Podcasts about olivier nomellini senior fellow

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

“The outcome of the American election will have huge implications both for American institutions and for the world,” Francis Fukuyama wrote in September of last year. Just a few weeks into his second term, with a slew of executive orders and controversial appointments, President Donald Trump seems determined to refashion the fabric of American politics and society with the aim of aggrandizing presidential power at the expense of Congress and the courts. Globally the new administration is worrying allies by withdrawing from the Paris Climate agreement and the World Health Organization, suspending foreign assistance, and imposing tariffs on key trading partners.How will these efforts impact America's political system? Will the checks and balances the framers envisioned to constrain the abuse of power hold? What impact will the foreign and domestic policies of the new Administration have on America's role and image in the world? Join Aaron David Miller as he engages in conversation with Francis Fukuyama, a nonresident scholar in the Carnegie Endowment's Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program and the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, to discuss these and other issues. 

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

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

Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss what a Trump victory means for America, its allies, and the world. 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. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss how Trump's 2024 victory repudiates the racial grievance theory of 2016; what a second Trump administration will mean for the rule of law at home and abroad; and the lessons the Democratic Party must learn from its defeat. 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

Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss the state of democracy around the world. 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. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama discuss the triumph of the French far-right in the country's first round of legislative elections; President Biden's disastrous debate performance and what it may portend for the 2024 election; and the state of democracy from India to Ukraine. 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

