Find all blog entries at A Commoner Manifesto Substack.
What is “Liberal Democracy”?
Francis Fukuyama, famous for the book The End of History and the Last Man, has written his autobiography: In the Realm of the Last Man: A Memoir. And Nathan Pinkoski has written a review in Compact title “Yesterday’s Man.”
The problem begins, of course, with the idea in The End of History, from Google,
that humanity’s ideological evolution was culminating in Western liberal democracy and market capitalism as the final form of human government.
But what does “liberal democracy” mean to Fukuyama?
A Strong State (capacity and governance)
The Rule of Law (constraints on power)
Political Accountability (mechanisms like free and fair elections)
But then, according to Pinkoski, he also said liberal democracy was good, because growth.
Liberal democracy defeated communism because it produced consumer goods and delivered technological innovations that communism could not[.]
But then Trump, and guys like Fukuyama have been forced to deal with a world in which experts tussle with a
demarcation between defenders of liberal democracy on the one hand and the rebels on the other [which] has been used to explain the right’s victories[.]
In other words, guys like Fukuyama really don’t know how to deal with the Trumpian rebellion against what all the good people agreed was “liberal democracy.”
Because, of course, “liberal democracy” really means a regime run by liberals, the best people in the educated class. Back in 1989 it looked as if “liberal democracy” would provide growth and justice for evermore, given the superiority of the market economy and the wise liberals that would be there to guide it.
Only along came 2008 and the Great Recession. The educated class interpreted this as a failure of capitalism. Rebels like me interpret the Great Recession as a debt crisis caused by low-down liar loans set up by the political system.
So the post-1989 world has taught Fukuyama that things are complicated. Things just don’t automatically turn out all right.
Fukuyama came to attribute recurring financial crises, from those of the early 1990s in Mexico up to the great financial crisis of 2008, to state weakness rather than excessive state interference.
Yeah. A strong state, that’s the way.
Deregulation and privatization were less important than setting up a state that could shield strategic industries and spearhead growth.
There’s this notion of a “stable economic model”.
It makes me realize the common error in all the elite political notions. I don’t think you can set up a governance and economic model that provides stability and the rule of law and accountability.
That’s because the recurring theme of modern history — and probably history in general — is disruption. In the old days it was famine and invasion from the Asian steppes. In the modern era it is technological revolutions that disrupt the status quo and stability.
The challenge for “liberal democracy” and “governance”, and politics is really how to deal with the disruptions. It’s probably a mistake to think that “liberal democracy” can curate the economy, and with a strong state implement policies to make the world a better place.
My guess is that elites should not try to do much more than help the people hurt by the current disruption. And they should implement policies that don’t make assumptions about the future. E.g., Social Security, health care, education, energy, climate change.
Because chances are that the future will be different than what the experts expected.
But that is hard for politicians and experts like Fukuyama to deal with. They know they are bigger and better than firefighters putting out the latest fire.
But maybe that’s all that we can hope for.
| Sat, 14 Nov 2026 04:49:16 GMT |
Think “Affordability” Means More Free Stuff?
I assumed that the Democratic message on “affordability” was all about curbing inflation and making the economy work for working people.
But now, from the X-posts from my beloved Rep. Jayapal (D-WA) and Sen. Murray (D-WA), I see it is really all about more free stuff as in Medicare for All and more childcare.
Based on my understanding of The Science, I’d say that the Democrats are on course to make life less affordable overall rather than more affordable.
Why? Well let's just make things Real Simple. Government spending amounts to a tax on everyone. If government spending in the US is 40 percent of GDP, then think of everything as having a tax of 40 percent attached. Unless you have an In with the rulers, like Big Pharma and Big Bureaucrat and Big NGO and Big Education and the politicians in the pockets of the oligarchs and billionaires of which you’ve heard tell. Yes, don’t forget the Somali fraudsters.
If you keep going then you get to France with government spending at 57 percent of GDP and riots in the streets. Yum!
Now, as I read all the experts analyzing the midterms they all seem to think that Trump has totally botched it on the economy.
You got any better ideas, politicians, experts, and all the ships at sea? I thought not. What Trump has been doing is ending all the subsidies for the US Post-WWII Empire and telling our former tributary states: you are on your own. And by the way, Iran, no soup nukes for you.
But here is another worry. It’s about all the women politicians and judges getting elected on the Democratic ticket all across the nation.
See, it’s my belief that women, 97% of them, believe what they have been carefully taught. And the fact is that what they have been carefully taught is mostly a lie. The only way to get out of here — the administrative and welfare and regulatory state of the last century — is by trashing the conventional wisdom that has elected Democrats by handing out free stuff and trying to get back to a market economy. Good luck with that from the naive young women that have been elected all over the place.
Actually, most of the men in politics are just as ignorant.
Look, this is not that hard. Any regime — OK, every regime — wants the plebs to believe the regime narrative and version of reality that helps keep the regime in power. Our regime has the narrative that it fights for the oppressed — take your pick — against the oppressor — take your pick. It’s a lie, of course. Our regime, like every regime, just wants to stay in power and it will lie and bribe and cheat and threaten anyone and everyone to do that. There is only one oppressor: the regime and its functionaries. Nobody else has the power to oppress.
The Trump administration has been trying to thread the needle of reducing the weight of government a little and growing the economy a lot. You could say that the results are mixed at best.
But, guess what: our Democratic friends, next time they are in power, are just going to crank up the free stuff to the max. And that is going to impoverish the millions of Americans that haven’t paid their way to become more regime-adjacent than the next guy or gal.
Guess what: the only way to “affordability” is to take the government out of our lives as much as possible. It is government that has made life unaffordable. And if you don’t understand that I have a bridge to sell you.
| Thu, 12 Nov 2026 23:34:37 GMT |
Switch to Substack for more blog posts
Christopher Chantrill
He runs usgovernmentspending.com, the go-to resource for government finance data, and is a frequent contributor to the American Thinker. He lives in Seattle, Washington. Click for more.
“I love this guy.” — Steve Ballmer
A Commoner Manifesto
Commoners have nothing to lose but their shame
Every society since the dawn of time, and especially ours, is drenched in religion.
Soft power is gifting friends; hard power is fighting enemies.
The simplest way to understand human society is as Three Layers such as Nobles, Yeomen, and Serfs.
My take on Three Layers is my Three Peoples Theory of Creatives, Responsibles, and Subordinates.
I believe that we moderns live in Three Worlds: the War World of politics, the Market World of the economy, and the Life World of family and neighborhood.
And the trouble with politics is that it reduces human society to a war against the enemy, as determined by Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt.
The world that we all live in today is the one created by the German Turn in philosophy, psychology, science, and meaning.
But our modern elite, the educated elite, has taken, I believe, a Wrong Turn and has imposed a cultural Great Reaction on the world, a lurch back to the primitive. This manifests in the elite’s conceited Activism Culture and its patronage of Subordinate people as its Little Darlings.
The principal reason for the elite’s Wrong Turn has been that it does not understand and does not want to understand how the Three Peoples’ Religions are necessarily different.
The root of the educated elite’s Wrong Turn is its conceit that it knows what the world needs. I think there is a better way; I call it “A Good Life Better than the Left”.
ABC of Politics – Activism Culture – “Anatomy of Revolution” – Allyism – Critical Theory – Downstream-ism – Dutch Finance – German Turn – Good Life – Great Reaction – Little Darlings – Perfect Plan – Women in the Public Square – Ruling Class – Three Layers – Three Peoples – Three Peoples Religion – Tribalism – Two Cultures – Wrong Turn
Today’s topic: Charles Murray and his books
