Australia is approaching American levels of anger. Here’s how we defuse the bomb
Peter Hartcher is political editor and international editor
Francis Fukuyama didn’t get annoyed with me for accusing him of being almost unAmerican. Probably the world’s most famous political scientist, he was born in the USA and lives there still. I wasn’t charging him with treacherous loyalties or politics but of an almost unAmerican modesty.
He is, notoriously, the author of The End of History and the Last Man, published 34 years ago and still selling in many languages around the world. The first half of the book’s title has been used by the leaders of the great powers and high school debaters and innumerable others in between. Not to embrace it but, almost universally, to reject it. “It might be the most maligned, unfairly dismissed and misunderstood book of the post-war era,” wrote Paul Sagar of King’s College, London.
Critics denounced the idea that liberal democracy’s triumph over communism could have delivered the ultimate model for society – “the final form of human government”. The concept of the “end of history” was rejected by dictators and democrats alike. Including Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden. Margaret Thatcher is supposed to have heard the book’s title and expostulated: “The end of history? The beginning of nonsense.”
Fukuyama has borne all this stoically, patiently. “I have been asked several times a week over the past three decades whether I wished to recant my argument,” he writes in his new book. “None of the individuals asking have read more than the title of my essay or book. In particular, none bothered to read the last five chapters of my book, which dealt with the problem of the Last Man.”
He’s never attacked his critics personally or rushed to defend himself. Famous American public figures are not known for their restraint. But that’s only the beginning of his modesty. He might well have titled his new book I Was Right. Because he has never argued that events, history-making events, would cease. He has never claimed that economic and political liberalism would go unchallenged. Only that events wouldn’t produce a better alternative. For the simple reason that the main locomotive of history is the human struggle for recognition.
Where Marx said it’s all about material gain, Fukuyama says that it’s truly about our craving for recognition of our fundamental dignity. “For most of human history, this led to an unequal contest between masters and slaves, until the advent of the French Revolution, which established the principle of equal recognition as the only rational solution to the human problem,” says Fukuyama.
It’s not a new idea. The ancient Greeks called this innate desire for recognition “thymos”. The phrase “the end of history” itself is taken from the work of a Russian-born philosopher, Alexandre Kojeve, who died in 1968. Funnily enough, Margaret Thatcher mocked Fukuyama’s title but actually shared his conclusion that political and economic liberalism are the best form of human organisation. Biden, too, yet he feared China’s challenge to its survival.
And who is offering a better vision for the organising of society? Right-wing populists are good at demolition but unable to build anything better. “These right-wing populist parties aren’t good at governing and they don’t deliver what they promise,” Fukuyama tells me. “Look at Brexit. They didn’t change the level of immigration one bit.” Trump, of course, is the prime exhibit. Promising no new wars and lower prices, he’s delivered the exact opposite.
And the left has no coherent vision, either. Young Americans are reviving talk of communism: “The word is being thrown around by kids who don’t know what it means.” Progressives in the US, notably the Democratic Socialists of America, have a nonsensical grab-bag of what Fukuyama calls “small bore” ideas like free bus rides and taxing billionaires together with unrealistically radical proposals to “defund the police” and abolish the Senate.
Doesn’t China present an alternative model to liberal democracy? “There are still big questions about both the political and economic sustainability of the China model. If they are still doing well relative to the US in another generation, then I would concede it may be a real alternative, though one that will be hard to universalise.”
So how to explain today’s wild political thrashings? “The absence of plausible visions for a better future society means that politicians and activists have to whip people into panic over how bad the present it.” A “focus on real reform is boring”. The great struggles of ideology and history had been fought and won, and now people “struggle for the sake of struggle”. “We see this now on both the extreme right and left”.
Fukuyama acknowledges that extreme inequality is a problem that needs redressing. But populist anger, he says, is “driven much more by resentment against a society that does not distribute respect equally”. It demands a redistribution of respect. That doesn’t require a revolution.
Which brings us to the Last Man. His new book is titled In the Realm of the Last Man, a place we’ve been living in for some time now. “The problem,” according to Fukuyama, “is that the peace and prosperity brought about by a liberal order based on equal recognition is not enough for many people. “They do not want to be recognised as the equals of every other person on earth; they want to be recognised as superior in some respect.” Fukuyama nominated Donald Trump as the standout example, even in his original book.
Not content with thymos, Trump demands megadoses of thymos, a condition Fukuyama calls “megalothymia”. He didn’t foresee Trump as president but, as Paul Sagar attests, “he got closer than most” in recognising the personality that would thrive In the Realm of the Last Man. Fukuyama’s modesty is such that, in his new book, he doesn’t remind us of this prescience.
Australia, after a 10-year lag, seems to be approaching American levels of populist anger. Fukuyama, who has travelled a number of times to Australia, offers this as his only advice to us. The mainstream parties, he says, “ought to think about alliances” with One Nation. “That defanged populist parties in Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands. It’s distasteful but it reduces their impact.” Perhaps that’s why Pauline Hanson rejects the idea of any coalition with the Liberals.
Fukuyama’s suggestion of enfolding the far right is the exact opposite of the German “firewall” policy, under which mainstream parties refuse any coalition with the far-right Alternative for Deutschland.