More than 20 years ago, the political scientist Francis Fukuyama characterized the Information Technology revolution as "benign" but cautioned that "the most significant threat posed by contemporary biotechnology is the possibility that it will alter human nature and thereby move us into a post-human stage of history." From Twitter to CRISPR to ChatGPT, a lot has changed since then. In this episode of Faster, Please! — The Podcast, Dr. Fukuyama shares his thoughts on those developments and the recent advances in generative AI, as well as the cultural importance of science fiction.Dr. Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. His books include The End of History and the Last Man, Our Posthuman Future, and 2022's Liberalism and Its Discontents, among many others. Other writings can be found at American Purpose.In This Episode* The consequences of the IT revolution (1:37)* Can government competently regulate AI? (8:14)* AI and liberal democracy (17:29)* The cultural importance of science fiction (24:16)* Silicon Valley's life-extension efforts (31:11)Below is an edited transcript of our conversationThe consequences of the IT revolutionJames Pethokoukis: In Our Posthuman Future more than 20 years ago, you wrote, “The aim of this book is to argue that [Aldous] Huxley was right [in Brave New World], that the most significant threat posed by contemporary biotechnology is the possibility that it will alter human nature and thereby move us into a ‘posthuman' stage of history. This is important, I will argue, because human nature exists, is a meaningful concept, and has provided a stable continuity to our experience as a species.” But then you added, “It may be that, as in the case of 1984” — and, I think, parenthetically, information technology — “we will eventually find biotechnology's consequences are completely and surprisingly benign.” After 20 years, and the advent of social media, and now it seems like possibly a great leap forward in AI, would you still characterize the IT revolution as “benign”?Francis Fukuyama: That's obviously something that's changed considerably since I wrote that book because the downside of IT has been clear to everybody. When the internet was first privatized in the 1990s, most people, myself included, thought it would be good for democracy because information was power, and if you made information more widely available, that would distribute power more democratically. And it has done that, in fact. A lot of people have access to information that they can use to improve their lives, to mobilize, to agitate, to push for the protection of their rights. But I think it's also been weaponized in ways that we perhaps didn't anticipate back then.And then, there was this more insidious phenomenon where it turns out that the elimination of hierarchies that controlled information, that we celebrated back then, actually turned out to be pretty important. If you had a kind of legacy media that cared about journalistic standards, you could trust the information that was published. But the internet really undermined those legacy sources and replaced it with a world in which anyone can say anything. And they do. Therefore, we have this cognitive chaos right now where conspiracy theories of all sorts get a lot of credibility because people don't trust these hierarchies that used to be the channels for information. Clearly, we've got a big problem on our hands. That doesn't mean that the biotech is not still going to be a big problem; it's just that I think the IT part has moved ahead very rapidly. But I think the biotech will get there in time.While I think most of the concern that I've heard expressed about AI, in particular, has been about these science fiction-like existential risks or job loss, obviously your concern has more to do, as with in Our Posthuman Future, how it will affect our liberal democracy. And you point out some of the downsides of the IT revolution that weren't obvious 30 years ago but now seeing plainly obvious today.To me, the coverage of AI has been really very, very negative, and we've had calls for an AI pause. Do you worry that maybe we've overlearned that lesson? That rather than going into this with kind of a Pollyannaish attitude, we're immediately going into this AI with deep concerns. Is there a risk of overcorrecting?The short answer is, yes. I think that because of our negative experience with social media and the internet lately, we expect the worst from technology. But I think that the possibilities for AI actually making certain social problems much better are substantial. I think that the existential worries about AI are just absurd, and I really don't see scenarios under which the human species is going to face extinction. That seems to be this Terminator, killer, Skynet scenario, and I know very few serious experts in this area that think that that's ever likely to materialize. The bigger fears, I think, are more mundane ones about job loss as a result of advancing technology. And I think that's a very complicated issue. But it does seem to me that, for example, generative AI could actually end up complementing human skills and, in fact, could complement the skills of lower-skilled or lower-educated workers in a way that will actually increase economic equality.Up till now, I think most economists would blame the advance of computer technology for having vastly increased social inequality, because in order to take advantage of existing technologies, if you have a better education, you're going to have a higher income and so forth. But it's entirely possible that generative AI will actually slow that trend because it will give people with lower levels of education the ability to do useful things that they weren't able to do previously. There's actually some early empirical work that suggests that that's already been a pattern. So, yes, I think you're right that we've kind of overreacted. I just think in general, predicting where this technology is going to go in the next 50 years is a fool's errand. It's sort of like in the 1880s asking somebody, “Well, what's this newfangled thing called electricity going to do in 50 years?” Anything that was said back then I think would've been overtaken by events very, very rapidly.Can government competently regulate AI?Anyone who has sat through previous government hearings on social media has been underwhelmed at the ability of Congress to understand these issues, much less come up with a vast regulatory structure. Are you confident in the ability of government to regulate AI, whether it's to regulate deep fakes or what have you — why should I be confident in their ability to do that?I think you've got to decompose the regulatory challenge a little bit. I've been involved here at Stanford, we have a Cyber Policy Center, and we've been thinking about different forms of IT regulation. It's a particular challenge for regulators for a number of reasons. One of the questions you come up with in regulatory design is, “Is this something that actually can be undertaken by existing agencies, or do you actually need a new type of regulator with special skills and knowledge?” And I think, to me, pretty clearly the answer to that is yes. But that agency would have to be designed very differently, because the standard regulatory design, the agency has a certain amount of expertise in a particular sector and they use that expertise to write rules that then get written into law, and then things like the Administrative Procedure Act begins to apply. That's what's been going on, for example, with something like net neutrality, where the FCC put the different regulations up for notice and comment, and you go through this very involved procedure to write the new rules and so forth. I think in an area like AI, that's just not going to work, because the thing is moving so quickly. And that means that you're actually going to have to delegate more autonomy and discretionary power to the regulatory agency, because otherwise, they're simply not going to be able to keep up with the speed at which the technology advances. In normative terms, I have no problem with that. I think that governments do need to exercise social control over new technologies that are potentially very disruptive and damaging, but it has to be done in a proper way.Can you actually design a regulatory agency that would have any remote chance of keeping up with the technology? The British have done this. They have a new digital regulator that is composed of people coming out of the IT industry, and they've relaxed the civil service requirements to be able to hire people with the appropriate knowledge and backgrounds. In the United States, that's going to be very difficult because we have so many cumbersome HR requirements for hiring and promotion of people that go into the federal civil service. Pay, for one thing, is a big issue because we don't pay our bureaucrats enough. If you're going to hire some hotshot tech guy out of the tech sector and offer him a job as a GS-14, it just isn't going to work. So I don't think that you can answer the question, “Can we regulate adequately or not?” in a simple way. I think that there are certain things you would have to do if you were going to try to regulate this sector. Can the United States do that given the polarization in our politics, given all of these legacy institutions that prevent us from actually having a public sector that is up to this task? That I don't know. As you can tell, I've got certain skepticism about that.Is it a worthwhile critique of this regulatory process to think of AI as this discreet technology that you need a certain level of expertise to understand? If it is indeed a general-purpose technology that will be used by a variety of sectors, all sectors perhaps, can you really have an AI regulator that doesn't de facto become an economy regulator?No, you probably can't. This is another challenge, which is that, as you say, AI in general is so broad. It's already being used in virtually every sector of the economy, and you obviously don't want a “one size fits all” effort to govern the use of this technology. So I think that you have to be much more specific about the areas where you think potential harms could exist. There's also different approaches to this other than regulation. In 2020, I chaired a Stanford working group on platform scale, which was meant to deal with the old — at that point it was a kind of contemporary problem­ — but now it seems like an old problem of content mediation on the internet. So how do you deal with this problem that Elon Musk has now revealed to be a real problem: You don't want everything to be available on social media platforms, but how do you actually control that content in a way that serves a kind of general democratic public interest? As we thought about this in the course of this working group deliberation, we concluded that straightforward regulation is not going to work. It won't work in the United States because we're way too polarized. Just think about something like reviving the old fairness doctrine that the FCC used to apply to legacy broadcast media. How are you going to come up with something like that? What's “fair and balanced” coverage of vaccine denialism? It's just not going to happen.And what we ended up advocating was something we called “middleware,” where you would use regulation to create a competitive ecosystem of third-party media content regulators so that when you use the social media platform, you the user could buy the services or make use of the services of a content regulator that would tailor your feed or your search on Google to criteria that you specified in advance. So if you tended progressive, you could get a progressive one. If you only like right-wing media, you could get a content regulator that would deliver what you want. If you wanted to buy only American-made products, you could get a different one. The point is that you would use competition in this sphere because the real threat, as we saw it, was not actually so much this compartmentalization as the power of a single big platform. There's really only three of them. It's Google, Meta, and now X, or the formerly Twitter, that really had this kind of power. The danger to a democracy was not that you could say anything on the internet, the danger was the power of a single big platform owned by a private, for-profit company to have an outsized role over political discourse in the United States. Elon Musk and Twitter is a perfect example of that. He apparently has his own foreign policy, which is not congruent with American foreign policy, but as a private owner of this platform, he's got the power to pursue this private foreign policy. So that was our idea.In that particular case, you could use competition as an alternative to state regulation, because what you really wanted to do was to break up this concentrated power that was exercised by the platforms. So that's one approach to one aspect of digital regulation. It doesn't deal with AI. I don't know whether there's an analog in the AI sphere, but I think it's correct that what you don't want is a single regulator that then tries to write broad rules that apply to what is actually just an enormously broad technology that will apply in virtually every sector of the economy.AI and liberal democracyIn response to the call for a six-month "AI pause," critics of that idea pointed to competition with China. They suggested that given the difficulties of regulating AI, we might risk losing the "AI race" to the Chinese. Do you think that's a reasonable criticism?This is a general problem with technologies. Certain technologies distribute power and other technologies concentrate it. So the old classic 19th-century coal- and steel- and fossil fuel–based economy tended to concentrate power. And certainly nuclear weapons concentrate power because you really need to be a big entity in order to build a nuclear weapon, in order to build all the uranium processing and so forth. But other technologies, like biotech, actually do not concentrate power. Any high school student can actually now use CRISPR to do genetic engineering. And they make biotech labs that will fit in individual shipping containers. So the regulatory problem is quite different.Now, the problem with AI is that it appears that these large language models really require a lot of resources. In fact, it's interesting, because we used to think the problem was actually having big data sets. But that's actually not the problem; there's plenty of data out there. It's actually building a parallel computer system that's powerful enough to process all the words on the internet, and that's been the task that only the largest companies can do. I think that it's correct that if we had told these companies not to do this, we would be facing international competitive pressures that would make that a bad decision. However, I do think that it's still a risk to allow