RELIGION, NATION, MARRIAGE: THE LOYALTIES OF MEN
PRAY, WORK, STUDY, PROTECT: THE DUTIES OF MEN


Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Catholic Sociobiology: Patriarchal Fraternity and the Original Mission of Adam


[first published May 3, 2016]


by Dr. David Pence
                       
                                         

The path to world order is for man to be restored to his relationship with God, and men to be restored to our fraternal relationships with one another. We have a clear view of the permanent intimate relationship that man and woman form in marriage (as it was in the beginning "with Adam and Eve.") Before Genesis, we can see an equally dramatic image of the masculine fighting group as Michael and his Angels cast Satan and his demons from heaven. We do not see "in the beginning" territorial groups of men, united under God, turned against the Evil One who prowls about the world seeking the ruin of souls. The first brothers we see were disfigured by fratricide. Because the Evil One slipped into the Garden and disrupted the first couple, we don’t appreciate how the world was meant to be the battlefield where the communal masculine form of Adam and his sons was meant to meet and defeat the dark side. Not until Joseph reconciles with his brothers, and the the twelve tribes of Israel are united, do we get a hint of the masculine form of public communion inherent in our nature. This fraternal bond is sacralized when Christ picks the men of Galilee to become the new Twelve. The new Adam now is in union with his brothers as he leads them to do the will of the Father on earth as it is in heaven. This form of patriarchal fraternity will become the base communities that shape Europe as Benedict calls brothers together in obedience under a Father Abbot praying and working in the same place reinforced by that vow to local loyalty -- stability. There is a great deficit today in Catholic theology explaining the spiritual significance of a male priesthood, the episcopacy, and Petrine office. There is a corresponding anthropological deficit in explaining the fraternal character of nations and states by which territorial male groups protect and provide for a culture of life. These deficits are exacerbated by the spiritual corruption in today’s priesthood which has disfigured the primary icon of ordered masculine bonds which Christ commanded. He did not build his Church on familial bonds but fatherhood, filiation, and fraternity. He told the Apostles to love one another as the Father had loved Him, and as He had loved them.

Even if there had been no original sin, there was a fight which men were meant for, and a necessity for us to bond as brothers under the Father. Completing the exorcism by Michael and the angels on this earth where Satan was the prince of the world has always been part of man’s original job description. We know our natures were created for love and contemplation. It turns out that our natures were also created for righteous anger and contest. The public front of that contest is waged by men as a social body. And while the communio meant for intimate love and procreation is the male/female couple, the communio meant for public contest is the male group under a leader. The emotions men experience in search of social recognition as well as our thirst for justice and our anger at predators are meant to motivate the formation of social hierarchies engaged in protective action. It was all foreordained in The Original Mission of Adam and his sons. It has been perfected in the coming of the new Adam and his formation of the Church built on the living stones of the Apostolic Covenant in the priesthood. This socio-biological reality of the Father’s love made manifest in a holy brotherhood is promulgated in history through the sacred male covenants of the nations.



Monday, November 7, 2016

Map on Monday: TRUMP AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

by A. Joseph Lynch

The 18 "Blue Wall" States and the 24 states Mitt Romney won in 2012

The map above displays the 18 states comprising the Democrats' "Blue Wall" and the 24 states carried by Mitt Romney in 2012. The Blue Wall states - which have voted for Democrat presidential candidates in the past six presidential elections - give Hillary Clinton 242 electoral votes out of 270 electoral votes needed for victory. Of these Blue Wall states, only Wisconsin (10), Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20), and Maine's 2nd Congressional District (1) are seen as possible wins for Trump. If history is the judge, it seems likely that the Democrats will hold their Blue Wall in this election.

As to the 24 states that Romney won, Trump is likely to win 23. North Carolina is the toss-up. Most polls put it as "lean Democrat" and there is a good chance that Trump will fail to win the state. If this Romney-red state flips blue, Trump must flip a Blue Wall state in order to compensate.

