In 1992, Francis Fukuyama, an American political scientist, declared that we had reached what he terms “the end of history.” Despite apocalyptic connotations, Fukuyama does not mean to say that we are approaching the end times.
What is actually contained in the phrase “end of history” can be traced back to French philosopher and mathematician Antoine Augustin Cournot, for whom it meant the perfection of civil society and the end of the historical dynamic. Drawing from the work of George W.F. Hegel, Cournot presupposes that history can be conceived of in the play of thesis and antithesis resulting in the synthesis of a new, more fully realized society.
In other words, if history can be characterized by the conflict between a positive movement towards reason and a pure negation of this movement, then we have officially triumphed over unreason, and the conflict of history has ended.
Liberal democracy has, in the eyes of Fukuyama, proved victorious over its two main opponents: communism, after the fall of the Soviet Union, and fascism, after its defeat at the end of World War II. The truth of Fukuyama’s assertion has, since it was written, been dubious.
Despite the gains that neoliberalism claims for itself — increased wealth, market freedom, and democracy — French-Algerian philosopher Jacques Derrida argues that “no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before … have so many men, women, and children been subjugated, starved, or exterminated on the earth.” The deep, fundamental flaws in our society have, to those who experience them, always been obvious.
However, on Nov. 8, 2024, three days after Trump’s re-election, Fukuyama himself expressed concern over the validity of his original contention. For Fukuyama, while it may have been possible to regard the 2016 election as a mere aberration, the fact that voters chose once again to elect Donald Trump, with full knowledge of what he represents, signals a resolute shift away from the core tenets of liberalism.
Fukuyama, in the Financial Times, says “Donald Trump not only wants to roll back neoliberalism and woke liberalism but is a major threat to classical liberalism itself.” It seems clear now that the gears of history are determined to continue grinding, paying no heed to the prophets of neo-liberalism and its cult of market worship.
At the time this is being written, the government enters its 38th consecutive day in shutdown, officially to become the longest in history. The shutdown began when Senate Democrats refused to vote for a Republican short-term funding bill which would not include tax credits, utilized by a record 24 million people who don’t have health insurance through either their job or public programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Many of these individuals would lose access to health insurance altogether, while premiums would be expected to rise by 114%.
The Democratic Party has staked quite a lot on their crusade to maintain the subsidies, persisting to withhold votes over a dozen times now, even as shutdown-strain continues to intensify.
Federal workers, including air-traffic controllers, are missing paychecks, while the fate of federal nutrition program SNAP and its estimated 42 million beneficiaries hang in the balance. Through it all, Trump is adamant that the shutdown comes as a result of the Democrats and their unwillingness to compromise. The GOP has claimed that Democrats are attempting to use the pressure generated by the government shutdown in order to achieve a “far-left Wishlist,” including funding healthcare for undocumented immigrants.
Importantly, undocumented persons are generally ineligible for federal healthcare programs. The proposed bill would merely maintain access to healthcare for documented immigrants, something which the Republican proposal expressly removes. Nothing in the Democrats’ proposal would provide insurance to those who lack documented status.
Not only is the GOP’s claim empirically untrue, it is an intentionally inflammatory, xenophobic, and politically charged notion which is meant only to rally a base against an imagined threat. This represents only one in a long sequence of claims and arguments coming from the white house which have, at best, a dubious relationship with reality.
Furthermore, the president refuses to accept an iota of blame for the shutdown, resolving instead to fixate on ending the filibuster, a tool often utilized by conservatives to maintain conservative policy.
“THE REPUBLICANS MUST ‘BLOW UP’ THE FILIBUSTER, AND APPROVE HUNDREDS OF LONG SOUGHT, BUT NEVER GOTTEN, POLICY WINS,” Trump declared on a Truth Social post uploaded Nov. 8. While some Republicans are registering concern that ending the filibuster may not be realistic, Trump seems stuck in his policy of no surrender.
For example, Democrats proposed a bill on Friday which would extend the subsidies for a year while a more fleshed out policy can emerge, but was quickly rejected as a non-starter by the Republican Party.