that kind of power to be not subject to some form of democratic control. If it's true that you need these gigantic corporations to do this sort of thing, those corporations ought to be serving American national interests.And again, I hate to keep referring to Elon Musk, but we're seeing this right now with Starlink. It turns out Starlink is extremely valuable militarily, which has been demonstrated very clearly in Ukraine. Should the owner of Starlink be allowed to make important decisions as to who is going to use this technology on the battlefield and where that technology can be used? I don't think so. I don't think that one rich individual should have that kind of power. And actually, I'm not quite sure, I thought that the Defense Department had actually agreed to start paying Musk for the Ukrainian use of Starlink. I think that's the actual appropriate answer to that problem, so that it should not be up to Elon Musk where Starlink can be used. It should be up to the people that make American foreign policy: the White House and the State Department and so forth. And so, I think by analogy, if you develop this technology that requires really massive scale and big corporations to develop it, it should nonetheless be under some kind of state control such that it is not the decision of some rich individual how it's going to be applied. It should be somehow subject to some kind of democratic control.On a normative level, I think that's very clear, but the specific modalities by which you do that are complicated. For example, let's say there's a gigantic corporation that is run by some lunatic that wants to use it for all sorts of asocial reasons, proliferating deep fakes or trying to use it to undermine general social trust in institutions and so forth. Is that okay? Is that a decision that should be up to a private individual or isn't there some public interest in controlling that in some fashion? I hate speaking about this in such general terms, but I think you have to settle this normative question and then you can get into the narrower technical question of, is it possible to actually exert that kind of control and how would you do that?You've questioned in your previous writings whether liberal democracy could survive a world with both humans and posthumans and where we're manipulating human nature. Can it survive in a world where there are two different intelligences? If we had a human intelligence and we had an artificial general intelligence, would such an entity pose a challenge our civilization, to a democratic capitalist civilization?It's hard to answer that question. You can imagine scenarios where it obviously would pose a challenge. One of the big questions is whether this general intelligence somehow escapes human control, and that's a tough one. I think that the experts that I trust think that that's not going to happen. That ultimately, human beings are going to be able to control this thing and use it for their own purposes. So again, the whole Skynet scenario is really not likely to happen. But that doesn't solve the problem, because even if it's under human control, how do you make sure it's the right humans, right? Because if this falls into the wrong hands, it could be very, very destructive. And that then becomes a political question. I'm not quite sure how you're going to want to answer it.The cultural importance of science fictionYou mentioned Skynet from the Terminator franchise. Do you worry that we're too steeped in dystopian science fiction? It seems like we can only see the downside when we're presented with a new technology like a biotechnology breakthrough or an AI breakthrough. Is that how it seems to you?I actually wrote a blog post about this. I really read a lot of science fiction. I have my whole life. There's a big difference between the sorts of stories that you saw back in the 1950s and ‘60s and the stuff that has come out recently. It's hard to generalize over such a vast field, but space odysseys and space travel was very common, and a lot of that was extremely optimistic: that human beings would colonize Mars and then the distant planets and you'd have a warp drive that would take you out of the solar system and so forth. And it was kind of a paean to unlimited human possibilities. Whereas I do think that, especially with the rise of environmentalism, there was a greater consciousness of the downsides of technological advance. So you got more and more dystopian kinds of imaginings. Now, it is not a universal thing. For example, I also wrote a blog about two kind of global warming–related recent science-fiction books. One is TheMinistry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson. And that actually is a very optimistic take on global warming, because it's set in the 2050s and basically the human race has figured out how to deal with global warming. They do it, I think, through a bunch of very implausible political scenarios, but there's a ministry for the future that wisely…That book seems a little too comfortable with violence and compulsion for my taste.The other one is Neal Stephenson's Termination Shock: Basically, there's a single rich oligarch in Texas that takes it upon himself to put all this sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere to cool the earth, and he succeeds, and it then changes the climate in China and India. I don't know whether that's optimistic or pessimistic. But I actually do think that it's very useful to have this kind of science fiction, because you really do have to imagine to yourself what some of the both upsides and downsides will be. So it's probably the case that there's more dystopian fiction, but I do think that if you didn't have that, you wouldn't have a concrete idea of what to look for.If you think about both 1984 and Brave New World, these were the big dystopian futures that were imagined in the 1950s. And both of them came true in many ways. It gave us a vocabulary, like, “Big Brother,” the “Telescreen,” or “Epsilons,” and “Gammas,” and “Alphas,” and so forth, by which we can actually kind of interpret things in the present. I think if you didn't have that vocabulary, it would be hard to have a discussion about what is it that we're actually worried about. So yes, I do think that there is a dystopian bias to a lot of that work that's done, but I think that you've got to have it. Because you do have to try to imagine to yourself what some of these downsides are.You mentioned a couple of books. Are there any films or television shows that you've watched that you feel provide a plausible optimistic vision?I don't know whether it's optimistic. One of my favorite book series and then TV series was The Expanse, written by a couple of guys that go by a pseudonym. It's not optimistic, in the sense that it projects all of our current geopolitical rivalries forward into a future in which human beings have colonized, not just the outer planets, but also intergalactically, figured out how to move from one place to another, and they're still having these fights between rich and poor and so forth. But I guess the reason that I liked it, especially the early parts of that series, when you just had an Epstein Drive, I mean, it was just one technological change that allowed you to move. It's sort of like the early days of sailing ships, where you could get to Australia, but it would take you six months to get there. So that was the situation early on in the book, and that was actually a very attractive future. All of a sudden, human beings had the ability to mine the asteroid belt, they could create gigantic cities in space where human beings could actually live and flourish. That's one of the reasons I really liked that: because it was very human. Although there were conflicts, they were familiar conflicts. There were conflicts that we are dealing with today. But it was, in a way, hopeful because it was now done at this much larger scale that gave hope that human beings would not be confined to one single planet. And actually, one of the things that terrifies me is that the idea that in 100 years, we may discover that we actually can't colonize even Mars or the Moon. That the costs of actually allowing human beings to live anywhere but on earth just make it economically impossible. And so we're kind of stuck on planet Earth and that's the human future.I wrote a small essay about The Expanse where I talked about having a positive vision. As I saw it, this is several hundred years in the future, and we're still here. We've had climate change, but we're still here. We've expanded throughout the universe. If an asteroid should hit the earth, there's still going to be humanity. And people were angry about that essay, because this is a future but there's still problems. Yes, because we're still part of that future: human beings.Silicon Valley's life-extension effortsGetting back to biotechnology and transhumanism and living forever, these things you wrote about in Our Posthuman Future: What do you make of the efforts by folks in Silicon Valley to try to extend lifespans? From a cultural perspective, from your perspective as a political scientist, what do you make of these efforts?I think they're terrible. I actually wrote about this and have thought about this a lot, about life extension. In fact, I think human biomedicine has produced a kind of disastrous situation for us right now because by the time you get to your mid-80s, roughly half of the population that's that old has some kind of long-term, chronic, degenerative disease. And I think that it was actually a much better situation when people were dying of heart attacks and strokes and cancer when they were still in their 70s. It's one of those things where life extension is individually very desirable because no individual wants to die. But socially, I think the impact of extending life is bad. Because quite frankly, you're not going to have adaptation unless you have generational turnover. There's a lot of literature now, Neil Howe has just written a new book on this about how important generations are. There's this joke that economists say, that the field of economics progresses one funeral at a time. Because, basically, you're born into a certain age cohort, and to the end of your life, you're going to retain a lot of the views of people that were born going through the same kind of life experiences. And sometimes they're just wrong. And unless that generation dies off, you're just not going to get the kind of social movement that's necessary.We've already seen a version of this with all these dictators like Franco and Castro that refuse to die, and modern medicine keeps them alive forever. And as a result, you're stuck with their kind of authoritarian governments for way too long. And so I think that, socially, there's a good reason why under biological evolution you have population turnover and we humans don't live forever. What's the advantage of everybody being able to live 200 years as opposed to let's say 80 or 90 years? Is that world going to be better? It's going to have all sorts of problems, right? Because you're going to have all of these 170-year-old people that won't get out of the way. How are you going to get tenure if all the tenured people are 170 years old and there's no way of moving them out of the system? I think that these tech billionaires, it's a kind of selfishness that they've got the money to fund all this research so that they hope that they can keep themselves alive, because they are afraid of dying. I think it's going to be a disaster if they're ever successful in bringing about this kind of population-level life extension. And I think we're already in a kind of disastrous situation where a very large proportion of the human population is going to be of an age where they're going to be dependent on the rest of the society to keep them alive. And that's not good economically. That's going to be very, very hard to sustain.Micro Reads▶ IBM Tries to Ease Customers' Qualms About Using Generative A.I. - Steve Lohr, NYT |▶ Six Months Ago Elon Musk Called for a Pause on AI. Instead Development Sped Up - Will Knight, WIRED |▶ AI is getting better at hurricane forecasting - Gregory Barber, Ars Technica |▶ The promise — and peril — of generative AI - John Thornhill, FT |▶ Uber Freight Taps AI to Help Compete in Tough Cargo Market - Thomas Black, Bloomberg |▶ Why AI Doesn't Scare Me - Gary Hoover, Profectus |▶ A top economist who studies AI says it will double productivity in the next decade: ‘You need to embrace this technology and not resist it' - Geoff Colvin, Yahoo! Finance |▶ Meta is putting AI chatbots everywhere - Alex Heath, Verge |▶ The Big AI Risk We're Not Talking About - Brent Skorup, Discourse |▶ Mark Zuckerberg can't quit the metaverse - Laura Martins, Verge |▶ This robotic exoskeleton can help runners sprint faster - Rhiannon Williams, MIT Technology Review |▶ The bizarre new frontier for cell-cultivated meat: Lion burgers, tiger steaks, and mammoth meatballs - Jude Whiley, Vox |▶ A power grab against private equity threatens the US economy - Drew Maloney, FT |▶ Risks Are Growing of a Double-Dip ‘Vibecession' - Jonathan Levin, Bloomberg |▶ NSF partners with the Institute for Progress to test new mechanisms for funding research and innovation - NSF |▶ It's Too Easy to Block a Wind Farm in America - Robinson Meyer, Heatmap |▶ Can we finally reverse balding with these new experimental treatments? - Joshua Howgego, NewScientist | This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Grounded in fundamental principles of equality and the rule of law, liberalism is a system for governing diverse societies and emphasizes the rights of individuals to pursue their own forms of happiness free from government encroachment. But classical liberalism is in a state of crisis and is now being challenged from both the political right and the left. In his latest book – Liberalism and its discontents – Francis Fukuyama outlines some of the main reasons for the current state of crisis and offers a defense of a revitalized liberalism for the twenty-first century.Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and a faculty member of FSI's Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law. He is also Director of Stanford's Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy, and a professor of political science. Twitter: @FukuyamaFrancis(Cover photo of Francis Fukuyama by Rod Searcey)Key highlights:Introduction - 00:24The debate on democratic backsliding - 03:30Democracy and “good enough governance” - 08:25Distinguishing between liberalism and democracy - 16:05Moral and economic justifications for liberalism - 24:24Inequality as a cause of discontentment - 38:33Alternatives to liberalism - 43:43How AI will impact democracies - 57:17 Host:Professor Dan Banik (Twitter: @danbanik  @GlobalDevPod)Apple Google Spotify YouTubeSubscribe: https://globaldevpod.substack.com/https://in-pursuit-of-development.simplecast.com/

