American political scientist, political economist, and author
POPULARITY
25 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
12 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
6 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
7 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
3 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
7 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
4 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
5 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
4 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
8 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
4 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
4 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
3 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
4 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
2 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
4 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
6 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
2 episodes with Francis Fukuyama
Francis Fukuyama, Mona Charen, and Yascha Mounk dissect this week's news. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk, Francis Fukuyama and Mona Charen discuss Trump's latest actions, from demolishing the East Wing of the White House to demanding compensation from the Justice Department; whether the Trump administration's bombing boats in Venezuela might lead to further military action; and the link between social media and populism. Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column, carried forward from American Purpose, at Persuasion. Mona Charen, syndicated columnist and author, is Policy Editor of The Bulwark and host of two weekly podcasts: The Mona Charen Show and Just Between Us. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.community Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Jim Baer talks with Francis Fukuyama — author of The End of History and the Last Man — about the fragility of liberal democracy in an age of rising authoritarianism and deepening polarization. They discuss political decay in the U.S., geopolitical threats from Russia and China, and the outsized influence of social media. Fukuyama also shares a practical vision for rebuilding effective governance through an “abundance agenda” that cuts through gridlock and proves democracy can still deliver.
Francis Fukuyama joins Cheap Talk to discuss the rise of authoritarianism; Europe's security environment; the risk of AI catastrophe; signs of hope for democratic resilience; and Marcus has a lot of respect for centenariansFrancis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). He has written widely on issues in development and international politics. His books include The End of History and the Last Man (1992), The Origins of Political Order (2011), Political Order and Political Decay (2014), Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment (2018), and Liberalism and Its Discontents (2022).The opinions expressed on this podcast are solely our own and do not reflect the policies or positions of William & Mary.Please subscribe to Cheap Talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your podcast player of choice to be notified when new episodes are posted.Check out our online store at https://cheaptalk.shop.Further Reading:Francis Fukuyama. 1989. “The End of History?” The National Interest 16: 3–18.See all Cheap Talk episodes
The global wave of democratic backsliding has undermined the ascendancy of democracy in the twenty-first century. So what do democracies need to do to insulate themselves against this trend? Join Nic Cheeseman as he talks to Francis Fukuyama, one of the world's best-known political scientists, about why democracies need to show they can make progress without sacrificing accountability in order to restore and sustain citizen's confidence. Drawing on his new article in the Journal of Democracy with Chris Dann and Beatriz Magaloni, he argues that delivery for citizens is crucial to rebuilding the social contract and hence support for democracy – and warns about the dire consequences of failing this challenge. This episode is based on Francis Fukuyama, Chris Dann and Beatriz Magaloni's article “Delivering for Democracy: Why Results Matter” that was published in the April 2025 issue of the Journal of Democracy, and is part of an ongoing partnership between the Journal of Democracy and the People, Power, Politics podcast. Guest: Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and professor (by courtesy) of political science at Stanford University. He is the author of some of the best-known book published on politics in the last thirty years, including The End of History and the Last Man (1992), Trust (1995), The Origins of Political Order (2011), Political Order and Political Decay (2014), and Identity (2018). His books have won numerous awards, including the Lionel Gelber Prize and the Arthur Ross Book Award, and the Fred Riggs Award for Lifetime Achievement in International and Comparative Public Administration (2024). Presenter: Nic Cheeseman is the Professor of Democracy and International Development at the University of Birmingham and Founding Director of CEDAR. The People, Power, Politics podcast brings you the latest insights into the factors that are shaping and re-shaping our political world. It is brought to you by the Centre for Elections, Democracy, Accountability and Representation (CEDAR) based at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. Join us to better understand the factors that promote and undermine democratic government around the world and follow us on Twitter at @CEDAR_Bham! Transcript here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
The global wave of democratic backsliding has undermined the ascendancy of democracy in the twenty-first century. So what do democracies need to do to insulate themselves against this trend? Join Nic Cheeseman as he talks to Francis Fukuyama, one of the world's best-known political scientists, about why democracies need to show they can make progress without sacrificing accountability in order to restore and sustain citizen's confidence. Drawing on his new article in the Journal of Democracy with Chris Dann and Beatriz Magaloni, he argues that delivery for citizens is crucial to rebuilding the social contract and hence support for democracy – and warns about the dire consequences of failing this challenge. This episode is based on Francis Fukuyama, Chris Dann and Beatriz Magaloni's article “Delivering for Democracy: Why Results Matter” that was published in the April 2025 issue of the Journal of Democracy, and is part of an ongoing partnership between the Journal of Democracy and the People, Power, Politics podcast. Guest: Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and professor (by courtesy) of political science at Stanford University. He is the author of some of the best-known book published on politics in the last thirty years, including The End of History and the Last Man (1992), Trust (1995), The Origins of Political Order (2011), Political Order and Political Decay (2014), and Identity (2018). His books have won numerous awards, including the Lionel Gelber Prize and the Arthur Ross Book Award, and the Fred Riggs Award for Lifetime Achievement in International and Comparative Public Administration (2024). Presenter: Nic Cheeseman is the Professor of Democracy and International Development at the University of Birmingham and Founding Director of CEDAR. The People, Power, Politics podcast brings you the latest insights into the factors that are shaping and re-shaping our political world. It is brought to you by the Centre for Elections, Democracy, Accountability and Representation (CEDAR) based at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. Join us to better understand the factors that promote and undermine democratic government around the world and follow us on Twitter at @CEDAR_Bham! Transcript here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science
The global wave of democratic backsliding has undermined the ascendancy of democracy in the twenty-first century. So what do democracies need to do to insulate themselves against this trend? Join Nic Cheeseman as he talks to Francis Fukuyama, one of the world's best-known political scientists, about why democracies need to show they can make progress without sacrificing accountability in order to restore and sustain citizen's confidence. Drawing on his new article in the Journal of Democracy with Chris Dann and Beatriz Magaloni, he argues that delivery for citizens is crucial to rebuilding the social contract and hence support for democracy – and warns about the dire consequences of failing this challenge. This episode is based on Francis Fukuyama, Chris Dann and Beatriz Magaloni's article “Delivering for Democracy: Why Results Matter” that was published in the April 2025 issue of the Journal of Democracy, and is part of an ongoing partnership between the Journal of Democracy and the People, Power, Politics podcast. Guest: Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and professor (by courtesy) of political science at Stanford University. He is the author of some of the best-known book published on politics in the last thirty years, including The End of History and the Last Man (1992), Trust (1995), The Origins of Political Order (2011), Political Order and Political Decay (2014), and Identity (2018). His books have won numerous awards, including the Lionel Gelber Prize and the Arthur Ross Book Award, and the Fred Riggs Award for Lifetime Achievement in International and Comparative Public Administration (2024). Presenter: Nic Cheeseman is the Professor of Democracy and International Development at the University of Birmingham and Founding Director of CEDAR. The People, Power, Politics podcast brings you the latest insights into the factors that are shaping and re-shaping our political world. It is brought to you by the Centre for Elections, Democracy, Accountability and Representation (CEDAR) based at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. Join us to better understand the factors that promote and undermine democratic government around the world and follow us on Twitter at @CEDAR_Bham! Transcript here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs
In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk, Francis Fukuyama, Sabina Ćudić, and Dan Williams discuss Donald Trump's firing of a federal prosecutor and what this means for democracy in the United States, what the discussions around the assasination of Charlie Kirk tell us about misinformation, and the impact of RFK Jr.'s recent autism announcement. Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column, carried forward from American Purpose, at Persuasion. Sabina Ćudić is a member of the National Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where she is the president of the Naša stranka political party club. Ćudić also serves as vice president of the Foreign Relations Committee, and is a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, where she is a vice president of the European Liberals. Daniel Williams is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex. He writes the Conspicuous Cognition newsletter, which brings together philosophical insights and scientific research to examine the forces shaping contemporary society and politics. Note: This episode was recorded on September 23, 2025. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.community Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Talking with writer, garage mystic, and Lotus Sutra enthusiast, Jigoku — anonymous poster and publisher — on Buddhist intellectual responses to civilization shift. On his treatise Theory of the End, on shitposting, on Buddhist white pills, on the Lotus Sutra, Nichirenism, utopianism, and modernity, on his analysis and response to Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man, on Devadatta as archetype, on Jacques Ellul and the relentless onslaught of technique, on the esoteric, on on Kishio Satomi and the Nichirenist response to modernity machinery, on Nick Land, on Tetsuo: The Iron Man, on Dan da Dan, on the Hungry Ghost press and sutras on Namu Myoho Renge Kyo…Hungry Ghost Books Get full access to Leafbox at leafbox.substack.com/subscribe
To suggest that there is considerable turmoil across the globe is an understatement. “Nature abhors a vacuum” is constantly given new reign. Following the Soviet Union's collapse in 1989, political scientist Francis Fukuyama announced history was dead. His best selling “The End of History and the Last Man” is updated, still in print and nowhere near death. Then in 2018 Fukuyama's book “Identity” announces that “fragmentation based on alignment of interest into identity groups, has emerged as a new threat to democracy”. On September 3, 2025 retired barrister Louise Clegg wrote an opinion article drawing on all the above, called “Sliding into technocracy”. After thirty years in the legal profession, she guests in Podcast 302. From Nietzsche to Charlie Kirk, it is a worthy discussion. There's more on the assassination of Charlie Kirk in the Mailroom with Mrs Producer. File your comments and complaints at Leighton@newstalkzb.co.nz Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide. Listen here on iHeartRadio Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:To subscribe via iTunes click here See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Strach nás spojuje víc než rozum či řeč, říká Judith Shklarová. Dokud žijeme, obáváme se ublížení – tělesného, duševního i duchovního. Na tomto prostém vhledu staví svůj „liberalismus strachu“. Esej stejného jména vyšel roku 1989, v době, kdy Francis Fukuyama oznamoval „konec dějin“.Shklarová odmítá politický romantismus i spásné příběhy. Liberalismus podle ní nevyrůstá ze vznešených ideálů ani ze svobodného trhu, ale z potřeby chránit lidi před fanatismem a krutostí. Je to zřízení, v němž se lze svobodně rozhodovat beze strachu – a minimem, bez něhož svoboda nemůže existovat, je schopnost státu zabránit krutosti. Úkolem státu proto není uskutečnit summum bonum, nejvyšší dobro, ale bránit summum malum, nejvyššímu zlu.I proto je Shklarová „fenomenoložkou negativity“. Jak sama připomíná, často nevíme, kým chceme být, natož co je nejvyšší dobro. Zato víme, kým být nechceme, čeho se na sobě samých bojíme a čemu se chceme vyhnout – jako jednotlivci i jako společnost. Ctnostné jednání začíná často ne tím, že přesně víme, co udělat, ale tím, že si přiznáme, že tady „něco nehraje“.Ve své knize Obyčejné neřesti (jediné dostupné česky, v překladu Daniely a Karla Theinových) pojmenovává Shklarová krutost, pokrytectví, snobství, zradu a misantropii jako hlavní praskliny, jimiž do demokracie proniká strach. A přece: neřesti nemáme jen nenávidět. S výjimkou krutosti v sobě leckdy nesou i zrno dobra. Pokrytectví je zavrženíhodné, ale tam, kde jsou vysoké nároky, je přítomné nevyhnutelně – a jen cynik si může dovolit tvářit se, že se ho netýká. Ale cynik je krutosti blíže než pokrytec.Problémem není sama existence neřestí, ale to, že nás otupují a tím nás činí náchylnějšími k jediné absolutně zavrženíhodné neřesti, jíž je krutost. Politika svobody proto nezačíná vymýcením neřestí, nýbrž rozhodnutím být vnímavější vůči každodenní krutosti. Vůči té jsme ostatně zranitelní všichni – jako její oběti i jako její původci. Zkrátka: máme se čeho bát – a to je to jediné, co nás spojuje.KapitolyI. „Bolest nesmíme nechat přenechat biologům“ [začátek až 25:40]II. Judith Shklarová? Fenomenoložka negativity [25:40 až 47:25]III. Politická filozofie musí začít od krutosti [47:25 až 58:00]IV. Pozor na nenávist neřestí [58:00 až konec]BibliografieHannes Bajohr, „Am Leben zu sein heißt Furcht zu haben“, in: Judith Shklar, Liberalismus der Furcht, Berlin: Matthes Seitz, 2013, str. 131–167.Hannes Bajohr – Rieke Trimçev, ad Judith Shklar. Leben – Werk – Gegenwart, Hamburg: Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 2024.Judith N. Shklar, The Liberalism of Fear, in: Nancy L. Rosenblum (vyd.), Liberalism and the Moral Life, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.Judith Shklar, Obyčejné neřesti, přel. Karel Thein – Daniela Theinová, Praha: Karolinum, 2023.Simone Weil, La personne et le sacré, Paris: Payot, 2017.Bernard Williams, „The Liberalism of Fear“, G. Hawthorn (vyd.), In the Beginning Was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument, Princeton: Princeton University, Press, 2005, str. 52–61.
Paddy O'Connell speaks to Professor Francis Fukuyama about the threats to liberal democracies around the world. The American political economist and international relations scholar, who is currently a senior fellow at Stanford University, has written widely on issues about development and international politics. He is best-known for his 1992 book ‘The End of History and the Last Man'. He argued that the end of the Cold War, marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, represented the end point of mankind's ideological evolution, and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.But three decades on, Western liberal democracy appears to be struggling to adapt to the many challenges of the 21st century. Amid geopolitical instability, its future does not appear as universal as Fukuyama once proposed, even in the US. The Interview brings you conversations with people shaping our world, from all over the world. The best interviews from the BBC. You can listen on the BBC World Service, Mondays and Wednesdays at 0700 GMT. Or you can listen to The Interview as a podcast, out twice a week on BBC Sounds or wherever you get your podcasts.Presenter: Paddy O'Connell Producer: Ben Cooper Editor: Nick HollandGet in touch with us on email TheInterview@bbc.co.uk and use the hashtag #TheInterviewBBC on social media.(Image: Professor Francis Fukuyama. Photo by Thomas Trutschel/Photothek via Getty Images)
In this week's episode of The Good Fight Club, Yascha Mounk, Francis Fukuyama, Mona Charen, and Russell Muirhead explore why the “Trump is dead” conspiracy took hold, the recent summit between Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Narendra Modi, and what the latest developments at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tell us about the fate of public health in America. Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column, carried forward from American Purpose, at Persuasion. Mona Charen, syndicated columnist and author, is Policy Editor of The Bulwark and host of two weekly podcasts: The Mona Charen Show and Just Between Us. Russell Muirhead teaches Government at Dartmouth College. He is the author, with Nancy Rosenblum, of Ungoverning: The Attack on the Administrative State and the Politics of Chaos. He serves in the NH House of Representatives where he focuses on election law. Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.community Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Continuing our discussion of the dangers to and weak points of liberal democracy, including consideration of Patrick Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed (2018) Francis Fukuyama's "Liberalism and Its Discontents" (his 2020 essay), and Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now (2018). Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion.
In August, the conference Liberalism for the 21st Century was held in Washington. We had the honor of being there and speaking with the legend of the world of ideas, Francis Fukuyama./V auguste sa vo Washingtone konala konferencia Liberalizmus pre 21. storočie. Mali som tú česť tam byť a hovoriť s legendou sveta ideí, Francisom Fukuyamom.
What's the crisis of liberal democracy? Dylan, Wes and Seth are joined by St. John's College President J. Walter Sterling to discuss Abraham Lincoln's "On the Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions" (1838) plus the beginnings of Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now (2018), Patrick Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed (2018), and Francis Fukuyama's "Liberalism and Its Discontents" (the 2020 essay). Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion. Sponsor: Visit functionhealth.com/PEL to get the data you need to take action for your health. Enrollment is now open for Mark's online political philosophy course. See partiallyexaminedlife.com/class.
