弗朗西斯·福山：曆史的終結並非你所想

弗朗西斯·福山：曆史的終結並非你所想

薩姆·哈裏斯 2026年4月16日

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMFkJ3Xq2Go&t=450s

薩姆·哈裏斯與弗朗西斯·福山探討了自由民主、美國政治和全球秩序。他們討論了被誤解的“曆史終結”論題、保守主義如何演變為民族主義、身份政治和新自由主義的極端化弊端、特朗普第二任期的危害、伊朗戰爭、以色列的未來、左右兩派的反猶主義以及其他話題。

弗朗西斯·福山是斯坦福大學弗裏曼·斯波格利國際問題研究所的奧利維爾·諾梅利尼高級研究員，也是斯坦福大學福特·多爾西國際政策碩士項目的負責人。作為他那一代最具影響力的政治思想家之一，他最著名的作品是1992年出版的《曆史的終結與最後的人》。他的回憶錄《在最後的人的領域》即將出版。福山博士曾在約翰·霍普金斯大學、喬治·梅森大學、蘭德公司和美國國務院政策規劃部擔任要職。他的文章發表在Persuasion網站上，他的播客節目是Frankly Fukuyama。

網站：francisfukuyama.com

訂閱薩姆·哈裏斯的免費新聞簡報：https://samharris.org/newsletter-signup/

0:00民主，尤其是美國的民主，看起來正在分崩離析。你聽說過，你知道，白人是受迫害的少數群體。

0:088在美國。嗯，所以他們在某種程度上借用了左派的受害者話語。他

0:1515攻擊了美國最基本的製度，似乎沒有哪個製度是他不想破壞的。

0:2222你知道，呃，他真的想像國王一樣統治美國。我今天和

0:3030弗朗西斯·福山一起。弗蘭克，感謝你參加我的播客節目。哦，非常感謝邀請。

0:3535我想你我隻見過一次麵。我不知道你是否還記得，但我想我們是在……
0:4141很久以前在墨西哥的Seo Dasi Day會議上見過麵。好的。當然。在普埃布拉。

0:4848是的。是的，那是一場製作精良的活動。呃，令人印象深刻。這就像……

0:5656 墨西哥版的TED，但是……呃，前排坐著一個很明顯的毒品販子。

1:031分3秒 呃，你知道，就是那種有20歲女朋友的氧氣愛好者之類的。

1:081分8秒 是的。由墨西哥最富有的人之一資助。

1:111分11秒 是的。很高興見到你。呃，我們有很多話要說。嗯，那我就從頭開始吧。

1:171分17秒 你從來沒有上過播客，這似乎是我犯的一個明顯的錯誤。所以，很抱歉讓您和觀眾等了這麽久才見到您。

1:25 1分25 但我想請教您一些政治智慧，以及您對當下局勢的看法。

1:33 1分33 但讓我們從頭開始，大多數人首先會通過您的文章認識您，然後是

1:40 1分40 然後是《曆史的終結》這本書。作為一名作家，我對書名非常敏感，因為書名可能會誤導大部分讀者，甚至誤導那些永遠不會讀這本書的人。我認為您就是這方麵的典型例子。《曆史的終結》