Eliot and Eric welcome Francis Fukuyama, the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). One of America's most distinguished public intellectuals he is the author of several books including the End of History and the Last Man and, more recently, Liberalism and its Discontents. They discuss the impact of the war on Ukraine on the future of liberal democracy and the rules based international order, the drivers of populism and nationalism, the rise of illiberalism in both theory and practice, as well as the state of the academy and the situation in Georgia under the influence of Georgian oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili. https://www.ft.com/content/d0331b51-5d0e-4132-9f97-c3f41c7d75b3 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/francis-fukuyama-still-end-history/671761/ https://thebulletin.org/premium/2022-11/its-a-different-kind-of-world-were-living-in-now-interview-with-political-scientist-francis-fukuyama/ Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Email us with your feedback at shieldoftherepublic@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Eliot and Eric welcome Francis Fukuyama, the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). One of America's most distinguished public intellectuals he is the author of several books including the End of History and the Last Man and, more recently, Liberalism and its Discontents. They discuss the impact of the war on Ukraine on the future of liberal democracy and the rules based international order, the drivers of populism and nationalism, the rise of illiberalism in both theory and practice, as well as the state of the academy and the situation in Georgia under the influence of Georgian oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili. https://www.ft.com/content/d0331b51-5d0e-4132-9f97-c3f41c7d75b3 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/francis-fukuyama-still-end-history/671761/ https://thebulletin.org/premium/2022-11/its-a-different-kind-of-world-were-living-in-now-interview-with-political-scientist-francis-fukuyama/ Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Email us with your feedback at shieldoftherepublic@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How will Ukraine, Putin, Xi and closer to home Silicon Valley and Ron DeSantis shape the future of liberal democracy? As Russia's invasion of Ukraine approaches its first anniversary, I spoke with Dr. Francis Fukuyama, author of the End of History and the Last Man and the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies of Stanford University, about what these all mean for the future of liberal democracy. How has technology like AI impacted democracies? Will the Republican Party's popularity recover under a potential DeSantis administration? Can Western liberal democracies face foreign authoritarian threats like those presented by Xi Jinping's China and Vladimir Putin's Russia?

