In some ways, Fukuyama says, he has been “trapped” by the ideological cul-de-sac in which his claims regarding the “End of History” have placed him. Though he still stands behind the assertion that liberal democracy is the eventual destination of history, he has qualified his argument and narrowed the scope of his ideological triumphalism, postponing the arrival of liberal democracy to the indefinite “long run”. He would not, he tells me, use the same heightened rhetoric today that he used in 1989..
Even the societies in which a proper balance of democracy, rule of law and an effective state has been struck in the past are susceptible to political decay when rent-seeking extractive elite coalitions capture the state, as has happened in the US. The failure of democratic institutions to function properly can delegitimise democracy itself and lead to authoritarian reaction, as happened in the former Soviet Union.
A classic example of an intellectual lightweight over hyped by the dimwits who inhabit the Washington Beltway to give themselves some sort of credibility. A product of the rolling news sound bite culture... "a rock star"? Who - Nigel Tufnell?
"had learned" - someone (who?) had told his friend? - his friend had heard a rumour?
"would translate" - it hasn't happened yet then.
“They take the analysis seriously,” - maybe they just think that they can benefit from an understanding of the facile or misguided or self-delusionary or just plain wrong analysis - or maybe they just think it's funny.
The Future of History: By Francis Fukuyama