1:57 1分57 這句話似乎讓很多人誤以為您在宣稱一些您實際上並沒有宣稱的東西。所以你的論點是什麽？

2:05 2分5 人們對它的常見誤解是什麽？

2:07 2分7 嗯，我認為它圍繞著兩個詞展開。它指的不是曆史的終結，而是指

2:15 2分15 曆史似乎朝著哪個方向發展？曆史，你知道，在我看來，是

2:23 2分23 哲學家黑格爾的觀點，即人類社會的進步演進。所以，曆史的終結意味著

2:32 2分32 整個現代化發展進程的走向是什麽？我的論點是，它看起來

2:39 2分39 走向與自由民主政治製度相聯係的市場經濟。呃，這就是

2:47 2分47 我覺得這是個誤解，因為很多人隻看了標題就說他認為那些事情會停止發生，但這從來都不是呃

2:56 2分56 這個想法。還有一件事，我把原文改編成了一本書，書名是《曆史的終結與最後的人》。

3:05 3分5 “曆史的終結”部分來自哲學家黑格爾。“最後的人”部分來自哲學家弗裏德裏希·尼采。

3:11 3分11 尼采說，最後的人是曆史終結時出現的沒有抱負、沒有激情的生物，那時他所有的

3:20 3分20 物質上的舒適和安全都得到了保障，他不再有任何遠大的抱負或呃

3:29 3分29 野心。而這正是曆史終結論的問題之一：人們不願處於那種境地。

嘿，你們打算嚐試

3:36 3分36 重新反抗它。實際上，我在書版的最後五章解釋了民主會以哪些方式崩潰，

3:45 3分45 我認為這些方式實際上正在上演。所以，你仍然覺得自由民主，你知道，

3:54 3分54 自由民主沿著資本主義的軌道運行，已經或多或少地贏得了這場爭論，而且沒有真正的

4:02 4分2 持久的競爭者，即使實際上存在它的敵人，以及它可以被削弱的過程，或者

4:10 4分10 你認為，我的意思是，最近，就在昨天，有一個數據點支持這一點，那就是你

4:17 4分17 我們看到維克托·歐爾班輸掉了選舉。但我認為很多人把我們現在在中國看到的這種準資本主義威權主義視為更持久的競爭者。

4:27 4分27 你們如何看待這種感覺？

4:34 4分34 我們知道曆史的結局，那就是如果我們能堅持下去，那就是自由民主？

4:41 4分41 說實話，我不知道答案。我認為中國人已經建立了一個相當令人印象深刻的

4:49 4分49 製度。它是威權的。它是準市場經濟的，而且他們在運用新技術方麵非常成功。

4:56 4分56 他們能夠創新很多我們認為他們做不到的事情。相反，

5:03 5分3 民主製度，尤其是美國民主製度，看起來正在崩潰。呃，如果我是……一個試圖……

5:115分11 從一個貧窮、治理不善的國家搬到其他地方的人，呃，我會毫不猶豫地選擇美國，

5:205分20 在過去的幾十年裏。但是你知道，如今我不確定這對很多人來說是否還是一個有吸引力的模式。呃，我想說，如果……
5:285分28 中國人繼續保持他們的……發展機器運轉，呃，你知道，他們或許真的有一個……