If we take the Blue Wall and the Romney states as our foundation, Hillary stands at 242 electoral votes and Trump has 206.

Of the 8 remaining states, Ohio (18) and Florida (29) are must-win states for Trump. While polls have him up in Ohio, Florida is a much tighter race. Without Florida, Trump stands no chance of winning.

Trump wins in Ohio and Florida, however, do not guarantee a Trump presidency.

If Trump takes the Romney states as well as both Ohio and Florida, his electoral count would stand at 253. He would still need another 16 electoral votes to tie (and with a Republican-controlled Congress, a tie is still a Trump win) and 17 electoral votes for an electoral college win. Cobbling together 16-17 electoral votes means Trump will need to win 3 of the 6 remaining states in play.
Where are these votes most likely to come?

Recent polls have put Trump up in Iowa (6), Nevada (6), and New Hampshire (4). These three states give him a tying total of 269 votes. If Trump were to win Maine's 2nd Congressional District - where he is up by three points - he would reach 270 from a state that splits its electoral votes. Colorado at the moment is tied, but remains another source of 9 votes for Trump.

All of this depends, of course, on Trump winning Ohio and Florida while retaining North Carolina. If Trump does not win both North Carolina and Florida, his path to the White House is closed.

In a narrow Trump win, the map could look something like this:

Trump's path to the White House requires he hold North Carolina, win Ohio and Florida, and gain 16 electoral votes from states won by President Obama in 2012. 

Current polling seems to suggest Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Maine's 2nd Congressional District are Trump's best chances for 16-17 additional votes.

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Religion and Geopolitics Review: Saturday, November 5

by Dr. David Pence and A. Joseph Lynch


I. POPE FRANCIS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

CATHOLIC SPRING: Recent Wikileaks emails to Hillary Clinton campaign boss John Podesta talk about a "Catholic Spring" to try to get the Catholic Church more in line with the sexual ideology of the Democratic Party. Catholic News Agency asks if there is more to this story. We will take up this question after the election, but we are not sure the Catholic Church is the victim of Democrats. Is it possible that the sexual revolutionaries in mainline Protestant churches, as well as dissident priest and nuns in  the Catholic Church, degraded the short-lived white working class and Black Baptist alliance of the Democratic Party? The Catholic priesthood became a center of homosexuality long before the trade unions. And Catholic sisters rejecting a Marian femininity while embracing the shrillest anti-patriarchy theology preceded Hillary for President by 40 years. The corruption of our religious orders and the priesthood especially in terms of sexual identity became the engine for the middle-class feminist revolt against the working men and the anti-communist patriots once represented politically by the Democratic party. The theme we will explore is that the revolution against the patriarchy of God and the sacred started in the churches and bled into the political parties.

STORY BEHIND THE STORY - WE DON'T KNOWSulpicians leave San Francisco Seminary - is this good or bad? Like almost all issues of seminary formation and changes in Catholic clerical leadership, the real story is behind the headlines. There is a story here. We don’t know it. In general, modern Sulpician formation has been light on priestly holiness, heavy on psychobabble, and deeply implicated by the lavender influence. They remain at Catholic University where their tie to the notorious homophilic St. Luke Institute is damning indeed. The Archbishop of San Francisco is Salvatore Cordileone, who replaced the Sulpician rector of the seminary soon after he was installed as San Francisco’s first masculine bishop in a half century.

POPE FRANCIS ON FINALITY OF NO PRIESTLY ORDINATION OF WOMENIt doesn’t get any clearer - but why is the NCR the only one reporting with headlines? This is another example of "conservative intellectuals" and their media outlets ignoring the clarity and orthodoxy  of Pope Francis.

SACRED MUSICStravinsky and the sacred.

CHRISTIAN POLITICAL REVIVAL IN SOUTH AMERICA: Will it be the Protestants who lead the South American nations away from those failed movements of the modern West: Marxism, and libertine atheistic feminism? An evangelical mayor from Brazil proposes a new synthesis. He is Rio de Janeiro’s newly elected mayor, Marcelo Cribella.

