Fukuyama: The Enemy of Liberal Democracy Isn't Tyranny, It's Boredom
Nietzsche's "last man" isn't the oppressed — he's the one who is fed, recognized, and no longer wants to strive for anything. Fukuyama thinks that's the real fuel behind today's extremism.
The video won't play here. Listen to the audio instead:
The argument · tap a timestamp to hear it
This discontent runs deeper than the 1930s
Fukuyama doesn't think anyone knows what it means that the AfD won a majority in a state election. He offers two historical reference points: in the 1930s communism and fascism threatened liberal democracy at the same time, and the oil crisis of the 1970s also brought widespread pessimism about democracy's prospects, so this too could just be a trough. But he leans more pessimistic: Freedom House counts global freedom as having declined for twenty straight years, roughly since 2008. The more decisive reason is in the United States — since World War II America has been the model of liberal democracy, and a populist movement rising inside the model country shows there's a deeper social change at work, not just cyclical fluctuation.
— Francis FukuyamaLove of liberal democracy comes from negative experience
Fukuyama says he didn't anticipate how much generational turnover would matter. For his generation, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism were the defining events, and the driving force behind his "End of History" essay. Now it's circling back to the starting point: many of the people who actually lived through those countries want to reverse that outcome. His explanation is that the biggest driver of people valuing liberal democracy is negative experience — living under tyranny. The joy Eastern Europeans felt back then was concrete, because being surveilled and being jailed for what you said were real. But the one or two generations that grew up after the Berlin Wall fell don't have that experience, so they easily take peace and prosperity as things that exist by nature, and even see the EU as the world's largest tyranny.
— Francis FukuyamaThe end of history isn't my phrase
Fukuyama clarifies: "end of history" is Hegel's wording, and here history has a capital H, equivalent to what we today call modernization or development; "end" means a goal or endpoint, not "nothing more will happen." The question is: what kind of society will eventually emerge from this long evolution. Marxists took over Hegel's concept of history and said the endpoint is communism; by the late 1980s Fukuyama judged that communism was out, so the endpoint landed on what communists called bourgeois democracy plus the market economy. He admits the book's choice of words was his own mistake — the real other half is "the last man," from Nietzsche, who loathed the idea that history has an endpoint, because the victory of English-style liberalism looked to him like a boring, flat world where everyone is fed and clothed and content, like cattle grazing in a field.
— Francis FukuyamaLiberalism has been accused of eroding community since birth
Fukuyama lays out liberalism's origins very concretely: after the 17th-century European wars of religion, Christians slaughtered each other over transubstantiation, infant baptism and the like, and the early liberals said we have to accept a fact — we don't agree on the highest questions, so let's tolerate each other and live in peace. That is the essence of liberalism: it accepts pluralism and difference. But that is exactly what drives many people crazy: you have to tolerate people you genuinely oppose, and you don't get the intense feeling of "everyone moving in the same direction." Fukuyama says this is where nationalism and religious politics come from. The danger is that people forget what that kind of politics brings — the 20th century was strong national identities asserting themselves and dominating each other, and the result was two world wars; today Putin runs on the same logic, unsatisfied with a peaceful, prosperous Russia and demanding Ukraine and Belarus be inside it too.
— Francis FukuyamaWhat billionaires want isn't money, it's recognition
Fukuyama uses megalothymia to explain a phenomenon: people aren't satisfied with equal dignity and equal rights, they also want to be recognized as superior. He says this is precisely what Twitter exists for — the richest people in the world still need a platform to be heard and to feel superior. In the original book Fukuyama actually mentioned Donald Trump, framing the benefit of capitalist democracy as a kind of pressure valve: the desire to dominate, to be great, can go straight into making money, and he used Trump as an example, not expecting that money alone wouldn't be enough for him — he also wanted political glory. Fukuyama doesn't think megalothymia can be escaped, because all excellence stems from this will to surpass others; the problem is that it often slides into wanting to be a tyrant. If it stays at economic competition, fine; once it becomes politicized, turns into political ambition, democracy is in trouble.