Trump’s apparent inability to end the shutdown without at least a partial or symbolic victory is consistent with his overall autocratic disposition, acting in such a way that ends up harming everyone, not least many of his own constituents.
Refusing to compromise unless an unjust short-term funding bill is passed and in blatant disregard for the lives of millions, the narrative that the shutdown is the fault of Democrats is wearing thin while the polls reflect a growing dissatisfaction with the president’s conduct.
In stark contrast to the realities which face the majority of the American populace, elites are doubling down on their ROIs. Ever increasing displays of greed, arrogance, and ignorance are commonplace in the headlines.
Office of Detention Oversight employees have been furloughed because of the shutdown, resulting in a lack of critical oversight for immigration detention centers.
ICE agents, recently emboldened by the support of the Trump administration and questionably legal executive orders, function similarly to secret police, but act more in the manner of an organized crime syndicate, brutalizing and detaining with impunity. Communities have defended themselves in whatever manner possible from what can only be considered an assault on the people.
In a style analogous to the ancient regime in pre-revolutionary France, Trump has advanced plans for a ballroom in the White House (replacing the East Wing), remodeled the bathroom of the Lincoln bedroom, and hosted a Great Gatsby-themed Halloween party at Mar-A-Lago, all within the same two-week period.
Political theorists, sociologists, and legal scholars alike portend a grim future if we continue on this path. The claim that American supremacy is on the decline is notably not new. However, this is not to say that this era doesn’t present unique and fundamental challenges. In many relevant aspects, inequality has intensified over time. While the canon of political theory presupposes a continual dialectic of forward progress, our everyday experience seems to suggest the contrary; that we’re headed backwards.
Rather than championing a more multipolar, inclusive politics, it appears like we are regressing into the populist protectionism of yester-year. Despite this formal reversion, technologies of mass communication and control introduce a novel element into an otherwise antiquated mode of political subjectification.
The categories and terms which we use to describe the world are changing. Under post-modern conditions of production, the arena of politics has become obscene; yet the very fact of this obscenity seems somehow to underpin unique relations of power.
Trumpian politics underscore deep concerns with the status quo, causing me to wonder whether this represents a failure of liberalism, or if the possibility of authoritarianism has been present from the start. Either way, the quasi-utopian dream of a triumphantly permanent liberalism is increasingly threatened.
Luckily, it need not end at the hands of autocracy. While recent polling and electoral wins seem positive, even more impressive has been the mobilization of vast resources and labor in communal self-defense. If our political system must have its logical basis thrown into uncertainty, then new forms of organization must necessarily emerge.
The more intensely this administration forces its ahistorical worldview on the global stage, the more we find a disconnect between the will of the people and public policy. Projects of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and permanent war are the price of this imposed a-historocity. As Derrida said, these facts are impossible to ignore. Perhaps it was easier to tune out in the comfort of privilege and convenience, however, the political obscene has made one thing clear; this comfort was never a given.
A tacit acceptance that we exist in the best possible system, which for a long time permeated scholarly consensus, has been utilized to deny the prospects of alterity. Any political project which foregrounds cooperative agency is deemed utopian and naive.
Yet, as Trump ratchets up his commitment to undemocratic principles, it is crucial to see that the true naivety lies in the belief that this system built on inequality could maintain homeostasis forever.
Historical narratives of progress and perfection work to obscure the fundamentally open status of the future. Condemned forever to repeat the same at the end of time, our potential as historical agents is denied. Nevertheless, Trump’s pure obscenity has rendered some things clear; The system can and needs to change, and history will continue to unfold.
The myth of the complete, universalized society must be abandoned. If we are to prevent future abuse of power, we are obligated to face down our murky history and address the rudimentary flaws which allow this situation to arise in the first place.
While fears are stoked and questions mount over the potential demise of the current world order, it is important to first ask; what is really at stake here, and how can we establish a future consistent with our values?
Featured image: The New York Times
Leave a Reply