THE CUBS ON ALL SOULS DAY END THEIR 108 YEAR VIGIL
The Chicago Cubs won the seventh game of the World Series against the Cleveland Indians on November 2, 2016. All week, though, Cub fans had been honoring the dead. Was there any more beautiful sign of remembrance and love for our ancestors than the commitment of Cub fans to bring the symbols of the long awaited victory to the graves of their parents? Their forefathers instilled that loyalty in them during a century in the desert. They were not forgotten in the season of deliverance. Let us live life fully. Let us remember the dead.


II. ISLAM AND THE MIDDLE EAST

SAUDI ARABIA - THE REAL ENEMY: Is the US reconsidering its aid to Saudis in Yemen? There was new outrage at a deliberate strike of a funeral of the father of a high Houthi official with many other non-Houthi leaders  present and endangered while paying their respects.
A Catholic priest escapes ISIS - his simple message to the world: "Stop supporting Saudi Arabia.”

The Saudi feud with Gaddafi and the media which fed the narrative leading to the Libyan intervention. One especially binding link with the Saudis is arms dealers and US-made weapons.

The Saudis are committed by their brand of Islam to degrade any possible Shiite state or armed defense of a Shiite community. The Saudis have never recognized the post-Saddam Iraq government because of its Shiite majority. It has pushed for war with its primary Shiite rival: Iran. It now bombs the Houthi Shiites across the border in Yemen. The Sauds are long-time friends of the Bush family. They are huge donors to American universities, foreign policy think tanks, and the Clinton Foundation (10 to 25 million dollars).

The policy of Saudi Arabia for now is consonant with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu who named Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq as Israel’s greatest enemies in the Mideast. Siding with the jihadist wing of Sunni Islam has taken pressure off the Israeli Palestine fault line and focused armed opposition against Iran. Israel has basically been at war with Iran since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. The Israelis also have a serious armed enemy in the Shiite forces in Lebanon organized as Hezbollah. The anti-Shiite policy of the Wahhabi cult in Saudi Arabia is a dangerous but effective ally for Israel for now. This should not be US policy however. We do not consider Iraq and Afghanistan among our most serious enemies. This is the great contradiction at the heart of US policy as another presidential election passes without an open debate on the matter. When the election is over, however, there are going to be many forces ready to realign the relations of America with Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Syria and Israel. The overwhelming source of jihadist terrorism in the world is NOT Iran. It is the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia and their counterparts in Pakistan. The attacks of 9/11 should have been a wake-up call that American interests and the Saudi strategy had become diametrically opposed. The need for candidate support and party consolidation during the election has muted a building anti-Saud coalition of honest journalists, 9/11 victim families, the anti-war left and the non-interventionist right. No matter who is elected, these forces will be unleashed after November 8th.

HOW NATIONS ARE MADE WHEN MEN HAVE DIFFERENT RELIGIONS: Iraq’s Band of Brothers.


III. PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS

FBI REOPENS EMAIL INVESTIGATION: Maybe all those prayers stirred the consciences of our lawmen and the mercy of God. It is mindful of another nation being chased into the Red Sea with hardly a hope when a sudden act of God intervened to save them. In the end, we are in God’s hands  but He still requires that we assemble at the edge of the sea where he can work his miracle.  Our best argument for Mr Trump.   A compilation of the best election arguments we have read--Summing up Mr. Trump. 

CAMILLE PAGLIA ON HILLARY CLINTON: An interview.