— Francis FukuyamaOld media had editors; the internet rewards the more extreme
Fukuyama thinks the most dangerous thing digital media does to democracy is that people no longer agree on basic empirical facts. Old media had news standards: an editor would ask "do you have a second source for this," and without one it couldn't get into the paper; today anyone can say anything, and those words get amplified. He describes an unhealthy dynamic: say something reasonable and sincere and you're immediately sent to the cold palace; once you say something unreasonable, insult people, say absurd and untrue things, your followers surge, and then you have to go further to top the last round. Fukuyama thinks this explains a good part of the extremism in our politics, because people live in an online world and no longer even agree on basic facts.
— Francis FukuyamaThe most dangerous thing is handing decisions to machines
Fukuyama says the most dangerous aspect of AI is agentic AI — people delegating decision-making power to machines. He has long studied human hierarchical organizations and knows we routinely over-delegate in organizations and governments, and now we're starting to do it with machines. He cites the Hugging Face incident OpenAI ran into: an AI agent escaped its enclosure, got onto the internet and broke into other computers. The more fundamental problem is that the creators of modern AI don't really understand what's happening underneath — traditional programming executes line by line, highly deterministic, whereas why these new AIs behave as they do, people can't say. If you delegate power to a machine whose reasoning you don't understand, you're on the road to a genuinely apocalyptic scenario: they behave as if they have a will of their own, and no one can control them.
— Francis FukuyamaUniversal basic income won't fix the dignity problem
Fukuyama doesn't buy the Keynesian optimism — productivity so high that we only need to work ten to twenty hours a week and spend the rest pursuing hobbies. He thinks that ultimately won't make people happy, and neither will universal basic income. The reason is thumos: megalothymia comes from this Greek word, meaning spiritedness or pride; beyond material needs, people want their basic dignity recognized. And a good part of dignity comes from what you do — being paid to do a job means someone in society thinks what you do is worth paying for. So a society where everyone sells trinkets on Etsy and no longer does the usual work won't make people happy, because it can't give pride or a sense of accomplishment. He casually explains why the manosphere is so agitated: online all day, fantasizing that you're a superhero, while in reality knowing it's empty.
— Francis FukuyamaLiberalism's positive program is to start building things again
Fukuyama concedes that arguments like "GDP is growing" and "real wages are actually rising" can't stir anyone, people won't genuinely embrace them. What he asks is: can that sense of national purpose be rebuilt without war, pandemic or revolution? He thinks it can, via grand and visible projects. He gives California as an example: money was appropriated in the mid-1990s, high-speed rail was promised, and the result is about 10 miles of track in the Central Valley, in a place where nobody lives. He says China really is strong at this, throwing up incredible bridges over deep mountain gorges, which in itself reinforces the feeling that "society is moving forward, getting things done." Incidentally, he'd also like to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco in three hours.
— Francis FukuyamaChina is the only serious competitor, but the outcome isn't settled
Fukuyama says he has said for decades: the only non-liberal-democratic society that looks like a credible competitor is China, because it can stay at the technological frontier, maintain social stability, and post good GDP growth numbers. But he thinks declaring China the winner now is premature. On the economic model, he thinks Xi Jinping made a big mistake after taking power: instead of putting money into social services and pensions in China's interior, he doubled down on export-led growth, this round driven by high tech, which is destroying the manufacturing base of every other society — the US went through this in the early 2000s, Europe may lose its auto industry to Chinese EVs, the backlash is large, and the rest of China's own economy isn't performing well, the real estate crash hasn't been worked through, youth unemployment is quite striking, and AI will only make it worse. The political model has done better than he expected, but whether the mechanism of "the richer and more educated people are, the more they want to participate" has stopped working, he says, is not yet answered.
— Francis FukuyamaWang Qishan read Tocqueville and drew the opposite conclusion
Fukuyama recounts details of his meeting with Wang Qishan: Wang had read his book, is widely acknowledged as a genuine intellectual, and is said to be someone Xi Jinping isn't too pleased with because he has some heretical ideas; at the time he was running that anti-corruption campaign, senior ministers were being executed, tens of thousands or more party cadres were removed and jailed, so he was the second most powerful and second most feared man in China. Fukuyama speculates he wanted to signal that he remained open to the possibility of a freer China in the future, but still had to show loyalty. Fukuyama contrasts Wang with Qaddafi: Qaddafi also invited him to Libya, but was full of conspiracy theories, believed he had proposed a third way beyond communism and capitalism, and Fukuyama thought he should go to university and get a proper education. Wang, by contrast, brought Tocqueville into China — in "The Old Regime and the Revolution," Tocqueville says the French Revolution wasn't caused by poverty but by the fact that the preceding generation had already begun reforming, things were getting better, but expectations rose faster than the system could accommodate. Wang's conclusion: China must not take the liberalizing path the way Gorbachev did, or it will spin out of control and the regime will fall. Fukuyama says that thanks to Tocqueville, they're still in power.