5:365分36 替代方案。然而，我認為現在得出這個結論還為時過早，因為中國有很多問題，這些問題都與缺乏反饋有關，

5:465分46 對民意沒有……回應。呃，我認為，從長遠來看，這會給他們帶來麻煩。

5:55 5分55 嗯，我們會在這裏詳細討論美國民主的問題，但在此之前，

6:02 6分2 我想我們會相當多地提到自由主義的概念。在你最近的一本書裏，我想應該是你最近的那本書，《自由主義及其不滿》

6:09 6分9 深入探討了自由主義的概念，以及

6:17 6分17 在某些情況下，自由主義可能會適得其反，我想談談這一點。但在我們深入探討之前，什麽是

6:24 6分24 自由主義？這個詞似乎對不同的人來說含義各不相同，在不同的語境下可以有很多不同的意思。我們應該如何理解

6:32 6分32 自由主義？它的核心承諾是什麽？嗯，我可以告訴你我的意思。我認為自由主義政治製度是指政府的權力受到法治和憲法製衡的限製。

6:42 6分鍾 42 這是防止

6:50 6分鍾 50 政府，特別是行政部門，侵犯普通公民權利，過度幹預市場和公民日常活動的一種方式。

7:00 7分鍾 而真正讓我理解的自由主義政治製度的核心，正是對法律的服從。現在，它在

7:08 7分鍾 8 在世界其他地區還有其他含義。所以，如果你在歐洲說“自由主義”，

7:12 7分鍾 12 這意味著你非常支持自由市場，反對監管等等。但我認為，經濟上的自由主義解讀對我來說並不是關鍵。

7:21 7分鍾 21 對我來說，自由主義的關鍵不在於此。關鍵在於，國家權力應該受到法律的限製，並且

7:29 7分29應該有製衡機製來防止政府侵犯個人權利。

7:36 7分36那麽，你如何將自由主義的概念與保守主義聯係起來？它們又如何與我們政治中傳統的左右之分聯係起來？

7:48 7分48嗯，這很複雜，因為首先，現在對保守主義有幾種不同的定義。

7:57 7分57你知道，保守主義可能意味著你隻想盡可能多地保留過去的傳統。

8:04 8分4如果你生活在一個自由主義社會，那就意味著要保留自由主義的傳統。呃，我

8:12 8分12我認為我們現在麵臨的問題之一是保守主義已經變異成某種幾乎麵目全非的東西。你

8:19 8分19你知道，它回歸了舊的……嗯，這麽說吧。我認為在羅納德·裏根時代，保守主義實際上

8:27 8分27是一種自由主義。他相信市場。他相信有限政府，呃，所有這些

8:33 8分33限製。你知道，我基本上同意這一點。我認為政府可以

比他更積極地處理社會正義、不平等之類的問題。但他實際上仍然秉持著我認為是基礎性的自由主義傳統。

8:50 8:50 自從美國建國以來，這一直是美國政治的核心。

8:57 8:57 改變的是保守主義，因為它朝著種族主義的方向發展，變得……你知道的

9:06 9:6 相當專製，就其實施方式而言。我認為這非常不自由。你知道，維克托

9:14 9:14 奧爾班，你剛才提到的在匈牙利戰敗的奧爾班說，他試圖建立一個不自由的

9:21 9:21 民主製度。這意味著，你知道，有選舉，有民意，

9:26 9分26 但政府不受約束。政府不必遵守製衡原則。呃，你知道，政府可以做任何它想做的事。

9:34 9分34 如果這就是新的保守主義形式，我的意思是，JD Vance 似乎也這麽認為。呃，那麽這和

9:41 9分41 羅納德·裏根時代的那種保守主義關係不大。所以，你懷念的那種保守主義現在通常被稱為古典自由主義。

9:50 9分50 是的，這是在美國表達這種觀點的一種方式。嗯，這有點複雜，因為有些自由意誌主義者也認為自己是古典自由主義者。

10:02 10分鍾2 （他們自認為是古典自由主義者。）我認為還有更極端的版本，因為我認為真正的古典自由主義者，比如約翰·斯圖亞特·密爾，

10:11 10分鍾11 或者亞當·斯密，他們明白政府是必要的。政府提供某些公共產品。它提供，你知道，

10:18 10分鍾18 （它提供規則和法律的執行），你根本無法廢除政府。而在美國，

10:25 10分鍾25 （你明白，這裏有一些自由意誌主義邊緣群體，他們認為政府活動的各個方麵都是不合法的。）

10:34 10分鍾34 （你明白，稅收是不合法的。）

10:36 10分鍾36 嗯，我認為這是一個大問題，這真的不是古典自由主義的全部意義所在。 10:43 10分鍾43 嗯，我認為大多數理智的人，至少，你知道，如果給他們足夠的時間來考慮這個問題，如果我們能夠把這個論點推到足夠遠的程度，拋開任何扭曲的激勵機製，我認為大多數人

10:58 10分鍾58 目前來看，會趨向於類似古典自由主義的東西，

11:02 11分鍾2 也就是說，應該尊重個人權利。任何在私營部門最能實現的事情都應該在那裏實現。

11:10 11分鍾10 但有些事情是市??場看不到的，政府隻能很好地為我們完成。所以我們需要一些治理。我們不能成為無政府主義者或極端自由主義者。

11:21 11分21秒 個人權利是神聖的，因為個人至上確實能夠有效對抗威權主義和

11:30 11分30秒 極端形式的部落主義。然而，有一種觀察認為，這種形式的自由主義可能會

11:37 11分37秒 滑向一種極端的個人主義，以至於你失去了對

11:45 11分45秒 社會凝聚力的掌控，對吧？我們都變成了消費者。我們變得原子化。

11:52 11分52秒 政治體係根本無法真正確保人們能夠共同獲得他們想要的東西。然後，這就引出了

12:00 12分鍾 潛在的非常不自由的力量崛起，並占據一些空缺的空間。所以我們有了民粹主義，它以

12:07 12分7秒 各種形式出現。我們有身份政治，也有其他民族主義。我的意思是，你提到了JD Vance。所以，所以你可以擁有你你你

12:15 12分鍾15 你看起來可能很理智，直到你談論足夠長的時間，然後你就會感受到一種血統和土地的民族主義承諾，你知道，這是一種

12:24 12分鍾24 確保人們感到彼此聯係的方式，事情變得越來越奇怪，而我們正生活在

12:31 12分鍾31 經曆這一切。你能花一分鍾談談自由主義本身是如何脆弱的嗎？一個建立在開放和寬容基礎上的體係是如何容易被顛覆的？

12:41 12分鍾41 卡爾·帕特裏克至少在一個方麵稱之為寬容的悖論。

12:45 12分鍾45 是的。嗯，我認為這基本上就是好想法被推向極端，左右兩派都有這樣的例子。嗯，在右派，呃
12:55 12分55秒 就是所謂的新自由主義。

12:58 12分58秒 呃，我認為這是一種對市場經濟的極端崇拜，認為市場永遠不會犯錯，或者你

13:05 13分5秒 想要盡可能地放鬆管製，呃

tion。

13:28 13分28 我認為左翼問題基本上是身份政治，你知道，古典自由主義基於這樣一種觀念：

13:36 13分36 所有人類都擁有平等的尊嚴，沒有任何特定群體比其他人優越，或者擁有

13:45 13分45 支配他人的權利。我認為身份政治某種程度上顛覆了這一點，它把以前受壓迫的

13:53 13分53 少數群體或邊緣群體說：“不，你知道，

13:57 13分57 他們是特殊的，或者他們應該得到特殊的認可和關注。”

14:03 14分鍾3 我認為，他們就是從這裏開始偏離古典自由主義的，因為他們願意利用國家權力來強製執行一些

14:13 14分鍾13 這些群體身份，並強化它們，而不是將人們視為平等的公民。而且我

14:20 14分鍾20 我認為，極右翼和極左翼相互滋養，身份政治造成了這種

14:28 14分鍾28 前多數族群的反應，他們聲稱自己才是被壓迫的人，使用了同樣的身份政治語言

14:36 14分鍾36 所以現在你聽到的是，在美國，白人是受迫害的少數族裔。嗯，所以

14:43 他們在某種程度上借用了左派那種受害者的語言。

14:50 是的。是的。我必須承認，我還沒讀過你關於身份政治的書。但是，我想我從我看到的采訪中了解到了一些你的想法。

14:59 我覺得你對身份政治的抵觸情緒比我低。

15:06 15分鍾6我的意思是，我的感覺是，現在一切都失靈了，我的意思是，我總結一下：
15:13 15分鍾13尤其對於你來說，你知道，對於民主黨人來說，在目前的政治形勢下，我會說：
15:20 15分鍾20在這一點上，幾乎在任何情況下，出於任何原因提及種族問題，幾乎總是適得其反。