Eleven months into the war, where do things stand in Ukraine? What does the West need to do to help Ukraine win? What lessons can we draw from the war about the ambitions of authoritarians, the resolve of liberal democracies today, and the most pressing geopolitical challenges we face? To discuss these questions, Bill Kristol is joined by Francis Fukuyama, the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, who has led important efforts in education and civil society in Ukraine over the last decade. According to Fukuyama, we are in the midst of a difficult moment in the war. Nonetheless, he argues, the fundamental dynamics remain unchanged: Ukraine can win if it receives adequate military and financial support from the West. Fukuyama argues that Ukraine's impressive performance and Russia's weakness should force us to confront and reassess the fashionable narrative of pessimism about liberal democracies. The war, as well as other recent developments, has revealed the reserves of strength and resilience in liberal democracies, while the weaknesses of strong states such as Russia and China have become more apparent. This assessment is not one of complacency. Rather, Fukuyama points to the high stakes of the war—and the importance of strengthening our resolve to defend free countries against authoritarian threats.

Eleven months into the war, where do things stand in Ukraine? What does the West need to do to help Ukraine win? What lessons can we draw from the war about the ambitions of authoritarians, the resolve of liberal democracies today, and the most pressing geopolitical challenges we face? To discuss these questions, Bill Kristol is joined by Francis Fukuyama, the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, who has led important efforts in education and civil society in Ukraine over the last decade. According to Fukuyama, we are in the midst of a difficult moment in the war. Nonetheless, he argues, the fundamental dynamics remain unchanged: Ukraine can win if it receives adequate military and financial support from the West. Fukuyama argues that Ukraine's impressive performance and Russia's weakness should force us to confront and reassess the fashionable narrative of pessimism about liberal democracies. The war, as well as other recent developments, has revealed the reserves of strength and resilience in liberal democracies, while the weaknesses of strong states such as Russia and China have become more apparent. This assessment is not one of complacency. Rather, Fukuyama points to the high stakes of the war—and the importance of strengthening our resolve to defend free countries against authoritarian threats.

