘authentic’ and ‘committed’, but without being told to what they should be committed.”

“The affirmation of the inner identity depended, in the final analysis, on the truth of Rousseau’s assertion that human beings were fundamentally good; that their inner selves were sources of limitless potential.”  “Ideas that ultimately trace back to Rousseau: that each of us has an inner self buried deep within; that it is unique and a source of creativity; that the self residing in each individual has an equal value to that of others; that the self is expressed not through reason but through feelings; and finally that this inner self is the basis of … human dignity”.

The author shares the work of the 1990 California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal Social Responsibility, noting the inherent contradictions.  “The effort to raise everyone’s self-esteem without being able to define what is estimable, and without being able to discriminate between better and worse forms of behavior, appeared to many people to be an impossible – indeed, an absurd – task”.

The author notes some results of the adoption of a “therapeutic society” worldview:  rise of narcissism described by Christopher Lasch, growth of counseling industry at large and in schools, successful therapeutic versions of religion catering to those seeking personal growth, an expansion of the desired role of government from managing the infrastructure to directly ensuring the growth of self-esteem and recognition for all citizens,  a diminished role for personal responsibility since many personal outcomes are primarily driven by social structures, and universities embracing the individualistic ethos.

“The therapeutic model arose directly from modern understandings of identity.  It held that we have deep interior spaces whose potentials are not being realized, and that external society through its rules, roles, and expectations is responsible for holding us back … The therapist was not particularly interested in the substantive content of what was inside us, nor in the abstract question of whether the surrounding society was just or unjust.  The therapist is simply interested in making his or her patient feel better about themselves, which required raising their sense of self-worth … The rise of the therapeutic model midwifed the birth of modern identity politics … everywhere a struggle for the recognition of dignity”.

’11. From Identity to Identities

Social movements in support of various “rights” exploded in the 1960’s: civil, feminist, sexual, environmental, disability, indigenous, immigrant and gender identity.  They began as new waves in the expansion of individual rights within the “classic liberal” political model.  In each case there were activists who promoted the importance of group rights as being even more important than equal individual rights.  “Equal individual rights” was deemed an inadequate goal.  Previously invisible and disrespected groups needed to be respected as groups specifically because of their differences.  The “lived experiences” of exploited group members were to be relished even though the majority population might not be able to understand their experience and perspective. 

Multiculturalism evolved from a high level political need to protect the basic rights of large minority populations to the goal of uplifting the superior distinctive cultures of previously disenfranchised groups.  The number of identity groups and intersectionality’s grew exponentially.  Much of this change in viewpoint was driven by a relatively small number of intellectuals and activists within the broad “new left” umbrella, but within a therapeutic society, support for this kind of identity-based perspective grew over time. 

Fukuyama argues that left-leaning political parties shifted their focus from the working class and economic issues to identity groups for several reasons.  Marxism and communism were discredited.  The center-left pursuit of a growing social welfare state had lost popular support due to its fiscal costs.  Some activists argued that the historical center-left approaches were too closely aligned with the “power structure” of politics, economics, patriarchy, science, religion, objectivity, elites, Western values and globalization and ought to be abandoned.  A cultural transformation could be done more easily through the educational, information and entertainment industries than via the difficult work of practical politics.  Postmodernism and deconstruction slowly increased their influence on Western societies after 1968.

The author notes the advantages of narrowly focusing on the “lived experience” of oppressed groups to make their suffering real and press for meaningful legal and cultural changes.  He also outlines some disadvantages.  Minority groups are not uniformly morally superior in principle or in all their actions.  Identity politics draws attention away from rising inequality of income and wealth.  The white working class loses support from the political left since it is not as obviously oppressed as other groups.  Attempts to address the common concerns of the broad working and middle classes are undercut.  Identity politics can conflict with historical views of a strong right of free speech, even when it offends the feelings of others.  The assembly, coordination, and maintenance of a coalition of identity groups is inherently difficult.  Identity group politics can clash with historic center-left views.