15:27 15分鍾27在政治上幾乎總是有害的。這並不是說我們不需要民權運動，但就我們現在的情況而言，我真的

15:34 15分鍾34感覺我們需要完全致力於一個不分種族的，你知道，

15:40 15分鍾40他們的品格，呃，你知道，政治和道德規範。嗯，在你看來，這是否太過分了？

15:48 15分鍾48 不，不，不。我完全同意。我認為，你知道，民權運動時期那種“種族平等”的古老理想仍然應該是

15:57 15分鍾57 我們想要努力實現的目標。我們可以承認，事實上，我們的社會並非種族平等，而且

16:04 16分鍾4 存在著各種隱性特權等等，但我認為，一個運轉良好的自由主義

16:12 16分鍾12 社會不能建立在將這些身份類別視為至關重要的基礎上

16:19 16分鍾19 你是誰。在一個自由的社會裏，你會根據個人的優點、成就、

16:27 16分27品格、道德，來評判一個人，而不是因為他們是女性、黑人、西班牙裔，或者屬於某個特定的群體，

16:38 16分38你想在一個多元化的社會中生活，在那裏你不會壓迫任何群體。

16:45 16分45但你也不會僅僅把社會看作是群體的集合。你會把社會看作是

16:53 16分53由個人組成的集合，他們可能出於共同的目的選擇與某些群體聯係，但他們的主要身份是他們自己創造的，並且他們自己可以控製的。

17:01 17分1是的。

17:06 17分6是的。我們很多人都對目前左右兩派都出現的反猶主義抬頭感到擔憂。而且，呃，我

17:14 17分14秒我想稍後談談以色列的現狀以及我們在中東的各種行動，但是，呃
17:21 17分21秒就美國語境下的反猶主義而言，我擔心大多數猶太人會

17:30 17分30秒將身份政治視為他們對抗反猶主義的唯一途徑。我的感覺是，呃，這真的

17:39 17分39秒毫無疑問，我們必須在不沉迷於身份政治的情況下捍衛自由主義價值觀。這聽起來是不是太

17:47 17分47秒太異想天開了，還是這才是正確的方法？

17:50 17分鍾50 不，不，我覺得你說的完全正確。我覺得，嗯，如果美國猶太人首先把自己視為猶太人，其次才把自己視為美國人，那麽他們肯定會對此產生負麵反應。還有一點是在以色列內部，你

18:06 18分鍾6 你知道，在我看來，以色列國最令人印象深刻的事情之一，嗯，對我這個古典自由主義者來說，就是阿拉伯人可以成為以色列公民。

18:16 18分鍾16 你知道，雖然猶太身份對以色列的自我認知很重要，但它

這並非成為以色列公民的唯一途徑。因此，以色列也有阿拉伯人。

18:27 他們並非總是受到公平或平等的對待，但他們可以投票，也可以參與政治體係。

18:35 參與政治體係，我認為這一直是以色列非常令人印象深刻的地方，是其他國家無法複製的。

18:43 在許多周邊的阿拉伯專製國家，你知道，這正是我真正擔心的，在這個特定的右翼聯盟的統治下，這種權利正在喪失。

18:52 這個聯盟更傾向於將猶太身份，以及某種特定的猶太身份，

19:00 視為成為以色列人的核心，我認為這幾乎必然會排斥那些並非傳統意義上的猶太人。

19:11 19分11 是的。好吧，我們還是回到那個話題吧，因為……嗯，世界上的那個地區讓我擔憂，就像此刻幾乎每個人都擔憂一樣。但先說說美國吧，

19:20 19分20 我認為我們從未有過如此腐敗的政府。拜登本應解決所有這些問題。呃，你們有一位總統，

19:28 19分28 試圖推翻一場公開反民主、對普京和她以及所有獨裁者友好的選舉，

19:36 19分36 而我們竟然又讓這個人連任了。我認為，如果民主黨人……呃，你……

19:43 19分43 想不出一些更有吸引力的方案，那將真是一場悲劇。

Francis Fukuyama: The End of History Was Never What You Think

Sam Harris  2026年4月16日
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMFkJ3Xq2Go&t=450s

Sam Harris speaks with Francis Fukuyama about liberal democracy, American politics, and global order. They discuss the misunderstood thesis of "The End of History," how conservatism has mutated into ethno-nationalism, the self-defeating extremes of both identity politics and neoliberalism, the damage of Trump's second term, the war in Iran, the future of Israel, antisemitism on the left and right, and other topics.

Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Director of Stanford's Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy. One of the most influential political thinkers of his generation, he is best known for his 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man. His forthcoming memoir is In the Realm of the Last Man. Dr. Fukuyama has held distinguished appointments at Johns Hopkins, George Mason University, the RAND Corporation, and the U.S. Department of State's Policy Planning Staff. His articles can be read at Persuasion, and his podcast is Frankly Fukuyama.

Website:  francisfukuyama.com

Subscribe to Sam Harris’s free newsletter: https://samharris.org/newsletter-signup/

0:00democracy, especially American democracy, looks like it's falling apart. You hear, you know, that white people are the persecuted minority in
0:088秒鍾the United States. Um, and so they're in a way borrowing that same language of victimization from the left. He has
0:1515秒鍾attacked the most basic American institutions and there doesn't seem to be an institution that he doesn't want
0:2222秒鍾to somehow undermine. You know, uh he really does want to rule uh the United States like a king. I am here with
0:3030秒鍾Francis Fukyama. Frank, thanks for joining me on the podcast. Oh, thanks very much for having me.
0:3535秒鍾I think you and I have only met in person once. I I don't know if you recall this, but I think we met in um
0:4141秒鍾Mexico ages ago at the Seo Dasi Day conference. Okay. Sure. In Puebla.
0:4848秒鍾Yeah. Yeah, that was a a a strangely well produced event. It was uh it was impressive. It was like the the the
0:5656秒鍾Mexican version of TED but with um some uh obvious narot trafficker sitting in in the front row.
1:031分鍾3秒鍾Uh you know, oxygenarians with 20-year-old girlfriends or something like that.
1:081分鍾8秒鍾Yeah. Funded by one of the richest men in Mexico.
1:111分鍾11秒鍾Yeah. Well, it's good to see you. Uh we've got a lot to talk about. Um so I'm just going to take it from the top here.
1:171分鍾17秒鍾You've never been on the podcast, which seems like a um a glaring omission on my part. So, apologies to both to you and the audience that it took so long to get
1:251分鍾25秒鍾you here, but um I just want to tap your um political wisdom uh and um get your view of the present.
1:331分鍾33秒鍾But um let's start with the um the beginning that most people will will know you first from your article and
1:401分鍾40秒鍾then book the end of history. Uh, as a writer of books, I'm I'm exquisitly sensitive to a title uh serving to
1:491分鍾49秒鍾mislead most of one's audience and most of the world who will never read the book. And I think you're the ultimate example of this. I The end of history as
1:571分鍾57秒鍾a phrase seems to have um convinced many people that you were claiming something that you were not in fact claiming. So what what what was your thesis there and
2:052分鍾5秒鍾what what is the common misunderstanding of it?
2:072分鍾7秒鍾Well, I think uh it revolves around two words. um and does not mean the sessation of history. It meant what is
2:152分鍾15秒鍾the objective or goal towards which history seems to be moving and history uh you know in my sense was that of the
2:232分鍾23秒鍾philosopher uh Hegel which um was a progressive uh evolution of human society. So the end of history meant
2:322分鍾32秒鍾where is the whole modernization development process uh tending and my argument was that it looked like it was
2:392分鍾39秒鍾tending towards a market economy linked to a liberal democratic uh political system. Uh so that was the origin of the
2:472分鍾47秒鍾I think the misunderstanding because a lot of people just read the title and said he thinks that stuff is going to stop happening and that was never the uh
2:562分鍾56秒鍾the the idea. The other thing is that I turned the original article into a book with the title the end of history and the last man.
3:053分鍾5秒鍾The end of history part comes from the philosopher Hegel. The last man part comes from the philosopher Friedrich
3:113分鍾11秒鍾Nichze who said that the last man is the ambitionless, passionless creature that emerges at the end of history when all
3:203分鍾20秒鍾of his material comforts and security had been taken care of and he no longer has any great aspirations or uh
3:293分鍾29秒鍾ambitions. and that this was one of the problems of the end of history that people aren't going to want to be in that position and they're going to try
3:363分鍾36秒鍾to re rebel against it. And I actually spent the last five chapters of the book version explaining how democracy could break down in ways that
3:453分鍾45秒鍾I think are actually uh being acted out as we speak. So, do do you still feel that liberal democracy, you know,
3:543分鍾54秒鍾liberal democracy uh running on the rails of of capitalism has more or less won the argument and there's no real
4:024分鍾2秒鍾durable contender to it even even if in fact there are uh enemies of it and and and processes by which it can erode or
4:104分鍾10秒鍾do you think and I I mean so one one data point recently as recently as I think yesterday in favor of that is you
4:174分鍾17秒鍾know we saw Victor Orban and lose the election. But I I think many people view uh the um the kind of capitalist quasi
