Can someone please tell me why anyone should give any credence what-so-ever to what Francis Fukuyama has to say, let alone buy his books?
The guy is a professor at Johns Hopkins University and cranks out books like pasta, probably on the university’s dollar; but he changes is ideological clothes like an adolescent in the midst of his political pubescence.
A mere seven, or so, years ago he was riding posse with the like of William Kristol, Robert Kagen, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and the other neofascists, to whom, in accordance with their self promotions, everyone refers to as neoconservatives.
Fukuyama, along with the aforementioned fanatics, signed onto the 1998 letter to then President Clinton encouraging U. S. military action to remove Hussein; and now, after his fellow travelers have completely botched the job, in his latest trope, from within his academic insulation, he is lecturing us on the failures of his previous ideology de jour.
I suppose that since his latest pedantic offering is getting lots of play in the media Johns Hopkins will give him a raise. Or maybe name a chair after the hack.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Nice to hear from you El Macho.
The excerpt from his book is what elicited my post on the subject. Don’t get me wrong, I agree that the, so called, idealistic Wilsonian, presbyterian approach to USA foreign policy is s just that - an ideal. The neofascist, who fancy themselves Straussian philosophers, would realize such if they had studied U. S. history, instead of estoteric Straussian (Plato/Machiavellian wannabe) fascist, political theory.
Wilson, himself, learned the folly of his presbyterian ideal, from his decision to send USA troops to Mexico on behalf of Mexican insurgents only to have the insurgents turn their attention to driving the USA invaders from their country.
I actually agree with much of what Fukuyama, except for his repeated suggestions that U.S. foreign policy has historically been based upon the objectives of promoting democracy. I suspect the residents of Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba, and just about every other Latin American and Caribbean nation, whose legitimate governments have been deposed by USA government action, would argue the point.
I also think Fukuyama’s recounting the roots of so called “neoconservatism” movement could have been lifted from innumerable previous offerings on the subject. It’s really, really old news.
But what really galls me about his trope, is that the guy is an adult; and a university professor, for crying out loud. Shouldn’t he have settled his ideological perspective by now? How could the guy think in 1998 that the Wilsonian model was viable, and decide to mount up with the whacko posse?
I can’t help but think that Fukuyama would be singing an entirely different tune if things had gone swimmingly in Iraq.
Why do I get so worked up over such things? The guy’s just making a living, after all; he has a gig, just like Pat Robertson, Bill O’Reilly, and everyone else who has found a way to separate fools from their money.
Tonight, a week’s worth of Carnaval partying begins with the Burning of the Bad Moods in La Plaza de Independencia. I will throw my thoughts of Francis Fukuyama into the fire.
Post a Comment