Dr. Francis Fukuyama, an American political scientist and economist, dismantles the complex dynamics of liberalism, democracy, and communism—including its ideal concept, evolution, and growing threats. Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). He is also the writer of the famous "The End of History and the Last Man" (1992), "Liberalism and Its Discontents" (2022), and "Political Order and Political Decay" (2014). #Endgame #GitaWirjawan #FrancisFukuyama ----------------- Pre-Order the official Endgame merchandise: https://wa.me/628119182045 SGPP Indonesia Master of Public Policy 2022/24 admission: admissions.sgpp.ac.id admissions@sgpp.ac.id https://wa.me/628111522504 Other "Endgame" episode Playlist: https://endgame.id/season2 https://endgame.id/season1 https://endgame.id/thetake Visit and subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/c/SGPPIndonesia https://www.youtube.com/@VisinemaPictures

We continue our Best of 2022 episodes with an  episode from the Democracy Works podcast, hosted by Jenna Spinelle, Christopher Beem, Michael Berkman. Can liberal democracy withstand the challenges its currently facing? Francis Fukuyama is one of America's leading scholars on liberalism and joins us this week for a discussion about the threats its faces and how we might overcome them.It's no secret that liberalism didn't always live up to its own ideals. In America, many people were denied equality before the law. Who counted as full human beings worthy of universal rights was contested for centuries, and only recently has this circle expanded to include women, African Americans, LGBTQ+ people, and others. Conservatives complain that liberalism empties the common life of meaning. As the renowned political philosopher Francis Fukuyama shows in Liberalism and Its Discontents, the principles of liberalism have also, in recent decades, been pushed to new extremes by both the right and the left: neoliberals made a cult of economic freedom, and progressives focused on identity over human universality as central to their political vision. The result, Fukuyama argues, has been a fracturing of our civil society and an increasing peril to our democracy.Fukuyama isthe Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a faculty member at Stanford's Institute on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. His previous books include Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment and The End of History and the Last Man.Liberalism and its DiscontentsDemocracy Works PodcastMore shows from The Democracy Group

Our guest today is Francis Fukuyama. He is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a faculty member of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, and a professor of Political Science. His interest in philosophy and inspiration for his later work came from his undergraduate teacher, Allan Bloom. He talks about interpersonal trust that enables formal institutions to establish property rights and the rule of law and a commercial code to promote economic activity, about the lack of trust that will add to transaction costs and make business dealings much more difficult. When asked about the eroding political trust he talks about the rise of populist politicians and the distrust they foster against institutions as well as media to gain power, the elite losing sight of the views of ordinary people, being unresponsive and unaccountable, which has led to a crisis of trust in political institutions. We talk about information distortion, conspiracy theories, and the imperviousness of fact-checking and evidence. He counters China and Russia's arguments that liberal democracy is an obsolete system, and talks about Putin's Ukraine war and the effects that any outcome will have on other conflicts in the world, the Biden election win denial in the US, people's disenchantment with European institutions for not delivering.

It's no secret that liberalism didn't always live up to its own ideals. In America, many people were denied equality before the law. Who counted as full human beings worthy of universal rights was contested for centuries, and only recently has this circle expanded to include women, African Americans, LGBTQ+ people, and others. Conservatives complain that liberalism empties the common life of meaning. As the renowned political philosopher Francis Fukuyama shows in Liberalism and Its Discontents, the principles of liberalism have also, in recent decades, been pushed to new extremes by both the right and the left: neoliberals made a cult of economic freedom, and progressives focused on identity over human universality as central to their political vision. The result, Fukuyama argues, has been a fracturing of our civil society and an increasing peril to our democracy.Fukuyama isthe Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a faculty member at Stanford's Institute on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. His previous books include Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment and The End of History and the Last Man.Liberalism and its Discontents

As a philosophy that means different things to different people and groups, it can be hard to know what liberalism stands for. Traditionally, liberalism is viewed as a political and moral philosophy based on individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. In the 1990s and 2000s, democracy spread and markets prospered, and it seemed like the continuing expansion of liberal values was assured. But recent years have revealed major challenges to liberalism from both the right and the left. In his book Liberalism and Its Discontents, political philosopher Francis Fukuyama wrote that classical liberalism is in a state of crisis and asked essential questions about how to move forward. While liberalism was developed to help govern diverse societies and was grounded in fundamental principles of equality and the rule of law, huge inequalities still evolved. And while liberalism emphasizes the rights of individuals to pursue personal happiness, free from encroachment by the government, we still disagree about what those freedoms entail. Fukuyama wrote about how liberalism hasn't always lived up to its own ideals. In the U.S., many people have been – and still are – consistently denied equality before the law, including African Americans and other people of color, members of the LGBTQIA+ community, women, and many more. He also examined how, in recent decades, the principles of liberalism have been pushed to new extremes by both the right and the left. The result, Fukuyama argues, has been a fracturing of our civil society and an increasing peril to our democracy. Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. He has previously taught at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University and at the George Mason University School of Public Policy. He was a researcher at the RAND Corporation and served as the deputy director in the State Department's policy planning staff. He is the author of The End of History and the Last Man, Trust, and America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. Eric Liu is the co-founder and CEO of Citizen University and director of the Aspen Institute's Citizenship & American Identity Program. He is the author of several acclaimed books, most recently, Become America: Civic Sermons on Love, Responsibility, and Democracy — a New York Times New & Notable Book. He has been selected as an Ashoka Fellow and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is featured on the PBS documentary American Creed and is a frequent contributor to The Atlantic. Liu served as a White House speechwriter for President Bill Clinton and as the President's deputy domestic policy adviser. He was later appointed by President Obama to serve on the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service. Buy the Book: Liberalism and Its Discontents (Hardcover) from Elliott Bay Books Presented by Town Hall Seattle. To become a member or make a donation click here. 

According to Dr Fukuyama, liberalism is in a state of crisis and is facing increasing threats from authoritarianism, identity politics, social media, and a weakened free press the world over. In his address to the IIEA, Dr Fukuyama explores the roots of this crisis and makes the case for a revitalised liberalism for the twenty-first century. About the Speaker: Francis Fukuyama is Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University. He has previously taught at John Hopkins University and George Mason University, alongside serving as a researcher at the RAND Corporation and Deputy Director for the State Department's policy planning staff. Francis Fukuyama has written prolifically on this subject. His most recent book Liberalism and its Discontents was published on 17 March 2022 by Profile Books.

Illiberal forces are on the rise throughout the country and the world. Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. He joins host Krys Boyd to discuss the pushback against classical thoughts about individual rights, rule of law, and equality, and what he sees as the decaying of American institutions. His book is called “Liberalism and Its Discontents.”