4:274分鍾27秒鍾capitalist authoritarianism of that we're seeing in China now uh as a a more durable contender. How do you view that
4:344分鍾34秒鍾the sense that we know the punchline of history and it is liberal democracy if we can only hold on to it?
4:414分鍾41秒鍾Well, honestly, I don't know the answer to that. Uh I think that the Chinese have uh created a pretty impressive
4:494分鍾49秒鍾system. It is authoritarian. Uh it's quai market-based and they are very successful at marshalling new
4:564分鍾56秒鍾technology. They're capable of innovating a lot of things we thought they weren't able to do. And conversely,
5:035分鍾3秒鍾a democracy, especially American democracy, looks like it's falling apart. uh if I were uh somebody trying
5:115分鍾11秒鍾to move from a poor misgoverned country uh somewhere else uh I would have chosen the United States without question for
5:205分鍾20秒鍾most of the last several decades. But you know these days I'm not sure that it's such an attractive model for many people. Uh and I would say if the
5:285分鍾28秒鍾Chinese keep their uh development machine going uh you know it may turn out that they have a real uh
5:365分鍾36秒鍾alternative. I think however that it's a little premature to come to that conclusion because there are a lot of problems in China which are related to the fact that there's no feedback,
5:465分鍾46秒鍾there's no uh responsiveness to public opinion. Uh and that is going to get them into trouble, I think, uh in the long run.
5:555分鍾55秒鍾Well, we we'll talk about the um the problems of American democracy, I think, at some length here, but before we do,
6:026分鍾2秒鍾we're I think we'll invoke the concept of liberalism a fair amount. in your most recent book, I think it's your most recent book, the liberalism and its
6:096分鍾9秒鍾discontents, um goes deep into uh the concept of liberal liberalism and
6:176分鍾17秒鍾the way in which it can be self-defeating under certain conditions and I want to talk about that. But what before we jump in, what what is
6:246分鍾24秒鍾liberalism? And this word seems to shapeshift for people and it can mean many different things in different contexts. What should we mean by
6:326分鍾32秒鍾liberalism and what are its core commitments? Well, I can tell you what I mean. I think that a liberal political system is one in which government
6:426分鍾42秒鍾authority is limited by a rule of law and by constitutional checks and balances. It's a way of preventing the
6:506分鍾50秒鍾government, the executive from violating the rights of ordinary citizens from interfering too much in you know markets and uh ordinary activity of citizens.
7:007分鍾And it's really that u obedience to law that is at the core of what I regard as a liberal political system. Now it has
7:087分鍾8秒鍾other connotations in other parts of the world. So if you say liberal in Europe,
7:127分鍾12秒鍾it means that you're kind of very pro pro- free market. You're anti-regulation uh and that sort of thing. But I don't think that the economic uh
7:217分鍾21秒鍾interpretation of liberalism is for me the key thing. The key thing is that the state should be limited by law and there
7:297分鍾29秒鍾should be checks and balances to prevent violations of uh individual rights by the government.
7:367分鍾36秒鍾So, so how do you relate the concept of liberalism to conservatism and how do they relate uh to the traditional notion of of left and right in our politics?
7:487分鍾48秒鍾Well, um it's it's complicated because first of all, there are now several different definitions of conservatism.
7:577分鍾57秒鍾Uh you know, conservatism could mean that you simply want to preserve as much of the past uh tradition as uh as
8:048分鍾4秒鍾possible. And if you live in a liberal society, that's going to involve retaining liberal uh uh traditions. Uh I
8:128分鍾12秒鍾think one of the problems we're facing now is conservatism is mutated into something uh scarcely recognizable. You
8:198分鍾19秒鍾know, it's returned to an old Well, let me put it this way. I think in the days of Ronald Reagan, uh conservatism really
8:278分鍾27秒鍾was a form of liberalism. He believed in markets. He believed in limited government uh in all of these
8:338分鍾33秒鍾constraints. And you know, I basically agree with that. I think the government could be more active uh in terms of uh
8:428分鍾42秒鍾dealing with social justice, inequality kinds of questions than he did. But he was actually still in that liberal tradition that I think is foundational
8:508分鍾50秒鍾that's really been at the core of American politics really since the founding of the uh United States. What's
8:578分鍾57秒鍾changed is conservatism because it's gone off in this ethnoist uh direction that has become uh you know
9:069分鍾6秒鍾quite authoritarian in in the way that it's uh implemented. Uh and I think that that's very illiberal. You know Victor
9:149分鍾14秒鍾Orban that you um referred to as just having been defeated in Hungary said that he was trying to run an illiberal
9:219分鍾21秒鍾democracy. That means, you know, you have elections, you have popular will,
9:269分鍾26秒鍾but you're the government isn't restricted. The government doesn't have to follow checks and balances. Uh, you know, the government can do whatever it
9:349分鍾34秒鍾wants. And if that's the new form of conservatism, I mean, JD Vance seems to think so. Uh, then that's not that