In this week's conversation, recorded live in D.C. at the “Liberalism for the 21st Century” conference, Yascha Mounk, Francis Fukuyama, Steven Pinker, and Sabina Ćudić discuss Trump's firings and what this means for the civil service, how to build a positive case for liberalism, and the impact of the rise of AI. Steven Pinker is Johnstone Professor of Psychology at Harvard, an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, a Humanist of the Year, and one of Time's “100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” His latest book is When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows...: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life. Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column, carried forward from American Purpose, at Persuasion. Sabina Ćudić is a member of the National Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where she is the president of the Naša stranka political party club. Ćudić also serves as vice president of the Foreign Relations Committee, and is a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, where she is a vice president of the European liberals. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: leonora.barclay@persuasion.community Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and John Taylor Williams. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Slightly contra Fukuyama on liberal communities Francis Fukuyama is on Substack; last month he wrote Liberalism Needs Community. As always, read the whole thing and don't trust my summary, but the key point is: R. R. Reno, editor of the magazine First Things, the liberal project of the past three generations has sought to weaken the “strong Gods” of populism, nationalism, and religion that were held to be the drivers of the bloody conflicts of the early 20th century. Those gods are now returning, and are present in the politics of both the progressive left and far right—particularly the right, which is characterized today by demands for strong national identities or religious foundations for national communities. However, there is a cogent liberal response to the charge that liberalism undermines community. The problem is that, just as in the 1930s, that response has not been adequately articulated by the defenders of liberalism. Liberalism is not intrinsically opposed to community; indeed, there is a version of liberalism that encourages the flourishing of strong community and human virtue. That community emerges through the development of a strong and well-organized civil society, where individuals freely choose to bond with other like-minded individuals to seek common ends. People are free to follow “strong Gods”; the only caveat is that there is no single strong god that binds the entire society together. In other words - yes, part of the good life is participation in a tight-knit community with strong values. Liberalism's shared values are comparatively weak, and its knitting comparatively loose. But that's no argument against the liberal project. Its goal isn't to become this kind of community itself, but to be the platform where communities like this can grow up. So in a liberal democracy, Christians can have their church, Jews their synagogue, Communists their commune, and so on. Everyone gets the tight-knit community they want - which beats illiberalism, where (at most) one group gets the community they want and everyone else gets persecuted. On a theoretical level, this is a great answer. On a practical level - is it really working? Are we really a nation dotted with tight-knit communities of strong values? The average person has a church they don't attend and a political philosophy that mainly cashes out in Twitter dunks. Otherwise they just consume whatever slop the current year's version of capitalism chooses to throw at them. It's worth surveying the exceptions that prove the rule: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/should-strong-gods-bet-on-gdp
This week, Yascha Mounk is joined by Mona Charen, Francis Fukuyama, and Ivan Krastev to discuss how the latest revelations about Epstein will affect Donald Trump, the Trump administration's war on universities, Volodymyr Zelensky's bill on anti-corruption agencies, and the recent attacks on the independence of the Fed. Mona Charen, syndicated columnist and author, is Policy Editor of The Bulwark and host of two weekly podcasts: The Mona Charen Show and Just Between Us. Ivan Krastev is the chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies and Albert Hirschman Permanent Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences, IWM Vienna. Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
My guest is Francis Fukuyama. We discuss the research background of Doomscroll and competition between the United States vs China in the 21st century. You can get access to the full catalog for Doomscroll and more by becoming a paid supporter: www.patreon.com/joshuacitarella joshuacitarella.substack.com/subscribe
Esteban Piedrahita ha sido director del DNP y la Cámara de comercio de Cali. Hoy es rector de la ICESI. Libros mencionados:The Wise Men - Evan Thomas y Walter Isaacson (https://amzn.to/44XX0e5)Anarchy, State, Utopia - Robert Nozick (https://amzn.to/44YddQy)Karma Cola - Gita Mehta (https://amzn.to/44VmNU8)The Prize - Daniel Yergin (https://amzn.to/4maPG5W)Raj Chetty Paper Guns, Germs and Steel - Jared Diamond (https://amzn.to/3TSbK9i)El fin de la historia - Francis Fukuyama (https://amzn.to/44VqjOk)The rise and fall of the neoliberal order - Gerstle (https://amzn.to/46hZdTX)Mountainhead - película Love, death and robots - serie The maniac - Benjamin Labatut (https://amzn.to/44UjaOd)Un verdor terrible - Benjamin Labatut (https://amzn.to/3H2syY6)Bartebly - Herman Melville (https://amzn.to/4lG9y0E)Los nombres de Feliza - Juan Gabriel Vasquez La forma de las ruinas - Juan Gabriel Vasquez Volver la vista atrás - Juan Gabriel Vasquez El hombre que amaba a los perros - Leonardo Padura Capítulos:00:00 intro01:23 La campaña para el BID 08:23 Ser Magna cum laude de Harvard 11:45 La vida de mi papá 17:23 ¿Qué le sentó mal a Cali en los 90s? 27:18 El trabajo en la Cámara 33:56 Acortar el ciclo del aprendizaje 36:54 El siglo malo de Colombia 43:34 Para hacer cosas significativas se necesita tiempo 48:06 Estar en ICESI y la muert3 de mi hermano 57:44 La gerencia pública vs la privada 01:07:50 Llegar a la junta de Ecopetrol 01:12:01 El capital social 01:15:53 Construir perfiles profesionales más funcionales 01:18:22 ¿El talento está bien distribuido? 01:21:24 Desmontar algo que funcionaba muy bien 01:26:06 Mi mirada sobre Colombia 01:34:33 ¿Estamos en el mundo de las post-ideas? 01:42:11 Mi práctica de lectura 01:47:34 Ser importante dentro de la sociedad civil 01:51:08 Mi anhelo para Colombia 01:53:38 Desbloquear la productividad
My guest is Francis Fukuyama, a scholar and political scientist. He is the author of many books. He is most well known for his 1992 work, "The End of History & the Last Man". Drawing on Hegel and Marx, Fukuyama explores the concept of teleology — the idea that history is a linear process where human societies progress through sequential socioeconomic forms. As Marx famously wrote, Feudalism was replaced by Capitalism and would ultimately be replaced by Socialism. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama argued that western liberal democracy was the final form of human government. His thesis has been updated and revised many times since and remains a frequent subject of debate today. You can get access to the full catalog for Doomscroll and more by becoming a paid supporter: www.patreon.com/joshuacitarella joshuacitarella.substack.com/subscribe
Stanley Sharpey joins Douglas Lain to discuss Francis Fukuyama's 1992 book "The End of History and the Last Man," as well as Fukuyama's attempt to defend and return to this work over the last 33 years. Support Sublation Media on Patreonhttps://patreon.com/dietsoap
Send us a textA blend of biology, philosophy, and history exploring how hormones and endocrine disruptors affect social behavior and society.Episode Summary: Dr. Charles Cornish-Dale discusses the decline of masculinity in modern society, linking it to falling testosterone levels, environmental endocrine disruptors, and the limitations of liberal democracy. Drawing on Francis Fukuyama's “End of History & the Last Men” and historical perspectives, Cornish-Dale argues that biological and societal factors, including diet and hormonal interventions like birth control, are reshaping male and female behaviors, with profound implications for health and social structures.About the guest: Charles Cornish-Dale, PhD is a medieval historian and anthropologist with a PhD from Oxford. His new book is, “The Last Men: Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity.”Discussion Points:Thymos & Masculinity: Cornish-Dale uses the ancient Greek concept of thymos, meaning spiritedness, to explain male drives for recognition and distinction, which he ties to testosterone-driven behaviors.Testosterone Decline: Studies like the Massachusetts Male Aging Study show a ~20% drop in male testosterone levels over 17 years, correlating with reduced reproductive health and social withdrawal.Endocrine Disruptors: Chemicals in plastics, pesticides, and soy products mimic estrogen, disrupting hormonal balance and potentially causing developmental and behavioral issues.Diet & Behavior: Historical shifts to grain-based diets, as noted by Plato, and modern plant-based trends may suppress thymos and alter hormonal profiles, impacting societal dynamics.Hormonal Contraceptives: Birth control can thin the ventromedial prefrontal cortex in women, affecting emotional regulation, especially if taken during teenage years, with potential permanent effects.Fukuyama's End of History Framework: Cornish-Dale critiques liberal democracy's inability to satisfy megalothymia (the desire to be better), contributing to a crisis of purpose for men.Related episode:M&M 193: History of Diet & Food, Population Density & Social Stability, Psychological Pandemics, Physical & Mental Health in Civilizational CyclesSupport the showAll episodes, show notes, transcripts, and more at the M&M Substack Affiliates: KetoCitra—Ketone body BHB + potassium, calcium & magnesium, formulated with kidney health in mind. Use code MIND20 for 20% off any subscription (cancel anytime) Lumen device to optimize your metabolism for weight loss or athletic performance. Code MIND for 10% off Readwise: Organize and share what you read. 60 days FREE through link SiPhox Health—Affordable at-home blood testing. Key health markers, visualized & explained. Code TRIKOMES for a 20% discount. MASA Chips—delicious tortilla chips made from organic corn & grass-fed beef tallow. No seed oils or artificial ingredients. Code MIND for 20% off For all the ways you can support my efforts
Last month, Francis Fukuyama was scheduled to come to Washington, DC for a live taping of Wisdom of Crowds. Unfortunately, as subscribers know, Frank lost his voice the morning of his scheduled appearance, and we were forced to cancel. However, we were able to record a bit of conversation with him and Shadi Hamid the following day, with a few colleagues asking questions.The conversation ended up being a quasi-“state of liberalism” address, perfect for July 4th weekend.The conversation begins with Frank discussing the current challenges to liberal societies, addressing why some in the West today might be dissatisfied with it, but also why people living in autocratic regimes throughout the world still long for liberalism. He talks about the lassitude and dissatisfaction that permeates liberal societies, and the contradictory desires for ever-greater equality and spirited competition that drive citizens to rebel against liberalism.During the question and answer session, Fukuyama takes questions about recent events. He discusses the rise of right-wing parties in Europe, as well as recent developments in France, Germany and Romania. He touches upon citizenship, borders, deportations and Trump's immigration policies. And he answers the question that was on everybody's mind that night: Is history still over?Required Reading* Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History?” (National Interest). * CrowdSource, “Fukuyama's Children” (WoC). * Damir and Shadi's 2022 conversation with Francis Fukuyama (WoC).* Santiago Ramos, “Kicking the Ladder” (WoC).Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wisdomofcrowds.live/subscribe
Viktor Barth-Kron och Victor Malm samlar intrycken från Almedalsveckan och från det första halvåret i politiken. Med viss hjälp av Peter Thiel, Francis Fukuyama och Anna-Karin Hatt.