RUSSELL MOORE ON THE RELIGIOUS RIGHTFirst Things editor R.R. Reno has revitalized political writing in the magazine with some excellent insights on nations and the present election. Unfortunately, none of this was displayed in Russell Moore’s Erasmus Lecture. When Christian leaders decry the sins of Donald Trump in terms of degrading speech and unsolicited touch, rather than condemn his adultery, there is something to suspect. The pastor is using someone else’s metric. There is no outcry against adultery but outrage about his touch initiatives because the modernist is not offended by disloyalty between consenting adults. Pastor Moore’s approach to Trump was incoherent in terms of a biblical approach by a prophet to the would-be-king. A very nice man is Baptist leader Russell Moore, but his silence as a religious leader about the role of our nation in the war against jihadists is damning evidence that the ever-narrowing conversation of George Weigel and Pastor Moore in Robbie George’s living room will not produce a biblical response for the men of our nation in this present crisis. The purpose of the preacher is to call men to attention to hear the word and live it out in establishing the Kingship of Christ. Donald Trump has been significantly more aggressive about defending  persecuted Christians with real political force than any of the purists who find him so revolting. While the white conservative Christian  intellectual elite  gathered in New York to praise themselves, across the world many dark-skinned Christians prayed that the less pure more vigorous American would lead his nation to militarily protect them from the demonic jihadists at their doors.

FROM A RESPONSE TO MOORE BY SUSANNAH BLACK: Her criticism of his lack of political sensibility other than the prophetic is remarkably astute. Her understanding that "God cares about the nations even after the birth of the Church" is illuminating. Her appreciation of such categories exposes the depressing poverty of Moore’s lecture.
"Moore’s notion of Christians speaking in the public sphere seems to be almost exclusively church people, churchmen, speaking prophetically against the state. A Christian literally in politics, in power, is deeply weird to him and weird along the same angle as a Christian reasoning with a 'prince' rather than speaking prophetically to him. A society where Christians have a role other than speaking prophetically and living private church lives would, I think, freak him out.

The antipolitical stance that goes along with this prophetic stance carries another problem too. Here’s the thing: Many of us, many Christians, have many, many, many non-Christian friends and family members. We are bound to them with the kinds of human ties of common life that are the seeds of political association. We do projects with them. I’ve recently just cleaned out my basement, for example, alongside my family, who are not Christians. Then we made pot roast. We laughed and strategized and were human together. To deny that Christians can act politically in the world, to say that worldly politics is wicked only, seems to me to imply that all friendship, all collaboration, all common life with non-Christians is fake.

There’s another problem, this one less relational, though not less important. To say that Christians can only act politically or can speak to politicians in a prophetic mode implicitly denies that we can read or understand history as history. There’s a weird balance to be struck here: We mustn’t shove God out of post-New-Testament history. One of the reasons that we should read books like Hilaire Belloc’s Europe and the Faith is the sense he gives of God not having stopped caring about nations after the birth of the Church: God acts in history in the birth and adventures of the nations too. Warren Carroll does this in a more lurid and cheeseball way in his jillion-page History of Christendom. But the supernatural element to history must not drown our ability to understand it in common with our non-Christian fellow memory-bearing humans. Ordinary historical understanding, ordinary research, ordinary political history counts too. And to reject politics is to reject this kind of common remembering. We need both."
Mrs. Black gets at the heart of the history and polity discussion that is central to the Christian realism of Christopher Dawson and Russell Hittinger and sadly lacking in most First Things writing these days.

THE ALT RIGHT AND WHITE NATIONALISM: A good review by Scott McConnell at American Conservative.

THE CHAIN OF BEING AND THE ECLIPSE OF GOD: Why the right without God is a loser.


IV. R&G ROUND UP - CULTURE OF LIFE, CULTURE OF PROTECTION, AND THE NATIONS

LOOKING FOR A THEOCENTRIC CULTURE: In 1978, Solzhenitsyn caused great controversy when he criticized the secularism and hedonism of the West in his famous commencement address at Harvard University. Condemning the nations of the so-called free West for being morally bankrupt, he urged that it was time "to defend not so much human rights as human obligations." The emphasis on rights instead of responsibilities was leading to "the abyss of human decadence" and to the committing of "moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror." At the root of the modern malaise was the modern philosophy of "rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy," which declared the "autonomy of man from any higher authority above him." Such a view "could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the centre of all."

