Split In The Road?

I would have to agree with you, Mr. Beerman: that is a "bold" theory, and I am also reluctant to take a piece of the cake. But why is it so bold? Has Mr. Fukuyama presented us with yet another piece of academic sensationalism, or, perhaps, are his words intimidating because they teeter on the realm of possibility?

I am inclined to believe the latter, but only to a certain extent. Democracy is indeed the best form of government presently available; however, that does not go so far as to say it's the ideal. As former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill stated, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." This, my friend, is why democracy will not lead to a historical vacuum in which man fails to recognize a temporal sense of direction. Democracies, as a result of their own inherent flaws - I shall spare you the trademark critique of "the masses" - will rise and fall with the current sentiments of the majority. In other words, just because 51% of the people vote as a bloc, they do not inevitably constitute a democracy. Ask the other 49%.

Let's consider a hypothetical: An open, democratic nation elects a president who, through various political manueverings, extends his executive power to the point of infringement upon the basic civil liberties of his supposed constituents. Does this sound like a democracy? I would argue, "no." The president is in fact elected, but he presides in a manner well beyond the role he was elected for. Thus, through a seemingly flawless transition, we move from a democracy to a pseudo-autocracy.

Oppurtunism, Mr. Beerman, will never permit democracy to take hold, nor will it allow mankind to reach "the teleological end of any process, no matter how mundane." For some, the razor is obsolete.