A brief message from Bob ... Why neocons like enemies ... How to use power deftly ... Is a nuclear Iran really all that scary? ... Bob's arms-control dreams dashed again ... China problem solved in under three minute ... Some cheerful thoughts about Hamas ...
A brief message from Bob ... Why neocons like enemies ... How to use power deftly ... Is a nuclear Iran really all that scary? ... Bob's arms-control dreams dashed again ... China problem solved in under three minute ... Some cheerful thoughts about Hamas ...
Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column, carried forward from American Purpose, at Persuasion. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss what the U.S. strikes in Iran mean for global and domestic politics, to what extent Israel is risking its relationship with the United States, and why we should be concerned about AI. Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Deze keer bespreekt Annette van Soest de macht van Orbán in binnen- en buitenland met Tijn Sadée, Europa-correspondent en schrijver van het boek ‘De Clan van Orbán'. De radicaal-rechtse Hongaarse premier is druk bezig de rechtsstaat in z'n land uit te hollen, met het verbod op de Pride als meest recente stap in die richting. De frustratie in Brussel groeit met de dag: kan de EU Orban nog in toom houden? Ondertussen kijkt Trump met bewondering naar de Hongaarse premier. Hoe zorgelijk is die vriendschap? Tips en verwijzingen uit deze aflevering: - Tijn tipt ‘Hartenvrouw' van de Moldavische schrijver Iulian Ciocan - Redacteur Annelies raadt ‘Identity' van Francis Fukuyama aan - En Annette tipt 'De onvoltooide rechtstaat' van Ybo Buruma Annette van Soest is host van Café Europa en presentator voor o.a. Haagsch College en Follow the Money De podcast Café Europa is een initiatief van Haagsch College en Studio Europa Maastricht Deze podcast wordt mede mogelijk gemaakt door Nieuwspoort.
MSNBC's Ari Melber hosts The Beat on Tuesday, June 17th, and reports on the court cases weighing Trump's military powers after national protests, Sen. Mike Lee backing down after vitriolic posts mocking an assassination, and the Trump family facing tariff hypocrisy as they launch a new "gold phone" business. Jason Johnson, Joyce Vance and Francis Fukuyama join.
Episodio número seis de Largo Aliento de 2025: La platico del libro «Los Orígenes del Orden Político» de Francis Fukuyama, que habla desde los orígenes del nuestras sociedades hasta la Revolución Francesa, para dar pie a entender cómo es que las familias nucleares favorecieron al individualismo y contribuyeron al desarrollo en Europa de algo único en el mundo: la democracia liberal.
Distribuido por Genuina Media
In the latest episode of our monthly special incooperation with the Journal of Democracy, Francis Fukuyama and Beatriz Magaloni discuss why democratic legitimacy increasingly hinges on governments' ability to deliver tangible results.Drawing on their co-authored article with Chris Dann, “Delivering for Democracy: Why Results Matter” (April2025, Vol. 26, No. 2), Fukuyama and Magaloni examine how unmet expectations around infrastructure, security, and economic opportunity are fueling distrust in democratic systems and possibly opening the door to authoritarianalternatives. The conversation explores the performance–legitimacy nexus, whether democracies can overcome their “vetocratic” hurdles without compromising their core values, and what reforms might help reverse the global democratic malaise.
Subscribe now for the full episode and much more content! Danny and Derek welcome to the program political scientist Francis Fukuyama to talk about his recent article for the Journal of Democracy, “Delivering for Democracy: Why Results Matter.” The group explores why Dr. Fukuyama felt the need to address democratic backsliding, what about Trump's actions have precedents in American history vs what's unique to this administration, how capitalism interacts with Dr. Fukuyama's understanding of democracy, whether regulated capitalism is possible without an ideological challenger, the abundance movement, and what reforms can be made to help democracies deliver better. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
So why did Harris lose in 2024? For one very big reason, according to the progressive essayist Bill Deresiewicz: “because she represented the exhausted Democratic establishment”. This rotting establishment, Deresiewicz believes, is symbolized by both the collective denial of Biden's mental decline and by Harris' pathetically rudderless Presidential campaign. But there's a much more troubling problem with the Democratic party, he argues. It has become “the party of institutionalized liberalism, which is itself exhausted”. So how to reinvent American liberalism in the 2020's? How to make the left once again, in Deresiewicz words, “the locus of openness, playfulness, productive contention, experiment, excess, risk, shock, camp, mirth, mischief, irony and curiosity"? That's the question for all progressives in our MAGA/Woke age. 5 Key Takeaways * Deresiewicz believes the Democratic establishment and aligned media engaged in a "tacit cover-up" of Biden's condition and other major issues like crime, border policies, and pandemic missteps rather than addressing them honestly.* The liberal movement that began in the 1960s has become "exhausted" and the Democratic Party is now an uneasy alliance of establishment elites and working-class voters whose interests don't align well.* Progressive institutions suffer from a repressive intolerance characterized by "an unearned sense of moral superiority" and a fear of vitality that leads to excessive rules, bureaucracy, and speech codes.* While young conservatives are creating new movements with energy and creativity, the progressive establishment stifles innovation by purging anyone who "violates the code" or criticizes their side.* Rebuilding the left requires creating conditions for new ideas by ending censoriousness, embracing true courage that risks something real, and potentially building new institutions rather than trying to reform existing ones. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everyone. It's the old question on this show, Keen on America, how to make sense of this bewildering, frustrating, exciting country in the wake, particularly of the last election. A couple of years ago, we had the CNN journalist who I rather like and admire, Jake Tapper, on the show. Arguing in a piece of fiction that he thinks, to make sense of America, we need to return to the 1970s. He had a thriller out a couple of years ago called All the Demons Are Here. But I wonder if Tapper's changed his mind on this. His latest book, which is a sensation, which he co-wrote with Alex Thompson, is Original Sin, President Biden's Decline, its Cover-up and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. Tapper, I think, tells the truth about Biden, as the New York Times notes. It's a damning portrait of an enfeebled Biden protected by his inner circle. I would extend that, rather than his inner circle protected by an elite, perhaps a coastal elite of Democrats, unable or unwilling to come to terms with the fact that Biden was way, way past his shelf life. My guest today, William Deresiewicz—always get his last name wrong—it must be...William Deresiewicz: No, that was good. You got it.Andrew Keen: Probably because I'm anti-semitic. He has a new piece out called "Post-Election" which addresses much of the rottenness of the American progressive establishment in 2025. Bill, congratulations on the piece.William Deresiewicz: Thank you.Andrew Keen: Have you had a chance to look at this Tapper book or have you read about Original Sin?William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I read that piece. I read the piece that's on the screen and I've heard some people talking about it. And I mean, as you said, it's not just his inner circle. I don't want to blame Tapper. Tapper did the work. But one immediate reaction to the debate debacle was, where have the journalists been? For example, just to unfairly call one person out, but they're just so full of themselves, the New Yorker dripping with self-congratulations, especially in its centennial year, its boundless appetite for self-celebration—to quote something one of my students once said about Yale—they've got a guy named Evan Osnos, who's one of their regulars on their political...Andrew Keen: Yeah, and he's been on the show, Evan, and in fact, I rather like his, I was going to say his husband, his father, Peter Osnos, who's a very heavy-hitting ex-publisher. But anyway, go on. And Evan's quite a nice guy, personally.William Deresiewicz: I'm sure he's a nice guy, but the fact is he's not only a New Yorker journalist, but he wrote a book about Biden, which means that he's presumably theoretically well-sourced within Biden world. He didn't say anything. I mean, did he not know or did he know?Andrew Keen: Yeah, I agree. I mean you just don't want to ask, right? You don't know. But you're a journalist, so you're supposed to know. You're supposed to ask. So I'm sure you're right on Osnos. I mean, he was on the show, but all journalists are progressives, or at least all the journalists at the Times and the New Yorker and the Atlantic. And there seemed to be, as Jake Tapper is suggesting in this new book, and he was part of the cover-up, there seemed to be a cover-up on the part of the entire professional American journalist establishment, high-end establishment, to ignore the fact that the guy running for president or the president himself clearly had no idea of what was going on around him. It's just astonishing, isn't it? I mean, hindsight's always easy, of course, 2020 in retrospect, but it was obvious at the time. I made it clear whenever I spoke about Biden, that here was a guy clearly way out of his depth, that he shouldn't have been president, maybe shouldn't have been president in the first place, but whatever you think about his ideas, he clearly was way beyond his shelf date, a year or two into the presidency.