MANENT ON THE DEEPER BONDS: Pierre Manent, one of France’s most renowned liberal intellectuals, formerly an associate of Raymond Aron, on the slaughter last July of 85-year-old Catholic priest Jacques Hamel outside Rouen:
The French are exhausted, but they are first of all perplexed, lost. Things were not supposed to happen this way. … We had supposedly entered into the final stage of democracy where human rights would reign, ever more rights ever more rigorously observed. We had left behind the age of nations as well as that of religions, and we would henceforth be free individuals moving frictionless over the surface of the planet. … And now we see that religious affiliations and other collective attachments not only survive but return with a particular intensity.
JAPAN AND RUSSIA (ABE AND PUTIN) TO MEET TO SETTLE BORDERS AND END WWII: Resolving the border island ownership is a festering wound that neither statesman wants to pass to the next generation. Abe and Putin to meet.

Friday, November 4, 2016

Friday BookReview: SOLZHENITSYN



[first published January 29, 2016]





"I have the strength to face all conditions by the power that Christ gives me." (Saint Paul's Letter to the Philippians)


The following lines are from the beginning of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich:
"At five o'clock that morning reveille was sounded, as usual, by the blows of a hammer on a length of rail hanging up near the staff quarters. The intermittent sounds barely penetrated the windowpanes on which the frost lay two fingers thick... 
The clanging ceased, but everything outside still looked like the middle of the night when Ivan Denisovich Shukhov got up to go to the bucket... 
Shukhov never overslept reveille. He always got up at once, for the next ninety minutes, until they assembled for work, belonged to him, not to the authorities, and any old-timer could always earn a bit -- by sewing a pair of mittens for someone out of old sleeve lining; or bringing some rich loafer in the squad his dry [felt boots]... 
Shukhov always arose at reveille. But this day he didn't. He had felt strange the evening before, feverish, with pains all over his body. He hadn't been able to get warm all through the night. Even in his sleep he had felt at one moment that he was getting seriously ill, at another that he was getting better. He had wished morning would never come. 
But the morning came as usual."

                                                             
When Minnesota's winter winds start blowing -- and I impatiently hunt down my long underwear in the morning, or curse the cold car with its frosted windows -- I realize it is time to pick up my copy of Doctor Zhivago or Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's tale of Ivan Denisovich.
                                         
Great sons of Mother Russia, such as Solzhenitsyn (who died in Moscow in 2008), can quickly help a Westerner put things into perspective.

The power of this story -- of Ivan, a typical zek trying to survive the relentless sufferings of Siberian imprisonment -- knocks me over every time I read it.

Here is Ivan taking pride in his work of laying block, surrounded by frozen tundra:
"At the spot he was working on, the wall had previously been laid by some mason who was either incompetent or had stunk up the job. But now Shukhov tackled the wall as if it was his own handiwork. There, he saw, was a cavity that couldn't be leveled up in one row; he'd have to do it in three, adding a little more mortar each time. And here the outer wall bellied a bit -- it would take two rows to straighten that."
One of the supporting characters in the novel is Alyosha, a faithful Baptist whose demeanor is a quiet challenge to Ivan to be better:
"You could count on Alyosha. Did whatever was asked of him. If everybody in the world was like that, Shukhov would have done likewise. If a man asks for help why not help him? Those Baptists had something there."

[I was amazed recently, while driving through suburban Saint Paul, to see a large new "Russian Baptist" church.]


And this from the closing pages:
"Head on the pillow, stuffed with shavings of wood; feet in jacket sleeve; coat on top of blanket and -- Glory be to Thee, O Lord. Another day over. Thank You I'm not spending tonight in the [punishment] cells. Here it's still bearable. 
"He lay with his head near the window, but Alyosha, who slept next to him on the same level, across a low wooden railing, lay the opposite way, to catch the light. He was reading his Bible again."


