My cryptic reference to the last man 

My cryptic reference to the last man

At least two commenters on Bush's speech have linked it to Frances Fukuyama's argument, most famously captured in his book The End of History and the Last Man, that liberal, capitalist democracy is close to conquering the entire world. Oh yes, there would be that little problem of Islam to clear up .... (See Chris Suellentrop here, Roger Kimball here, Matthew Yglesias here; a gung-ho editorial in the Arizona Republic here).

The argument at least has a relationship to Hegel: tendencies that had earlier seemed contradictory, end up being synthesized into something different from, arguably better and more rational than, the older component parts. (Maybe its senility, but this suddenly reminds me of Dune, too). Every new synthesis--every major stage (never really constant or motionless) of civilization, somehow expresses human reason and attainment better than earlier ones; and we are now approaching the final one. Even Hegel wasn't convinced this was altogether a good thing; he said "the owl of Minerva flies at dusk"--the complete wisdom he had attained, because he lived at the time when it was becoming real in the world, could be seen as the end, rather than the beginning, of something great. In his Philosophy of Right he describes a modern constitutional, liberal democratic government (in some ways more European than American), which is stable and effective, but primarily protects individual rights. One might think we would be best off if this regime just keeps chugging along; but Hegel says we need a good war every so often.

Nietzsche radicalizes the downside of this argument: it is social democratic man, who wants no real struggle or challenge in life, who is taking over. Social programs to ease every transition or difficult decision in life; a pill to improve one's mood; a suicide pill when it all gets to be too much; tepid and limited relationships between these largely affectless yet self-absorbed individuals. Nietzsche refers to the culmination (apotheosis?) of this human development as "the last man"--picking up on Hegel's thought that "history has ended," but emphasizing dramatically how terrible that is for any real human accomplishment. Nietzsche looks forward to a war bigger than we have ever seen, in which all sides take huge risks: "a good war justifies any cause."

Bush defenders might say: it is blue state voters and Western Europe who want all those social programs; we want to cut back considerably on any guarantee of a comfortable retirement for workers, to say nothing of the chronically unemployed. We believe in standing on your own two feet, and allowing for the considerable influence of dumb luck (which in a way is the voice of God).

The best defence of Bush might be: he's not really a theocrat or mullahcrat at all; his speech isn't really a call for a democratic jihad. Like Reagan, he only believes a certain proportion of what he says, and he hides even from himself what that proportion is, or even that it needs to be calculated. Sistani in Iraq says he wants all law to be based on Islamic law, but he doesn't want the rule of the mullahs as in Iran. Maybe he and Bush aren't so far apart--and maybe this "red state" thinking is quite different from the last man. It certainly seems true that some degree of "red state" mixture of modernity--technology--democracy--old fashioned tradition/religion is much more prevalent in the world at large than Western European/blue state cool unenthusiastic secular rationalism. To paraphrase Anne Roche: how wonderful for the children to be shown an empty cradle at Christmas, so it can be carefully explained to them exactly why it is empty.

But somehow, looking at Bush, it seems to be all about feeling good. A little talk about God and "character" just makes the political gruel a little bit thicker--just thick enough to defeat liberal Democrats, who do seem to be floundering these days as to what they really stand for.

UPDATE: In fairness, the passages about character:

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.

In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.

From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?