Hosted by Andrew Keen, Keen On features conversations with some of the world's leading thinkers and writers about the economic, political, and technological issues being discussed in the news, right now. In this episode, Andrew is joined by Francis Fukuyama, author of Liberalism and Its Discontents. Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. He has previously taught at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and at the George Mason University School of Public Policy. Fukuyama was a researcher at the RAND Corporation and served as the deputy director for the State Department's policy planning staff. He is the author of Identity, Political Order and Political Decay, The Origins of Political Order, The End of History and the Last Man, Trust, and America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. He lives with his wife in California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode of the Global Exchange, Colin Robertson speaks to Dr. Francis Fukuyama about his new book, which explores the decline of liberalism. Guest Bio: Francis Fukuyama is Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and a faculty member of FSI's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). He is also Director of Stanford's Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy, and a professor (by courtesy) of Political Science. https://fukuyama.stanford.edu Host biography Colin Robertson is a former diplomat, and Senior Advisor to the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, https://www.cgai.ca/colin_robertson Read Liberalism and Its Discontent by Francis Fukuyama – https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374606718/liberalism-and-its-discontents Termination Shock by Neal Stephenson – https://www.nealstephenson.com Recording Date: 29 Apr 2022. Give 'The Global Exchange' a review on Apple Podcast! Follow the Canadian Global Affairs Institute on Facebook, Twitter (@CAGlobalAffairs), or on Linkedin. Head over to our website www.cgai.ca for more commentary. Produced by Charlotte Duval-Lantoine. Music credits to Drew Phillips.

It's not news that liberalism is under pressure. And one of the most prominent liberals of our era is Francis Fukuyama. As he writes in his latest book, Liberalism and its Discontents, the virtues of liberalism need to be clearly articulated and celebrated once again." In this wide-ranging dialogue, Frank and I discuss how his thinking has evolved since his famous 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man, including the central tension between the universalism of liberal morality and the fact of nation states, and between the pluralism of liberal politics and the central importance of thymos - respect, dignity, recognition. Along the way we talk about the perils of the university tenure system, the significance of the war in Ukraine, why Papua New Guinea is such a good place to study political order, the relationship between liberalism and laissez-faire capitalism (Spoiler: hugely overstated), and the content of a good life, or what it means, in Mill's word "to pursue our own good in our as seen through the eyes of a liberal. Francis Fukuyama Tweets from @FukuyamaFrancis Read: Liberalism and Its Discontents (2022) The End of History and the Last Man (1992) The Origins of Political Order (2011) Political Order and Political Decay (2015) See also my review of his latest book in the Literary Review here. Francis Fukuyama is Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and a faculty member of FSI's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). He is also Director of Stanford's Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy, and a professor (by courtesy) of Political Science. More Christianism by Leon Wiesetlier Check out my dialogue with Joseph Henrich whose work we discussed, on Spotify  here or Apple here.

The twin crises of COVID-19 and climate change have exposed weaknesses in the institutions and diplomatic relationships designed to support global governance. In a new series of articles for Chatham House, author and journalist John Kampfner has been exploring how competition between the United States and China has exacerbated these faultlines. In his final piece, John assesses the relative soft power of the two states, and argues that the era of rivalry has tarnished both the American and Chinese brands, with many countries around the world growing wary of choosing allegiances. In this episode, Ben and John discuss the US-China strategic rivalry with Francis Fukuyama, the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and Hongying Wang, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Waterloo and Senior Research Fellow at CIGI.  Read the article: Big power rivalry: Who is winning the popularity wars? Credits: Speakers: Francis Fukuyama, John Kampfner, Hongying Wang Host: Ben Horton Editor: Jamie Reed Sound Services Recorded and produced by Chatham House.

The twin crises of COVID-19 and climate change have exposed weaknesses in the institutions and diplomatic relationships designed to support global governance. In a new series of articles for Chatham House, author and journalist John Kampfner has been exploring how competition between the United States and China has exacerbated these faultlines. In his final piece, John assesses the relative soft power of the two states, and argues that the era of rivalry has tarnished both the American and Chinese brands, with many countries around the world growing wary of choosing allegiances. In this episode, Ben and John discuss the US-China strategic rivalry with Francis Fukuyama, the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and Hongying Wang, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Waterloo and Senior Research Fellow at CIGI.  Read the article: Big power rivalry: Who is winning the popularity wars? Credits: Speakers: Francis Fukuyama, John Kampfner, Hongying Wang Host: Ben Horton Editor: Jamie Reed Sound Services Recorded and produced by Chatham House.

October 20, 2020 Donald Trump was elected in 2016 riding a wave of global populism. His first term has marked a turn toward isolationism, nationalism, and attacks on domestic and international institutions. How will the COVID-19 epidemic and racial protests in the US affect the outcome of the upcoming US election, and what implications will this have for geopolitics? Speaker Francis Fukuyama, Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies; Mosbacher Director, Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law; Director, Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy, Stanford University In Collaboration with NYU Washington, DC

Francis Fukuyama, chairman of the board of American Purpose and the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, has published a new UK edition of his famous book, The End of History and the Last Man, accompanied with a new foreword. He joined host Richard Aldous to discuss how his seminal work has aged, the challenges liberalism is facing today from both the left and the right, and why now is the perfect time to start a new magazine.