With his wife Natalia


Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was born in 1918, several months after his father had died. He was raised by his mother and an aunt.

After serving as an artillery captain in World War II, he was arrested for criticizing Joseph Stalin in private letters -- and served more than eight years in assorted prison camps.

Exiled from the USSR in 1974, he was unable to return to his homeland for twenty years.




I remember being enthralled, as a teenager, picking up the Minneapolis Tribune newspaper during the many days they ran selections from The Gulag Archipelago -- the towering nonfiction account of the Soviet labor camps.

A few of its most famous lines:

*  "Bless you prison, bless you for being in my life... I came to realize that the object of life is not prosperity as we are made to believe, but the maturity of the human soul."

    *  "It was granted me to carry away from my prison years on my bent back, which nearly broke beneath its load, this essential experience; how a human being becomes evil and how good. In the intoxication of youthful successes I had felt myself to be infallible, and I was therefore cruel. In the surfeit of power I was a murderer, and an oppressor. In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments. And it was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains… an un-uprooted small corner of evil."


    In 1978 Mr. Solzhenitsyn was invited by Harvard to deliver the commencement address:
    "A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage... Must one point out that from ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the first symptom of the end? ...  
    "It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations... No, I could not recommend your society as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through deep suffering, people in our own country have now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive...  
    "On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility. We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West... Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism."



    UPDATE: When Cardinal Robert Sarah was asked by a recent interviewer whether he wasn't being too harsh about the increasing sterility and 'spiritual destitution' of the Western nations as they turn their backs on God -- he quoted from one of Solzhenitsyn's books:
    "The Western world has arrived at a decisive moment... You have forgotten the meaning of liberty. When Europe acquired it, around the eighteenth century, it was a sacred notion. Liberty led to virtue and heroism. You have forgotten that... For this ghost of the former liberty, you are no longer capable of making sacrifices but only compromises... You are engaged in a formidable battle, and you behave as though it were a ping pong match."
                       

    Thursday, November 3, 2016

    Christian Realism: An Honest man without God—the Dilemma of Francis Fukuyama [part 1]


    [first published May 12, 2016]


    by David Pence


    Francis Fukuyama writes big books about big subjects. His father was an American-born son of a Japanese father who had fled conscription during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905. His paternal grandparents were interned during the Second World War, but his dad and aunts were in Midwest colleges and thus spared. His father became a Congregational minister who then received a degree in sociology at the University of Chicago, and became a college Religious Studies professor. In all the many interviews with Professor Fukuyama no one thought it interesting to ask if his father’s movement from being a Christian minister to a teacher of Religious Studies meant that he had traded believing and praying to Christ for studying about religion as a sociological function.

    Mr. Fukuyama’s mother came to the United States after WWII from her homeland in Japan. Francis was an only child, and remembers from many dinner-table conversations that he was more conservative than his father. Fukuyama received a BA in Classics at Cornell where he was shaped by his academic encounter with Allan Bloom (Closing of the American Mind). He spent a year in France and came in contact with Jacques Derrida, which left him with an intellectual and visceral distaste for the deconstructionist project. At Harvard he turned to political science and was inspired by Samuel Huntington (Soldier and State, The Clash of Civilizations). Unlike most professors but similar to Bloom, Huntington was cross-disciplinary. He asked big questions and proposed synthesizing paradigms. Fukuyama’s voracious intellect has been moved to do the same. (CNN world affairs journalist Fareed Zakaria is another student of Huntington.) After his studies, Fukuyama worked in policy development at the State Department and at the Rand Corporation. He wrote his doctoral thesis on the Soviet Union in the Mideast.

