March 12, 2006

The Ends Of History

Francis Fukuyama recently wrote a weirdly clueless piece for the Grauniad where he tells us all why he feels that after (sic!) the Iraq war neoconservatism has evolved into something he can no longer support. What strikes me as clueless about it is his belief that neoconservatism was ever about much else than power for power's sake — has Fukuyama really made the beginner's mistake of taking neocon rhetoric and ideology (including his own) at face value? He believes that the Iraq war and the war on terrorism (sic) show that neoconservatism has lost its moral compass or direction, but the sort of mess Iraq is in is exactly the sort of predictable consequence of neoconservative ideology — and what could be more intoxicating than conspicuous hypocrisy and being able to promote destruction and death from afar without taking any responsibility for it or suffering the consequences? What could be more indicative of sheer power than that? Why else pick fights in Iraq, or over the environment, or against your own people, than for power's sake? Unless, of course, your ideology (and moral compass) was wrong right from the start… or that you were clueless to begin with.


Post a Comment

<< Home

www Tight Sainthood