Identity politics on the left has since led to identity politics on the right.  Once groups decided that their rights, feelings, insights, and experiences were sacred and not subject to criticism from the outside, they adopted beliefs, norms and communications standards that can rightly be called “politically correct”.  We are right because we know we are right.  Everyone else is wrong and looked down upon.  The general population, members of majority groups, individualists, traditionalists, and others soon took offense. 

Politicians on the right have leveraged both polarization and populist feelings and then used the left’s framing and language to construct new coalitions that realign politics from a primarily economic to a primarily cultural axis.  My religion is right.  My race is right.  My traditional view is right.  My America is right.  American isolationism is right.  American nativism is right.  As many commentators have indicated, Trump took advantage of pre-existing concerns within the American public to redefine the Republican Party based on identity first.

Fukuyama highlights several issues with identity politics.  The number of groups proliferates.  Identity claims are often nonnegotiable, so trade-offs and negotiations are blocked.  Identity politics works against the need to achieve common goals via deliberation and consensus.  Communication and collective action are more difficult.

’12. We the People

“Political order both at home and internationally will depend on the continuing existence of liberal democracies with the right kind of inclusive national identities”.

Countries without a clear national identity, such as Syria, tend to fall apart.  Nations can be formed based on geography, ethnicity, race, religion, culture, language, or ideas.  “National identity begins with a shared belief in the legitimacy of the country’s political system.”  Identity can be reinforced through institutions, education, culture, and values.  Diversity provides benefits to nations but can also bring challenges.  National identity can be misused for political and military purposes.

“National identity can be built around liberal and democratic political values, and the common experiences that provide the connective tissue around which diverse communities can thrive.”  An effective national identity helps to provide security, good government, economic development, trust and social capital, social security, and the basis for liberal democracy.

“A liberal democracy is an implicit contract between citizens and their government, and among the citizens themselves, under which they give up certain rights in order that the government protects other rights that are more basic and important.”  Democracies also require a supportive culture, deliberation and debate, acceptance of outcomes, tolerance, and some degree of mutual respect.  Democracies require broad and deep support for constitutional government and human equality.

International governments cannot replace national governments.  They require shared norms, perspectives and cultures that are simply too varied at the global level.

’13. Stories of Peoplehood

National identities are insecure.  Regional and global institutions make conflicting claims upon citizen loyalties at a higher level.  Group identities in multicultural societies pull against the national forces.  Immigration and refugees add group identities, which often contrast with traditional national cultures, and raise issues of citizenship, loyalty, and nationhood. 

“The policies that do the most to shape national identity are rules regarding citizenship and residency, laws on immigration and refugees, and the curricula used in the public education system to teach children about the nation’s past.”  Stories of peoplehood have a large impact as well.

The European Union created a supra-national government without investing in citizenship, symbols, or political legitimacy.  Even though the EU has added functions and members through time and lightly shaped common values and institutions, it has not prepared well for any true common nationhood.  Brexit should not have been such a big surprise.  Anti-EU populism should not be a surprise either.

Immigration and refugees became a large real and political problem because the EU has complicated matters through its open borders agreements, the volume increased, many immigrants were from Muslim, Arab and African origins, many countries maintain descendant based rules and many countries had little experience building multicultural societies.  The rise of group identity politics changed the pressures for and against successful integration. 

’14. What is to be Done?

Address the real issues that trigger the need for a deep-felt group identity to demand special rights.  Promote greater appreciation for the multiple identities that each person holds.  Promote the creedal national identities that can effectively include many groups.  Invest in integrating immigrants into society.  Re-emphasize common economic, cultural, and political interests of the broad working and middle classes.  Revise the EU citizenship, immigration, and political structures to make them a more effective and politically legitimate body.  Eliminate laws that discourage naturalization of non-descendants.  Share the long-term progress in extending rights to a broader set of people within classic liberal democracies despite the history of slavery, colonialism, and inequality.  Adopt compromise laws on immigration that secure borders and enforce state control over who becomes a citizen on what basis.  Clarify dual citizenship and citizen versus resident rights to promote the benefits of citizenship.  Increase service requirements to boost national loyalty.