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, but here's the thing, and it's one of the things I say in the post-election piece, but I'm certainly not the only person to say this. There was an at least tacit cover-up of Biden, of his condition, but the whole thing was a cover-up, meaning every major issue that the 2024 election was about—crime, at the border, woke excess, affordability. The whole strategy of not just the Democrats, but this media establishment that's aligned with them is to just pretend that it wasn't happening, to explain it away. And we can also throw in pandemic policy, right? Which people were still thinking about and all the missteps in pandemic policy. The strategy was effectively a cover-up. We're not gonna talk about it, or we're gonna gaslight you, or we're gonna make excuses. So is it a surprise that people don't trust these establishment institutions anymore? I mean, I don't trust them anymore and I want to trust them.Andrew Keen: Were there journalists? I mean, there were a handful of journalists telling the truth about Biden. Progressives, people on the left rather than conservatives.William Deresiewicz: Ezra Klein started to talk about it, I remember that. So yes, there were a handful, but it wasn't enough. And you know, I don't say this to take away from Ezra Klein what I just gave him with my right hand, take away with my left, but he was also the guy, as soon as the Kamala succession was effected, who was talking about how Kamala in recent months has been going from strength to strength and hasn't put a foot wrong and isn't she fantastic. So all credit to him for telling the truth about Biden, but it seems to me that he immediately pivoted to—I mean, I'm sure he thought he was telling the truth about Harris, but I didn't believe that for one second.Andrew Keen: Well, meanwhile, the lies about Harris or the mythology of Harris, the false—I mean, all mythology, I guess, is false—about Harris building again. Headline in Newsweek that Harris would beat Donald Trump if an election was held again. I mean I would probably beat—I would beat Trump if an election was held again, I can't even run for president. So anyone could beat Trump, given the situation. David Plouffe suggested that—I think he's quoted in the Tapper book—that Biden totally fucked us, but it suggests that somehow Harris was a coherent progressive candidate, which she wasn't.William Deresiewicz: She wasn't. First of all, I hadn't seen this poll that she would beat Trump. I mean, it's a meaningless poll, because...Andrew Keen: You could beat him, Bill, and no one can even pronounce your last name.William Deresiewicz: Nobody could say what would actually happen if there were a real election. It's easy enough to have a hypothetical poll. People often look much better in these kinds of hypothetical polls where there's no actual election than they do when it's time for an election. I mean, I think everyone except maybe David Plouffe understands that Harris should never have been a candidate—not just after Biden dropped out way too late, but ever, right? I mean the real problem with Biden running again is that he essentially saddled us with Harris. Instead of having a real primary campaign where we could have at least entertained the possibility of some competent people—you know, there are lots of governors. I mean, I'm a little, and maybe we'll get to this, I'm little skeptical that any normal democratic politician is going to end up looking good. But at least we do have a whole bunch of what seem to be competent governors, people with executive experience. And we never had a chance to entertain any of those people because this democratic establishment just keeps telling us who we're going to vote for. I mean, it's now three elections in a row—they forced Hillary on us, and then Biden. I'm not going to say they forced Biden on us although elements of it did. It probably was a good thing because he won and he may have been the only one who could have won. And then Harris—it's like reductio ad absurdum. These candidates they keep handing us keep getting worse and worse.Andrew Keen: But it's more than being worse. I mean, whatever one can say about Harris, she couldn't explain why she wanted to be president, which seems to me a disqualifier if you're running for president. The point, the broader point, which I think you bring out very well in the piece you write, and you and I are very much on the same page here, so I'm not going to criticize you in your post-election—William Deresiewicz: You can criticize me, Andrew, I love—Andrew Keen: I know I can criticize you, and I will, but not in this particular area—is that these people are the establishment. They're protecting a globalized world, they're the coast. I mean, in some ways, certainly the Bannonite analysis is right, and it's not surprising that they're borrowing from Lenin and the left is borrowing from Edmund Burke.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I mean I think, and I think this is the real problem. I mean, part of what I say in the piece is that it just seems, maybe this is too organicist, but there just seems to be an exhaustion that the liberal impulse that started, you know, around the time I was born in 1964, and I cite the Dylan movie just because it's a picture of that time where you get a sense of the energy on the left, the dawning of all this exciting—Andrew Keen: You know that movie—and we've done a show on that movie—itself was critical I guess in a way of Dylan for not being political.William Deresiewicz: Well, but even leaving that aside, just the reminder you get of what that time felt like. That seems in the movie relatively accurate, that this new youth culture, the rights revolution, the counterculture, a new kind of impulse of liberalism and progressivism that was very powerful and strong and carried us through the 60s and 70s and then became the establishment and has just become completely exhausted now. So I just feel like it's just gotten to the end of its possibility. Gotten to the end of its life cycle, but also in a less sort of mystical way. And I think this is a structural problem that the Democrats have not been able to address for a long time, and I don't see how they're going to address it. The party is now the party, as you just said, of the establishment, uneasily wedded to a mainly non-white sort of working class, lower class, maybe somewhat middle class. So it's sort of this kind of hybrid beast, the two halves of which don't really fit together. The educated upper middle class, the professional managerial class that you and I are part of, and then sort of the average Black Latino female, white female voter who doesn't share the interests of that class. So what are you gonna do about that? How's that gonna work?Andrew Keen: And the thing that you've always given a lot of thought to, and it certainly comes out in this piece, is the intolerance of the Democratic Party. But it's an intolerance—it's not a sort of, and I don't like this word, it's not the fascist intolerance of the MAGA movement or of Trump. It's a repressive intolerance, it's this idea that we're always right and if you disagree with us, then there must be something wrong with you.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, right. It's this, at this point, completely unearned sense of moral superiority and intellectual superiority, which are not really very clearly distinguished in their mind, I think. And you know, they just reek of it and people hate it and it's understandable that they hate it. I mean, it's Hillary in a word. It's Hillary in a word and again, I'm wary of treading on this kind of ground, but I do think there's an element of—I mean, obviously Trump and his whole camp is very masculinist in a very repulsive way, but there is also a way to be maternalist in a repulsive way. It's this kind of maternal control. I think of it as the sushi mom voice where we're gonna explain to you in a calm way why you should listen to us and why we're going to control every move you make. And it's this fear—I mean what my piece is really about is this sort of quasi-Nietzschean argument for energy and vitality that's lacking on the left. And I think it's lacking because the left fears it. It fears sort of the chaos of the life force. So it just wants to shackle it in all of these rules and bureaucracy and speech codes and consent codes. It just feels lifeless. And I think everybody feels that.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and it's the inability to imagine you can be wrong. It's the moral greediness of some people, at least, who think of themselves on the left. Some people might be listening to this, thinking it's just these two old white guys who think themselves as progressives but are actually really conservative. And all this idea of nature is itself chilling, that it's a kind of anti-feminism.William Deresiewicz: Well, that's b******t. I mean, let me have a chance to respond. I mean I plead guilty to being an old white man—Andrew Keen: I mean you can't argue with that one.William Deresiewicz: I'm not arguing with it. But the whole point rests on this notion of positionality, like I'm an older white man, therefore I think this or I believe that, which I think is b******t to begin with because, you know, down the street there's another older white guy who believes the exact opposite of me, so what's the argument here? But leaving that aside, and whether I am or am not a progressive—okay, my ideal politician is Bernie Sanders, so I'll just leave it at that. The point is, I mean, one point is that feminism hasn't always been like this. Second wave feminism that started in the late sixties, when I was a little kid—there was a censorious aspect to it, but there was also this tremendous vitality. I mean I think of somebody like Andrea Dworkin—this is like, "f**k you" feminism. This is like, "I'm not only not gonna shave my legs, I'm gonna shave my armpits and I don't give a s**t what you think." And then the next generation when I was a young man was the Mary Gates, Camille Paglia, sex-positive power feminism which also had a different kind of vitality. So I don't think feminism has to be the feminism of the women's studies departments and of Hillary Clinton with "you can't say this" and "if you want to have sex with me you have to follow these 10 rules." I don't think anybody likes that.Andrew Keen: The deplorables!William Deresiewicz: Yes, yes, yes. Like I said, I don't just think that the enemies don't like it, and I don't really care what they think. I think the people on our side don't like it. Nobody is having fun on our side. It's boring. No one's having sex from what they tell me. The young—it just feels dead. And I think when there's no vitality, you also have no creative vitality. And I think the intellectual cul-de-sac that the left seems to be stuck in, where there are no new ideas, is related to that.