Our guest this week is Francis Fukuyama, the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. His new article in Foreign Affairs, "The Pandemic and Political Order” provides the topic for this edition of GoodFellows. The piece poses a slew of intriguing questions and issues that the GoodFellows opine on: What will the world will look like post-COVID-19 pandemic? How will the global economy recover? Does the pandemic mark the end of Reaganism and Chicago School free-market economics? If so, what comes next? Also, why have some countries dealt with the crisis better than others so far, regardless of their political ideologies? Finally, even though the pandemic originated in China, East Asia has generally managed the situation better than Europe or the United States. Does this signal that COVID is shifting the economic tectonic plates under our feet? It’s a fascinating conversation that attempts to peek around the bend and predict what the world may look like over the next 18 to 24 months.SPECIAL GUEST:Francis Fukuyama is Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), Mosbacher Director of FSI's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), and Director of Stanford's Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy.  He is also professor (by courtesy) of Political Science. Dr. Fukuyama has written widely on issues in development and international politics. His 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man, has appeared in over twenty foreign editions. His most recent book, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, was published in Sept. 2018.Recorded June 16, 2020 1PM PT

In this episode, hosts Chris and Ken speak to Francis Fukuyama, Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for international Studies. Fukuyama joins the podcast to talk about his recent article in The Atlantic, where he discusses the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of both autocratic and democratic governments in handling the COVID-19 pandemic.

With an average age of 41, Ukraine’s new parliament — elected in July 2019 — is its least experienced one yet. 80 percent of the legislature had no political experience before the election last summer, and the nation is at a crossroads of sorts: will it transition into a successful reformist government, or will its efforts fail? Francis Fukuyama — the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at FSI, and the director of both the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law and the Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy program — is optimistic. In this episode, Fukuyama discusses the struggle for democracy in Ukraine, and why we all should be paying attention.

With an average age of 41, Ukraine’s new parliament — elected in July 2019 — is its least experienced one yet. 80 percent of the legislature had no political experience before the election last summer, and the nation is at a crossroads of sorts: will it transition into a successful reformist government, or will its efforts fail? Francis Fukuyama — the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at FSI, and the director of both the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law and the Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy program — is optimistic. In this episode, Fukuyama discusses the struggle for democracy in Ukraine, and why we all should be paying attention.

Host James Strock discusses the emergence of “identity politics” with noted political scientist and educator Francis Fukuyama. Dr. Fukuyama is the author of the new book, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. Francis Fukuyama is Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and the Mosbacher […]

In 2014, Francis Fukuyama wrote that American institutions were in decay, as the state was systematically captured by powerful interest groups. Two years later, political outsiders have risen to power by leaning on direct charismatic connections to “the people,” who are usually defined in narrow terms that offer an irresistible call to an in-group and exclude large parts of the population as a whole. Now Fukuyama arrived at Town Hall to lend us his perspective from his book Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. Fukuyama asserted that the demand for recognition of one’s identity, which he deems a fundamental human instinct, is a master concept that defines much of world politics today. He told us that the universal recognition on which liberal democracy is predicated has been increasingly challenged by narrower forms of recognition based on nation, religion, sect, race, ethnicity, or gender. Fukuyama cautioned us that these narrower forms of recognition have resulted in the rise of populism, polarization, and intolerant nationalist movements of the sort that have seen a recent resurgence in America. He told us that we must begin shaping identity on a national scale if we want it to support, rather than undermine, democracy. Join Fukuyama as he delivers a sharp warning: unless we forge a universal understanding of human dignity, we will doom ourselves to continuing conflict. Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. He has previously taught at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and at the George Mason University School of Public Policy. He is the author of Political Order and Political Decay, The Origins of Political Order, The End of History and the Last Man, Trust, and America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. Recorded live at Seattle University by Town Hall Seattle on Wednesday, November 14, 2018. 

Technology is threatening liberal democracy, say Toomas Hendrik Ilves and Francis Fukuyama. The internet has revolutionized society, but too often it is exploited by authoritarian leaders and populist groups. Fake news breeds more partisanship and disunity. Governments can do more to combat this, but there is a fine line between sensible regulation and encroaching on free speech. For instance, China already drastically regulates their citizens' media use, breeding political resentment. There are no easy answers, and citizens need to encourage a culture shift to continue fighting the toxic effects of these technologies. Francis Fukuyama is the Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law and the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Toomas Ilves is the former President of Estonia and a current affiliate of the Center for International Security and Cooperation.

Technology is threatening liberal democracy, say Toomas Hendrik Ilves and Francis Fukuyama. The internet has revolutionized society, but too often it is exploited by authoritarian leaders and populist groups. Fake news breeds more partisanship and disunity. Governments can do more to combat this, but there is a fine line between sensible regulation and encroaching on free speech. For instance, China already drastically regulates their citizens' media use, breeding political resentment. There are no easy answers, and citizens need to encourage a culture shift to continue fighting the toxic effects of these technologies. Francis Fukuyama is the Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law and the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Toomas Ilves is the former President of Estonia and a current affiliate of the Center for International Security and Cooperation.

Democracy is in jeopardy. Dictatorships are on the rise. What can we do to change the political landscape? In Stanford Reunion's "Classes without Quizzes" series, FSI scholars explain why populism is on the rise in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the world and how it relates to the decline of democracies. FSI Director Michael McFaul moderates the panel which includes Francis Fukuyama, the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at FSI and the Mosbacher Director at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law; Anna Grzymala-Busse, an FSI senior fellow and Director of the Global Populisms Project; and Didi Kuo, the Academic Research and Program Manager for the Program on American Democracy in Comparative Perspectives.

Democracy is in jeopardy. Dictatorships are on the rise. What can we do to change the political landscape? In Stanford Reunion's "Classes without Quizzes" series, FSI scholars explain why populism is on the rise in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the world and how it relates to the decline of democracies. FSI Director Michael McFaul moderates the panel which includes Francis Fukuyama, the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at FSI and the Mosbacher Director at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law; Anna Grzymala-Busse, an FSI senior fellow and Director of the Global Populisms Project; and Didi Kuo, the Academic Research and Program Manager for the Program on American Democracy in Comparative Perspectives.