Fukuyama notes the attack on Australia’s Helen Haines last week, a symptom of “social” media and political anger. He says he fears more violence could follow the US midterm elections next week: “There’s a lot of anger and hidden violence in the way we deal with each other. If the Republicans lose control of Congress, Trump won’t move to the centre and be more reasonable. He will accelerate his threats and the crazy things he wants to do to his enemies. “I am a little worried about this period after the midterms. It’s surprising that there haven’t been more acts of violence and attempted assassinations.”
A final measure of his modesty is his generosity in attributing his success to others, including an Australian intellectual, the late Owen Harries: “Owen played an important part in my life.” As the editor of a Washington journal, Harries spotted Fukuyama’s talent and commissioned him to write the essay that formed the basis for The End of History and the Last Man.
Accused of modesty, Fukuyama just chuckles: “Imagine if I were Donald Trump.” The world is oversupplied with Trumps. Even America’s voters seem to be reaching the same conclusion.
Peter Hartcher is political editor and international editor of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
Minns puts daylight between NSW and federal Labor as One Nation surges
Phillip CooreyPolitical editor
NSW Premier Chris Minns intends to keep differentiating himself from the Albanese government ahead of the March state election, declaring a surging One Nation had become the unofficial opposition.
Minns, who has repeatedly rubbed up against Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on issues ranging from budget management to climate policy, was clinging to minority government amid growing concern within NSW Labor that the state party was being dragged down by the federal government’s unpopularity.
Nothing to see here: Chris Minns and Anthony Albanese at the NRL grand final early this month.
On Tuesday, Minns effectively dismissed the prospects of the NSW Coalition opposition, saying the key battle on March 13 next year would be between his government and One Nation.
Reflecting on a new poll that showed federal support for One Nation in the Hunter region had surged to 33 per cent, with state support about the same, Minns said “that’s the truth” when asked whether One Nation was now the unofficial opposition.
“By any measure, [One Nation NSW leader] Mike Newman will either be the premier or the opposition leader after March 13,” Minns told 2GB Radio.
“Now, I’m a Labor person; I’m not a One Nation supporter. I don’t say that lightly. But you can’t look at 12 months’ worth of polls, poll after poll, and say, ‘oh, but look, when people actually get in the polling booth, they’re going to do something completely different’.
“When has that ever been the case?”
A NSW government source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the tarnished Labor brand in Victoria was also a liability, but confirmed Minns would maintain a centre-right agenda in contrast with what he viewed as the Albanese government’s centre-left agenda.
A month ago, just after federal government spending was blamed in part for the Reserve Bank lifting interest rates, Minns took a veiled swipe at Canberra, stressing his administration had exercised fiscal restraint and made tough decisions to offset new spending to avoid stoking inflation.
This month, Minns also celebrated the 19-year extension of a massive coal mine in the Hunter Valley as a major win for regional jobs, shrugging off the regulator’s estimate that it would add 800,000 tonnes of carbon emissions, in stark contrast to the federal government’s focus on decarbonisation.
The state government also promised to rush new laws through parliament to approve another major coal extension in the Hunter to counteract a High Court ruling on emissions that threatened to stop the project.
It defied the federal government by moving to include gas in its capacity investment scheme.
Before that, the premier also differentiated himself from federal Labor by speaking in favour of a clampdown on immigration, arguing NSW – especially Sydney, which received the bulk of new arrivals – did not have the housing or infrastructure to cope.
Federal One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce did not dispute the poll numbers, which a Labor source said accorded with its internal research, but warned against hubris.
“I’m happy with the situation, but I’ll never take anything for granted,” said Joyce.
“Let’s focus on tomorrow before we focus on whether we’ll become ministers or not.”
The polling was commissioned by Advent Energy, which holds the petroleum exploration permit-11 off the NSW Hunter and Central Coast regions.
The polling, conducted by data and insights firm Pureprofile, canvassed 1029 voters in six Labor-held federal electorates in the Hunter and Central Coast – Newcastle, Hunter, Paterson, Shortland, Dobell and Robertson – with some responses from southern sections of the Nationals-held seat of Lyne. It was conducted between September 29 and October 16.
If a federal election were held today, it found Labor would poll 29.4 per cent in the region, compared to 33.3 per cent for One Nation, 13.9 per cent for the Coalition and 16.1 per cent for the Greens.
If a NSW election were held today, Labor would poll 32.1 per cent, the Coalition 14.2 per cent, One Nation 32 per cent and the Greens 16.2 per cent, the polling found.
Go inside the big political stories, policies and power plays.
Sign up for the The Week in Politics newsletter.
Phillip Coorey is The Australian Financial Review’s political editor based in Canberra. He has covered federal politics since 1998, beginning at The Advertiser before serving as a New York correspondent for News Corp and later as chief political correspondent at The Sydney Morning Herald. A two-time winner of the Paul Lyneham Award for press gallery excellence, he joined the AFR in 2012 and writes the weekly Canberra Observed column. He is a regular commentator on ABC TV’s Insiders program. Connect with Phillip on Facebook and Twitter. Email Phillip at pcoorey@afr.com