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and I think the more I think about it, I think you're right, it's a generational war. All the action seems to be coming from old people, whether it's the Pelosis and the Bidens, or it's people like Richard Reeves making a fortune off books about worrying about young men or Jonathan Haidt writing about the anxious generation. Where are, to quote David Bowie, the young Americans? Why aren't they—I mean, Bill, you're in a way guilty of this. You made your name with your book, Excellent Sheep about the miseducation...William Deresiewicz: Yeah, so what am I guilty of exactly?Andrew Keen: I'm not saying you're all, but aren't you and Reeves and Haidt, you're all involved in this weird kind of generational war.William Deresiewicz: OK, let's pump the brakes here for a second. Where the young people are—I mean, obviously most people, even young people today, still vote for Democrats. But the young who seem to be exploring new things and having energy and excitement are on the right. And there was a piece—I'm gonna forget the name of the piece and the author—Daniel Oppenheimer had her on the podcast. I think it appeared in The Point. Young woman. Fairly recent college graduate, went to a convention of young republicans, I don't know what they call themselves, and also to democrats or liberals in quick succession and wrote a really good piece about it. I don't think she had ever written anything before or published anything before, but it got a lot of attention because she talked about the youthful vitality at this conservative gathering. And then she goes to the liberals and they're all gray-haired men like us. The one person who had anything interesting to say was Francis Fukuyama, who's in his 80s. She's making the point—this is the point—it's not a generational war, because there are young people on the right side of the spectrum who are doing interesting things. I mean, I don't like what they're doing, because I'm not a rightist, but they're interesting, they're different, they're new, there's excitement there, there's creativity there.Andrew Keen: But could one argue, Bill, that all these labels are meaningless and that whatever they're doing—I'm sure they're having more sex than young progressives, they're having more fun, they're able to make jokes, they are able, for better or worse, to change the system. Does it really matter whether they claim to be MAGA people or leftists? They're the ones who are driving change in the country.William Deresiewicz: Yes, they're the ones who are driving change in the country. The counter-cultural energy that was on the left in the sixties and seventies is now on the right. And it does matter because they are operating in the political sphere, have an effect in the political sphere, and they're unmistakably on the right. I mean, there are all these new weird species on the right—the trads and the neo-pagans and the alt-right and very sort of anti-capitalist conservatives or at least anti-corporate conservatives and all kinds of things that you would never have imagined five years ago. And again, it's not that I like these things. It's that they're new, there's ferment there. So stuff is coming out that is going to drive, is already driving the culture and therefore the politics forward. And as somebody who, yes, is progressive, it is endlessly frustrating to me that we have lost this kind of initiative, momentum, energy, creativity, to what used to be the stodgy old right. Now we're the stodgy old left.Andrew Keen: What do you want to go back to? I mean you brought up Dylan earlier. Do you just want to resurrect...William Deresiewicz: No, I don't.Andrew Keen: You know another one who comes to mind is another sort of bundle of contradictions, Bruce Springsteen. He recently talked about the corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous nature of Trump. I mean Springsteen's a billionaire. He even acknowledged that he mythologized his own working-class status. He's never spent more than an hour in a factory. He's never had a job. So aren't all the pigeons coming back to roost here? The fraud of men like Springsteen are merely being exposed and young people recognize it.William Deresiewicz: Well, I don't know about Springsteen in particular...Andrew Keen: Well, he's a big deal.William Deresiewicz: No, I know he's a big deal, and I love Springsteen. I listened to him on repeat when I was young, and I actually didn't know that he'd never worked in a factory, and I quite frankly don't care because he's an artist, and he made great art out of those experiences, whether they were his or not. But to address the real issue here, he is an old guy. It sounds like he's just—I mean, I'm sure he's sincere about it and I would agree with him about Trump. But to have people like Springsteen or Robert De Niro or George Clooney...Andrew Keen: Here it is.William Deresiewicz: Okay, yes, it's all to the point that these are old guys. So you asked me, do I want to go back? The whole point is I don't want to go back. I want to go forward. I'm not going to be the one to bring us forward because I'm older. And also, I don't think I was ever that kind of creative spirit, but I want to know why there isn't sort of youthful creativity given the fact that most young people do still vote for Democrats, but there's no youthful creativity on the left. Is it just that the—I want to be surprised is the point. I'm not calling for X, Y, or Z. I'm saying astonish me, right? Like Diaghilev said to Cocteau. Astonish me the way you did in the 60s and 70s. Show me something new. And I worry that it simply isn't possible on the left now, precisely because it's so locked down in this kind of establishment, censorious mode that there's no room for a new idea to come from anywhere.Andrew Keen: As it happens, you published this essay in Salmagundi—and that predates, if not even be pre-counterculture. How many years old is it? I think it started in '64. Yeah, so alongside your piece is an interesting piece from Adam Phillips about influence and anxiety. And he quotes Montaigne from "On Experience": "There is always room for a successor, even for ourselves, and a different way to proceed." Is the problem, Bill, that we haven't, we're not willing to leave the stage? I mean, Nancy Pelosi is a good example of this. Biden's a good example. In this Salmagundi piece, there's an essay from Martin Jay, who's 81 years old. I was a grad student in Berkeley in the 80s. Even at that point, he seemed old. Why are these people not able to leave the stage?William Deresiewicz: I am not going to necessarily sign on to that argument, and not just because I'm getting older. Biden...Andrew Keen: How old are you, by the way?William Deresiewicz: I'm 61. So you mentioned Pelosi. I would have been happy for Pelosi to remain in her position for as long as she wanted, because she was effective. It's not about how old you are. Although it can be, obviously as you get older you can become less effective like Joe Biden. I think there's room for the old and the young together if the old are saying valuable things and if the young are saying valuable things. It's not like there's a shortage of young voices on the left now. They're just not interesting voices. I mean, the one that comes immediately to mind that I'm more interested in is Ritchie Torres, who's this congressman who's a genuinely working-class Black congressman from the Bronx, unlike AOC, who grew up the daughter of an architect in Northern Westchester and went to a fancy private university, Boston University. So Ritchie Torres is not a doctrinaire leftist Democrat. And he seems to speak from a real self. Like he isn't just talking about boilerplate. I just feel like there isn't a lot of room for the Ritchie Torres. I think the system that produces democratic candidates militates against people like Ritchie Torres. And that's what I am talking about.Andrew Keen: In the essay, you write about Andy Mills, who was one of the pioneers of the New York Times podcast. He got thrown out of The New York Times for various offenses. It's one of the problems with the left—they've, rather like the Stalinists in the 1930s, purged all the energy out of themselves. Anyone of any originality has been thrown out for one reason or another.William Deresiewicz: Well, because it's always the same reason, because they violate the code. I mean, yes, this is one of the main problems. And to go back to where we started with the journalists, it seems like the rationale for the cover-up, all the cover-ups was, "we can't say anything bad about our side. We can't point out any of the flaws because that's going to help the bad guys." So if anybody breaks ranks, we're going to cancel them. We're going to purge them. I mean, any idiot understands that that's a very short-term strategy. You need the possibility of self-criticism and self-difference. I mean that's the thing—you asked me about old people leaving the stage, but the quotation from Montaigne said, "there's always room for a successor, even ourselves." So this is about the possibility of continuous self-reinvention. Whatever you want to say about Dylan, some people like him, some don't, he's done that. Bowie's done that. This was sort of our idea, like you're constantly reinventing yourself, but this is what we don't have.Andrew Keen: Yeah, actually, I read the quote the wrong way, that we need to reinvent ourselves. Bowie is a very good example if one acknowledges, and Dylan of course, one's own fundamental plasticity. And that's another problem with the progressive movement—they don't think of the human condition as a plastic one.William Deresiewicz: That's interesting. I mean, in one respect, I think they think of it as too plastic, right? This is sort of the blank slate fallacy that we can make—there's no such thing as human nature and we can reshape it as we wish. But at the same time, they've created a situation, and this really is what Excellent Sheep is about, where they're turning out the same human product over and over.Andrew Keen: But in that sense, then, the excellent sheep you write about at Yale, they've all ended up now as neo-liberal, neo-conservative, so they're just rebelling...William Deresiewicz: No, they haven't. No, they are the backbone of this soggy liberal progressive establishment. A lot of them are. I mean, why is, you know, even Wall Street and Silicon Valley sort of by preference liberal? It's because they're full of these kinds of elite college graduates who have been trained to be liberal.Andrew Keen: So what are we to make of the Musk-Thiel, particularly the Musk phenomenon? I mean, certainly Thiel, very much influenced by Rand, who herself, of course, was about as deeply Nietzschean as you can get. Why isn't Thiel and Musk just a model of the virility, the vitality of the early 21st century? You might not like what they say, but they're full of vitality.William Deresiewicz: It's interesting, there's a place in my piece where I say that the liberal can't accept the idea that a bad person can do great things. And one of my examples was Elon Musk. And the other one—Andrew Keen: Zuckerberg.William Deresiewicz: But Musk is not in the piece, because I wrote the piece before the inauguration and they asked me to change it because of what Musk was doing. And even I was beginning to get a little queasy just because the association with Musk is now different. It's now DOGE. But Musk, who I've always hated, I've never liked the guy, even when liberals loved him for making electric cars. He is an example, at least the pre-DOGE Musk, of a horrible human being with incredible vitality who's done great things, whether you like it or not. And I want—I mean, this is the energy that I want to harness for our team.Andrew Keen: I actually mostly agreed with your piece, but I didn't agree with that because I think most progressives believe that actually, the Zuckerbergs and the Musks, by doing, by being so successful, by becoming multi-billionaires, are morally a bit dodgy. I mean, I don't know where you get that.William Deresiewicz: That's exactly the