9:419分鍾41秒鍾doesn't have much to do with the kind of conservatism that existed, you know, in Ronald Reagan's day. So it seems that the the the kind of conservatism you're
9:509分鍾50秒鍾nostalgic for is often going by the name of classical liberalism now.
9:549分鍾54秒鍾Yeah, that's one that's one way of putting it in the United States. Uh it gets complicated because you have these libertarians who also think of
10:0210分鍾2秒鍾themselves as classical liberals. I think that there are more extreme version because I think that you know the true classical liberals, people like John Stewart Mill
10:1110分鍾11秒鍾or Adam Smith understood you had to have government. government provided certain public goods. It provided uh you know
10:1810分鍾18秒鍾the enforcement of rules and and law and you simply couldn't do away with government. Whereas in in the US you
10:2510分鍾25秒鍾have this libertarian fringe that thinks that somehow all aspects of government uh activity are somehow illegitimate.
10:3410分鍾34秒鍾The taxes are illegitimate. Yeah.
10:3610分鍾36秒鍾Uh and I think that that's uh you know a big problem and that really is not what classical liberalism was all about.
10:4310分鍾43秒鍾Well, I think most uh sane people at least, you know, given enough time to consider the matter and if we could push
10:5010分鍾50秒鍾the argument far enough um outside of any perverse incentives, most people I
10:5810分鍾58秒鍾think will converge on something like classical liberalism at this moment,
11:0211分鍾2秒鍾which is that there should be a respect for individual rights. Whatever should be whatever is best accomplished in the private sector should be accomplished
11:1011分鍾10秒鍾there. But there's some things the market can't see and the government can only accomplish well for us. And so we need some governance. We can't be uh anarchists or or extreme libertarians.
11:2111分鍾21秒鍾Individual rights are sacred because because the primacy of the individual really is a b work against authoritarianism and
11:3011分鍾30秒鍾extreme forms of tribalism. And yet there's there's this observation that liberalism in this form can kind of tip
11:3711分鍾37秒鍾over into a an individualism that's so radical that that you sort of lose purchase on
11:4511分鍾45秒鍾social cohesion, right? That we all just become consumers. We come become atomized. There's no way for the the
11:5211分鍾52秒鍾political system to really uh ensure that people get what they want communally. And then that invites
12:0012分鍾uh potentially very illiberal forces to rise up and claim some of that vacated space. So we have populism in its
12:0712分鍾7秒鍾various forms. We have identity politics. We have other just nationalism. I mean you mentioned JD Vance. So you so you can have you you
12:1512分鍾15秒鍾can you can seem to be sane until you talk long enough and then you get a kind of blood and soil you know ethnationalist commitment coming in as a
12:2412分鍾24秒鍾way of uh ensuring that people feel uh bonded together uh and things get weirder and weirder and we're living
12:3112分鍾31秒鍾through that. Can you talk for a minute about just how liberalism itself is vulner how how a system built on openness and tolerance is vulnerable to being subverted?
12:4112分鍾41秒鍾Carl Pa called this the paradox of tolerance in in at least one facet.
12:4512分鍾45秒鍾Yeah. Well, I I think it's basically good ideas being carried to extremes and you had two cases of that both on the right and the left. Uh on the right uh
12:5512分鍾55秒鍾you had what's sometimes called neoliberalism.
12:5812分鍾58秒鍾Uh I think that this was an extreme sort of worship of market economics where you know markets could do no wrong or you
13:0513分鍾5秒鍾wanted to you know uh deregulate um uh as much as possible uh and you didn't
13:1213分鍾12秒鍾worry about things like growing economic u inequality as a result of you know this uh free market system. So that was
13:2013分鍾20秒鍾one of the things that drove liberalism in I think a bad direction that then spawned a left-wing reaction. The
13:2813分鍾28秒鍾left-wing problem I think is basically identity politics that uh you know classical liberalism is based on a
13:3613分鍾36秒鍾notion that all human beings have an equal dignity and that no particular group of uh people is superior or has a
13:4513分鍾45秒鍾right to dominate uh others. And I think identity politics kind of reversed that and took, you know, formerly oppressed
13:5313分鍾53秒鍾minorities or groups that had been marginalized and said, "No, you know,
13:5713分鍾57秒鍾they're special or they deserve uh special recognition uh and and notices."
14:0314分鍾3秒鍾And that's where I think uh they started to deviate from classical liberalism because they were willing to use state power to you know enforce uh some of
14:1314分鍾13秒鍾these group identities uh uh and strengthen them rather than treating uh people as uh as equal citizens. And I
14:2014分鍾20秒鍾think you know the extreme right and the extreme left then fed on each other uh that the identity politics created this
14:2814分鍾28秒鍾reaction on the part of former majority communities that said that they were the ones that were being oppressed using the same language this identitarian
14:3614分鍾36秒鍾language. So now you hear you know that white people are the persecuted minority uh in the United States. Um and so