    In 1989 as the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union imploded, the 37-year-old Fukuyama was invited by his old teacher Alan Bloom to give a lecture at the University of Chicago called "The End of History?"  His talk was a rare combination of history and classical political philosophy that was not well understood by later critics, but the lecture won the social recognition of his old teacher.  A "neoconservative" journal, The National Interest, published Fukuyama’s subsequent article "The End of History?" and the author was lionized and demonized into that rare but relished social niche: a true public intellectual. In 1992 Fukuyama published The End of History and the Last Man as a book, and in 2006 re-published with a new afterword. The question mark in the earlier essay was gone.
             

    Fukuyama’s thesis was that liberal democracy might be "an endpoint of human ideological evolution" and the "final form of human government." Georg Hegel (German philosopher of history: 1770-1831), Karl Marx (German philosopher, author of Communist Manifesto: 1818-1883) and Alexandre Kojeve (Russian-born French philosopher / Hegelian: 1902-1968) all agreed that the history of human social organization was moving toward some final end... with Karl Marx seeing this as the falling away of the state and the emergence of the classless society of Communism. Mr. Fukuyama was acutely aware of what is largely forgotten today -- that this Marxist vision of the grand narrative of human history  was shared by a large portion of university intellectuals until the great unraveling of the Soviet Union. His essay had an ironic bite for the Marxist intellectuals: "Hey guys, guess things didn’t work out in the countries that tried communism as well as in your classrooms." An understated element in his paper was the simple acknowledgement that the inevitability of communism no longer qualified as being on "the right side of history." Unlike post-modern deconstructionists and foreign policy realists, Fukuyama was not going to leave the matter there. He proposed with a question mark that possibly liberal democracy and free markets were the real end form of historical social organization. They offered the best forms to achieve liberty and equality -- two of the driving forces in history. The "end of history" didn’t mean "events were coming to an end." It didn’t even mean that liberal democracies would prevail everywhere in the next 50 years. His argument was first that there is a Human History with a big H. That is true because there is a human nature. These were philosophical statements which were especially aimed at the dominant school in international relations: the so-called realists. He notes (in a chapter 'The Unreality of Realism'): "…theorists of international relations talk as if history did not exist—for example as if war and imperialism were permanent aspects of the human horizon…While all other aspects of human social environment—religion, the family economic organization, concepts of political legitimacy—are subject to historical evolution, international relations is forever identical to itself; war is eternal." This is a crucial distinction between Fukuyama and the so-called realists who dominate international relations in academia. Fukuyama’s teacher Allan Bloom also believes in human nature and the triumph of the West. In his summation of  his student’s "bold and brilliant article," he said:
    "As Fukuyama underlines, it is the ideas of freedom
    and equality that have animated the West and have
    won by convincing almost all nations that they are
    true, by destroying the intellectual and political
    foundations of alternative understandings of justice.
    The challenges to the West from fascism and
    communism were also ideas, formulated to oppose
    the success of the historical embodiments of
    Enlightenment principles which swept the world
    after the American and French Revolutions."

    Fukuyama adds another quite unsuspected element to his analysis when he agrees with Hegel and Kojeve that the Anglo-Saxon theorists of liberal democracy who seek a political order that satisfies reason and desire in man are ignoring a key element of the human soul. That is the drive for recognition lodged in the thumos where spiritedness and courage also abide. "Economic interpretations of history are incomplete and unsatisfying," says Fukuyama, "because man is not simply an economic animal. It is for this reason the book turns to a second parallel account of the historical process…an account that seeks to recover the whole of man…to do this we return to Hegel’s non-materialist account of History based on 'the struggle for recognition.' "

    And in this struggle the liberal democracy and free market has been the best system not only to be rational, and meet desires but to offer an equality of recognition—the homogenous state in which each and all are accorded the stature men seek. As Bloom says: "Everything that stood in the way of the reciprocal recognition of men’s dignity as men always and everywhere has been buried by history i.e. the supra-rational claims of religion, nation, family, and race. For the first time there is no contradiction between our reason and our duties or loyalties. Thus the world is now a feast for reason replacing piety.”
       
    {Part Two next week}