point. But I think what they do is when they don't like somebody, they just negate the idea that they're great. "Well, he's just not really doing anything that great." You disagree.Andrew Keen: So what about ideas, Bill? Where is there room to rebuild the left? I take your points, and I don't think many people would actually disagree with you. Where does the left, if there's such a term anymore, need to go out on a limb, break some eggs, offend some people, but nonetheless rebuild itself? It's not going back to Bernie Sanders and some sort of nostalgic New Deal.William Deresiewicz: No, no, I agree. So this is, this may be unsatisfying, but this is what I'm saying. If there were specific new ideas that I thought the left should embrace, I would have said so. What I'm seeing is the left needs, to begin with, to create the conditions from which new ideas can come. So I mean, we've been talking about a lot of it. The censoriousness needs to go.I would also say—actually, I talk about this also—you know, maybe you would consider yourself part of, I don't know. There's this whole sort of heterodox realm of people who did dare to violate the progressive pieties and say, "maybe the pandemic response isn't going so well; maybe the Black Lives Matter protests did have a lot of violence"—maybe all the things, right? And they were all driven out from 2020 and so forth. A lot of them were people who started on the left and would even still describe themselves as liberal, would never vote for a Republican. So these people are out there. They're just, they don't have a voice within the Democratic camp because the orthodoxy continues to be enforced.So that's what I'm saying. You've got to start with the structural conditions. And one of them may be that we need to get—I don't even know that these institutions can reform themselves, whether it's the Times or the New Yorker or the Ivy League. And it may be that we need to build new institutions, which is also something that's happening. I mean, it's something that's happening in the realm of publishing and journalism on Substack. But again, they're still marginalized because that liberal establishment does not—it's not that old people don't wanna give up power, it's that the established people don't want to give up the power. I mean Harris is, you know, she's like my age. So the establishment as embodied by the Times, the New Yorker, the Ivy League, foundations, the think tanks, the Democratic Party establishment—they don't want to move aside. But it's so obviously clear at this point that they are not the solution. They're not the solutions.Andrew Keen: What about the so-called resistance? I mean, a lot of people were deeply disappointed by the response of law firms, maybe even universities, the democratic party as we noted is pretty much irrelevant. Is it possible for the left to rebuild itself by a kind of self-sacrifice, by lawyers who say "I don't care what you think of me, I'm simply against you" and to work together, or university presidents who will take massive pay cuts and take on MAGA/Trump world?William Deresiewicz: Yeah, I mean, I don't know if this is going to be the solution to the left rebuilding itself, but I think it has to happen, not just because it has to happen for policy reasons, but I mean you need to start by finding your courage again. I'm not going to say your testicles because that's gendered, but you need to start—I mean the law firms, maybe that's a little, people have said, well, it's different because they're in a competitive business with each other, but why did the university—I mean I'm a Columbia alumnus. I could not believe that Columbia immediately caved.It occurs to me as we're talking that these are people, university presidents who have learned cowardice. This is how they got to be where they got and how they keep their jobs. They've learned to yield in the face of the demands of students, the demands of alumni, the demands of donors, maybe the demands of faculty. They don't know how to be courageous anymore. And as much as I have lots of reasons, including personal ones, to hate Harvard University, good for them. Somebody finally stood up, and I was really glad to see that. So yeah, I think this would be one good way to start.Andrew Keen: Courage, in other words, is the beginning.William Deresiewicz: Courage is the beginning.Andrew Keen: But not a courage that takes itself too seriously.William Deresiewicz: I mean, you know, sure. I mean I don't really care how seriously—not the self-referential courage. Real courage, which means you're really risking losing something. That's what it means.Andrew Keen: And how can you and I then manifest this courage?William Deresiewicz: You know, you made me listen to Jocelyn Benson.Andrew Keen: Oh, yeah, I forgot and I actually I have to admit I saw that on the email and then I forgot who Jocelyn Benson is, which is probably reflects the fact that she didn't say very much.William Deresiewicz: For those of you who don't know what we're talking about, she's the Secretary of State of Michigan. She's running for governor.Andrew Keen: Oh yeah, and she was absolutely diabolical. She was on the show, I thought.William Deresiewicz: She wrote a book called Purposeful Warrior, and the whole interview was just this salad of cliches. Purpose, warrior, grit, authenticity. And part of, I mentioned her partly because she talked about courage in a way that was complete nonsense.Andrew Keen: Real courage, yeah, real courage. I remember her now. Yeah, yeah.William Deresiewicz: Yeah, she got made into a martyr because she got threatened after the 2020 election.Andrew Keen: Well, lots to think about, Bill. Very good conversation, as always. I think we need to get rid of old white men like you and I, but what do I know?William Deresiewicz: I mean, I am going to keep a death grip on my position, which is no good whatsoever.Andrew Keen: As I half-joked, Bill, maybe you should have called the piece "Post-Erection." If you can't get an erection, then you certainly shouldn't be in public office. That would have meant that Joe Biden would have had to have retired immediately.William Deresiewicz: I'm looking forward to seeing the test you devise to determine whether people meet your criterion.Andrew Keen: Yeah, maybe it will be a public one. Bread and circuses, bread and elections. We shall see, Bill, I'm not even going to do your last name because I got it right once. I'm never going to say it again. Bill, congratulations on the piece "Post-Election," not "Post-Erection," and we will talk again. This story is going to run and run. We will talk again in the not too distant future. Thank you so much.William Deresiewicz: That's good.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe
In this episode of Occupied Thoughts, FMEP Fellow Ahmed Moor speaks with analyst Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute about Iran and the U.S. Their conversation spans from exploring decision-making authority and processes in Iran to the impact that U.S. sanctions have on ordinary people in Iran, where poverty has risen dramatically. They speak in depth about the regional and economic dynamics that may have primed Iran for a deal with the United States, including a growing recognition about both the potential and limits on what Russia and China can provide, and the possibility that President Trump will break with DC orthodoxy to make a deal. Trita Parsi is the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute. He is an award-winning author and the 2010 recipient of the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order. He is an expert on US-Iranian relations, Iranian foreign policy, and the geopolitics of the Middle East. He has authored four books on US foreign policy in the Middle East, with a particular focus on Iran and Israel. His first book, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States (Yale University Press, 2007), won the silver medal winner of the 2008 Arthur Ross Book Award from the Council on Foreign Relations. His second book, A Single Roll of the Dice – Obama's Diplomacy with Iran (Yale University Press, 2012) and was selected by Foreign Affairs as the Best Book of 2012 on the Middle East. Parsi's latest book – Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy (Yale University Press, 2017) – reveals the behind the scenes story to the nuclear deal with Iran. Parsi was born in Iran but moved with his family at the age of four to Sweden in order to escape political repression in Iran. His father was an outspoken academic who was jailed by the Shah and then by the Ayatollah. He moved to the United States as an adult and studied foreign policy at Johns Hopkins' School for Advanced International Studies where he received his PhD under Francis Fukuyama and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Ahmed Moor is a Palestinian-American writer born in Gaza and a 2025 Fellow at FMEP. He is an advisory board member of the US Campaign for Palestinian rights, co-editor of After Zionism (Saqi Books) and is currently writing a book about Palestine. He also currently serves on the board of the Independence Media Foundation. His work has been published in The Guardian, The London Review of Books, The Nation, and elsewhere. He earned a BA at the University of Pennsylvania and an MPP at Harvard University. Original music by Jalal Yaquoub.
Get access to The Backroom Exclusive episodes on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/OneDime.In this episode of 1Dime Radio, I am joined by political theorist Benjamin St. Studebaker, a PhD at Cambridge and author of the books “The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy” and “Legitimacy in Liberal Democracies,” on we are witnessing the “end of neoliberalism” (given the ongoing tariff wars and move away from globalization in favor of right wing populsim and protectionism). Whether “Neoliberalism” was really a useful concept in the first place. We also discuss how liberal thinkers like Ezra Klein and Francis Fukuyama have been moving away from neoliberal economics and towards a kind of neo-Keynesianism. In The Backroom, Benjamin and I discuss the idea of building educational “Monestaries” as an alternative to Academia and Benjamin's idea of “vulture socialism.” Become a Patron at Patreon.com/OneDime if you haven't already!Timestamps: 00:00 The Backroom Preview: Vulture Socialism and Monasteries02:55 Welcome to 1Dime Radio03:33 What was “Neoliberalism” actually?35:26 The Pivot from China42:34 Neoliberalism without China or the end of Neoliberalism? 01:06:05 Trump's Strategy with China: A Rational Wager?01:12:54 China's Unique System vs India and Other Developing Nations01:30:22 Degrowth and Third World Realities 01:58:54 Transition to the BackroomFollow Benjamin Studebaker on X: https://x.com/BMStudebakerFollow me on X: https://x.com/1DimeOfficial: Follow me on Instagram: instagram.com/1dimemanCheck out my main channel videos: https://www.youtube.com/@1DimeeOutro Music by Karl CaseyGive 1Dime Radio a 5-star Rating if you enjoy the show!