14:4314分鍾43秒鍾they're in a way borrowing that same language of victimization from the um uh you know from the left.
14:5014分鍾50秒鍾Yeah. Yeah. I I must confess I I haven't read your book on identity politics. Uh but I I think I've gleaned some of what
14:5914分鍾59秒鍾you think about it from from interviews I've seen. I feel like you're less allergic to identity politics than I am.
15:0615分鍾6秒鍾I mean my feeling is that just across the board it's now dysfunctional and and I mean the one way I would summarize
15:1315分鍾13秒鍾this is that especially for you know left of center for for Democrats at this moment in our politics I would say that
15:2015分鍾20秒鍾virtually any mention of race in any context for any reason is almost always counterproductive at this point. It's
15:2715分鍾27秒鍾almost always toxic politically. This is not to say we didn't need a civil rights movement, but where we are now, I really
15:3415分鍾34秒鍾feel like we need a a just a a full commitment to a raceblind, you know,
15:4015分鍾40秒鍾content of their character, uh, you know, political and ethical norm. Um, does does that go too far in your view?
15:4815分鍾48秒鍾No, no, no. I I completely agree with that. I think that uh you know this old ideal from the civil rights era of a colorblind society should still be the
15:5715分鍾57秒鍾objective that we want to move to. we can recognize uh you know de facto that our society isn't colorblind and that
16:0416分鍾4秒鍾there all these ways of hidden privilege and and so forth but I don't think that you can have a functioning liberal
16:1216分鍾12秒鍾society based on you know uh making these uh identity categories essential
16:1916分鍾19秒鍾to who you are. uh in a liberal society you judge individuals based on their individual merits, achievements,
16:2716分鍾27秒鍾character, uh morality uh and you don't judge them based on the fact that they are, you know, female or black or Hispanic or, you know, a member of any,
16:3816分鍾38秒鍾you know, particular uh group. You want to tolerate and live in a pluralistic society where you're not oppressing any
16:4516分鍾45秒鍾of those groups, but you're also not seeing the society just as a collection of groups. You're seeing a society as a
16:5316分鍾53秒鍾collection of individuals that may choose to associate with certain groups for common purposes, but their primary identity is something that they
17:0117分鍾1秒鍾themselves create and they themselves uh have uh control over.
17:0617分鍾6秒鍾Yeah. Many of us are concerned about the rise of anti-semitism we see on both the left and the right now. and and uh I
17:1417分鍾14秒鍾want to talk about the the status of Israel and our various adventures in in the Middle East uh in a minute, but um
17:2117分鍾21秒鍾just taking the anti-semitism piece in an American context, I'm I'm I'm worried that Jews will will see most Jews will
17:3017分鍾30秒鍾see identity politics as their only bull work against anti-semitism. And I I I my feeling here is uh that this is really
17:3917分鍾39秒鍾no exception that you we have to fight for liberal values without indulging in identity politics. Does that seem too
17:4717分鍾47秒鍾quicksotic to you or is does that seem like the right algorith?
17:5017分鍾50秒鍾No, no, I think that I think you're absolutely right about that. I think that um if uh American Jews see
17:5717分鍾57秒鍾themselves first as Jews and secondly as Americans, there's going to be a you know negative reaction to that. The other thing is within Israel itself, you
18:0618分鍾6秒鍾know, it seemed to me that one of the impressive things about the state of Israel, uh, for me as a classical liberal was the fact that Arabs could be citizens of Israel.
18:1618分鍾16秒鍾You know, that that although Jewish identity was important to Israel's self-conception, it wasn't the exclusive way that you could be an Israeli citizen. And so you had Israeli Arabs.
18:2718分鍾27秒鍾they were not always treated uh you know fairly or equally but you know they could um vote and they could you know
18:3518分鍾35秒鍾take part in the political system and I thought that that was always a very impressive thing about the state of Israel something that wasn't replicated
18:4318分鍾43秒鍾in many of the surrounding you know authoritarian Arab countries and you know that's what I really fear is being lost under this particular right-wing
18:5218分鍾52秒鍾coalition that you know they're they're more intent on uh making the Jewish identity and a specific kind of Jewish
19:0019分鍾identity core to what it means to be Israeli, which I think is almost automatically exclusionary for people that, you know, aren't um uh Jews in that fashion.
19:1119分鍾11秒鍾Yeah. Well, let's get back to that cuz I I'm uh that part of the world worries me as it worries almost everybody at this moment. But to stick with America for a second,
19:2019分鍾20秒鍾I don't think we've ever had an administration that has been this corrupt. Biden was supposed to fix all of this. uh you had a president that
19:2819分鍾28秒鍾tried to overturn an election that was openly anti-democratic, was friendly to uh Putin and she and all the dictators
19:3619分鍾36秒鍾in the world and we managed to reelect this guy. I think that it's going to be really a tragedy if the Democrats uh you
19:4319分鍾43秒鍾know don't manage to come up with something a little bit more attractive.