Stanford CDDRL podcast

In this podcast, Francis Fukuyama addresses the relationship between his latest book "Identity" and his book "The End of History," where he points out the fact that he has been writing about identity consistently over the years, beginning with his 1992 book "The End of History and The Last Man."

The idea that the big internet platforms are not media companies has never really been tenable, and the contradictions in their public protestations of neutrality have become ever more apparent over time.

"Public policy education needs to shift its focus from training policy analysts to training leaders who are capable of actually implementing good policies. In our experimentation both at my Center’s Leadership Academy for Development and in the new Stanford Masters in International Policy, case teaching has become an integral part of the approach." Read more here https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/08/06/teaching-public-policy/

The project of raising Tocqueville in the French debate is troubling to journalist Ben Judah in a slightly different way than to political scientist Francis Fukuyama. Listen to learn why Judah believes Tocqueville should be studied for his contributions to colonialism and why Fukuyama sees a more complex thinker.

Francis Fukuyama in conversation with Frederic Filloux (Monday Note)on the latest development regarding social network platforms and democracy

CDDRL senior fellow Larry Diamond talks with Kenyan lawyer and human rights activist Maina Kiai about the state of democracy in Kenya and how it can progress beyond its current flaws. In the talk, Kiai describes the endemic cultural factors that have led to bitterly divided Kenyan elections, as well as the institutional factors that have ossified the political climate and prevented further change.

For "Democracy World" Elizaveta Osetinskaya, Stanford alumna (Russia, '16) and the founder of the media startup "The Bell", interviewed CDDRL Mosbacher Director Francis Fukuyama about the U.S. - Russia relations, discussing possible outcomes. They also talked about democracy around the world, populism and identity.

Robert O Keohane, Visiting Fellow at CDDRL, Professor of Public and International Affairs (Emeritus) in the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. The Balzan Prize for International Relations, which Robert was recently awarded, provides funding that he intends to use to stimulate the development of a subfield in which political science has lagged: the comparative politics of climate change policy. The hope is that the project will stimulate new thinking in comparative politics and international relations.

The single question I’ve been asked most incessantly since 1989 is, “Well, what about the end of history? Doesn’t X invalidate the thesis?” where X is some event that has happened in international affairs or politics, like a coup in Peru or the September 11 attacks or a financial crisis on Wall Street. This question is usually asked by somebody who did not understand the meaning of the end of history, and who has not read my book The End of History and the Last Man, published in 1992. There is a core of the concept that I still think remains valid, though we are clearly living in a different phase of global politics than when the original article was written. It would be strange if the passage of almost thirty years did not change the way I thought about the world. It’s nonetheless important to distinguish between reasonable critiques and ones that are silly or based on simple misunderstandings.

The single question I’ve been asked most incessantly since 1989 is, “Well, what about the end of history? Doesn’t X invalidate the thesis?” where X is some event that has happened in international affairs or politics, like a coup in Peru or the September 11 attacks or a financial crisis on Wall Street. This question is usually asked by somebody who did not understand the meaning of the end of history, and who has not read my book The End of History and the Last Man, published in 1992. There is a core of the concept that I still think remains valid, though we are clearly living in a different phase of global politics than when the original article was written. It would be strange if the passage of almost thirty years did not change the way I thought about the world. It’s nonetheless important to distinguish between reasonable critiques and ones that are silly or based on simple misunderstandings.