This is a rant video about the 'expert' 'analysis' coverage of the China-US trade war/tariff skirmish. There is no analysis or even coherent thought process here. This is basically just my train of thought about why it's a bad idea to try and predict the future. I try and relate it to Fukuyama as well, I don't know, just listen and have your own opinions."The End of History?" Francis Fukuyama: https://pages.ucsd.edu/~bslantchev/courses/pdf/Fukuyama%20-%20End%20of%20History.pdfChapters (00:00) Introduction(04:26) How is any of this relevant to tariffs?(10:48) Pro-US and Pro-China analyses are equally bad(21:10) All articles are the same info with a different conclusion#china #tariffwar #chinausrelations Buy me a coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/sinobabblepodLatest Substack post: https://sinobabble.substack.com/p/i-asked-4-china-experts-4-questions?r=bgkuvLinks to everything: https://linktree.com/sinobabbleSupport the showSign up for Buzzsprout to launch your podcasting journey: https://www.buzzsprout.com/?referrer_id=162442Subscribe to the Sinobabble Newsletter: https://sinobabble.substack.com/Support Sinobabble on Buy me a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/Sinobabblepod
The celebrated American theorist, Francis Fukuyama, in his book 'The End of History and the Last Man' argued that US-style liberalism was the ultimate destination for all mankind, 'the final form of human government'.John Gray explains why he believes his prophecy has been turned on its head. 'As in the past, many human beings will live under tyrannies, theocracies, and empires of various kinds,' John writes. 'Failed states and zones of anarchy will be common. Democratic nations are likely to be rare, and often short-lived.'Producer: Adele Armstrong Sound: Peter Bosher Production coordinator: Liam Morrey Editor: Penny Murphy
In this podcast extra, acclaimed author and professor Francis Fukuyama discusses his seminal works “Trust” and “The End of History” and how they apply today, and to an era of mounting distrust and conspiracy theories in the new Trump era, in this extended conversation with MSNBC's Ari Melber. Fukuyama also analyzes Elon Musk's “oligarch” politics, and shares his passions beyond academia - woodworking and drone building.
Francis Fukuyama is a political scientist, author, and the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. Fukuyama's notable works include The End of History and the Last Man and The Origins of Political Order. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. You can find his blog, “Frankly Fukuyama,” at Persuasion. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss talks of a ceasefire in Ukraine and what this means, what the impact of Donald Trump's foreign policy might be on the Far East, and why we should be concerned by Trump's domestic policy. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by Jack Shields, and Leonora Barclay Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode, host Andrew Keen sits down with Francis Fukuyama to explore the concept of trust. Fukuyama defines it as a byproduct of virtuous behaviors like reliability, truthfulness, transparency, and keeping commitments. He describes trust as a crucial "lubricant" for social interactions and distinguishes between interpersonal and institutional trust, both of which are built through experiences of reliability and can be eroded by betrayal and disappointment. Fukuyama discusses how trust originates within families and extends to broader social circles. He also examines the global decline in trust over the past 30 years, attributing it to several key factors: the rise of technology and anonymous online interactions, higher education fostering more critical thinking, increased transparency exposing institutional failures, and growing political polarization reinforcing tribal identitities. Connecting trust to his earlier work on "the struggle for recognition, " he argues that as liberal democracies secure equal rights, individuals increasingly seek recognition for specific identities - such as religion, ethnicity, or gender - which can contribute to societal fragmentation. To address this decline, Fukuyama emphasizes the importance of governments reliably delivering on promises and providing expected services. However, he acknowledges that while competent governance is essential, it alone may not be enough to fully restore trust in institutions and society.
Send us a textWhat is Universal Basic Income (UBI) and why is it so popular among economists and freedom lovers relative to other types of poverty policy solutions? What does it even mean to “solve a problem” or to “learn” in the social sciences? Join us today to explore the answers to these two questions and many more. Today, I am excited to welcome on Peter Van Doren to talk about the history of poverty policy and policy debates and the reality about universal basic income. We talk about some pretty conclusive economic studies which highlight the effect of UBI type policies and what to make of them! Peter Van Doren is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the editor of Regulation, a quarterly magazine about applied microeconomics and economic policy issues.Want to explore more?Michael Munger on the Basic Income Guarantee, an EconTalk podcast.Thomas Koenig, Adam Smith, Francis Fukuyama, and the Indignity of the UBI, at Speaking of Smith.Bruce Meyer on Poverty, an EconTalk podcast.Scott Winship on Poverty and Welfare, a Great Antidote podcast.Clark Nardinelli, Industrial Revolution and the Standard of Living, in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.Jeremy Horpedahl on the Real Cost of Thriving Index, a Great Antidote Podcast.Support the showNever miss another AdamSmithWorks update.Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Does human nature push us towards democracy or autocracy? Renowned political scientist Francis Fukuyama, author of The End of History and The Last Man, joins Preet to discuss attacks on the civil service, the crisis of trust in America, and where history is now headed. Then, Preet answers questions about the iconic “Princess Bride,” his transition from the U.S. Attorneys Office to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and whether we're in the midst of a constitutional crisis. You can now watch this episode! Head to CAFE's Youtube channel and subscribe. Show notes and a transcript of the episode are available on our website. Have a question for Preet? Ask @PreetBharara on Threads, or Twitter with the hashtag #AskPreet. Email us at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 669-247-7338 to leave a voicemail. Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Weeeeeey amigos! Acompáñenos el día de hoy con la historia del fin del fin de la historia, si...asi tan loco como se escucha. ¿Se acabó la historia? En este episodio les vamos a echar el choro sobre la polémica teoría de Francis Fukuyama, quien en los 90s aseguró que la democracia liberal era el punto final de la evolución política de la humanidad. ¿Acertó o se equivocó por completo? Descúbrelo aquí con sus pannas de confianza. ►Síguenos en Instagramhttps://www.instagram.com/historiaparatontospodcast►Síguenos en Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/historiaparatontos_podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Francis Fukuyama makes a triumphant return to The Remnant to discuss the current state of liberalism, the flaws with emerging sects of postliberalism, and the rapidly deteriorating expectations of normalcy for the second Trump administration. Plus: reactionary horseshoe theory, the new American oligarchy, and the risks of Trumpian expansionism. Show Notes: —Francis' work on Substack —The Patrick Deneen article in question —Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama talk Trump 2.0 The Remnant is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Jonah's G-File newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss the first few days of the Trump administration–and what it means for domestic and foreign policy. Francis Fukuyama is a political scientist, author, and the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. Fukuyama's notable works include The End of History and the Last Man and The Origins of Political Order. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. You can find his blog, Frankly Fukuyama, at Persuasion. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss what the flurry of executive orders really means; how the civil service needs to change; Trump's plans for Greenland; and what China will do next. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan Ruberry Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On the GZERO World Podcast, we're taking a look at some of the top geopolitical risks of 2025. This looks to be the year that the G-Zero wins. As longtime listeners will know, a G-Zero world is an era when no one power or group of powers is both willing and able to drive a global agenda and maintain international order. We've been living with this lack of international leadership for nearly a decade now. But in 2025, the problem will get a lot worse. We are heading back to the law of the jungle. A world where the strongest do what they can while the weakest are condemned to suffer what they must. And the former—whether states, companies, or individuals—can't be trusted to act in the interest of those they have power over. It's not a sustainable trajectory. But it's the one we're on. Joining Ian Bremmer to peer into this cloudy crystal ball is renowned Stanford political scientist Francis Fukuyama.Host: Ian BremmerGuest: Francis Fukuyama Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
In a tour d'horizon, Yascha and Frank discuss the fall of Assad, the rise of China, the crisis in Europe, and what awaits the United States under Trump. Francis Fukuyama is a political scientist, author, and the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. Among Fukuyama's notable works are The End of History and the Last Man and The Origins of Political Order. His latest book is Liberalism and Its Discontents. He is also the author of the “Frankly Fukuyama” column, carried forward from American Purpose, at Persuasion. He is a member of Persuasion's Board of Advisors. In this week's conversation, Yascha and Frank discuss Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's flawed plans for reforming the federal bureaucracy (and how to actually reform it); why crises in France and Germany bode ill for Europe; and what the public reaction to the assassination of Brian Thompson says about healthcare in America. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan Ruberry Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