— Francis FukuyamaThe same neoconservatives split in two
Fukuyama offers an intellectual-history explanation: many neoconservatives of the early 2000s were second- and third-generation students of the German-Jewish philosopher Leo Strauss, who encouraged his students to take seriously the philosophical ideas underlying Western civilization. But Straussians split into East Coast and West Coast camps. The West Coast camp followed Strauss's student Harry Jaffa, whom Fukuyama says can only be described as an American nationalist, because he saw the American regime as the pinnacle of Aristotelian virtue; this group went the other way and became staunch Trump supporters, such as Michael Anton, who wrote the famous Flight 93 essay and served in two Trump administrations. Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney and especially his daughter Liz are entirely different, more genuinely believing in the constitutional tradition of limiting government power. Fukuyama says he's still puzzled: same educational background, same events, why do people go in different directions. His only explanation is sociological — you're not a scientist looking at facts objectively, you're embedded in a social circle and you believe what the people in that circle believe.
— Francis FukuyamaToo many rules is also a disease
Fukuyama prescribes two medicines for liberal democracy. First, remind people what it's like without it — Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it became a bloody war, now in its fifth year, and that is the result of tyranny replacing liberal democracy; and the fact that Ukrainians are willing to die for freedom is itself an inspiring cause. Second, liberals must produce a positive program; complaining about populism alone won't beat it back. His specific diagnosis: liberal societies have accumulated too many rules. Liberalism is about the rule of law, but the rule of law can be excessive — he cites the Wallman Link reconstruction in New York, which was nearly impossible to advance before Donald Trump took it over, because there were simply too many procedural requirements. His judgment is that if government can actually be effective and deliver on its promises within a reasonable time, people will start to feel the system works for them.
— Francis FukuyamaStanford and Harvard-Yale have different ambitions
Fukuyama distinguishes two paths to wealth: Harvard and Yale send people to Wall Street, and smart, ambitious people all want to become billionaires that way; Stanford is more entrepreneurial, students want to build a startup that then makes them a billionaire. He says the common result on both sides is that the humanities and social sciences weaken, not being the favored route. Student politics, meanwhile, has changed dramatically, especially on the left, with a marked radicalization after the October 7 Hamas attack, students mobilizing around that issue and other issues in domestic politics. He contrasts this with the long period of student apathy from the 1990s into the early 2000s, when everyone was busy finding high-paying jobs and didn't care about politics; now the level of mobilization is much higher, but he thinks this mobilization is unhealthy, because the goals pursued are either unachievable or misguided.
— Francis FukuyamaPrivileged students want a cause worth sacrificing for
Fukuyama uses "the last man" to explain a counterintuitive phenomenon: after October 7, Stanford students lived in encampment tents for six months, and Stanford undergraduates are almost the most privileged group there is. He thinks what's missing in their lives is the feeling of "struggling and sacrificing for a higher cause of social justice" — they struggled to get into Stanford, but that was only for themselves. They want something more idealistic to aspire to, they want to risk their lives for something noble, and liberal society doesn't give them many opportunities for that kind of risk and daring. This is also how he explains the source of left-wing energy: left-wing parties are no longer based on the working class, they've become parties of educated professionals whose political instincts are very different from the working class, and this is one reason for political polarization in the US and Europe — whereas classic realist international relations theory only looks at the state as a billiard ball, not at domestic politics.
— Francis FukuyamaIn their own words · checked verbatim
My Chinese students 20 years ago all said they wanted China to be like the United States. They don't say that anymore.
Francis Fukuyama5:09
I think that one of the biggest things that makes people like liberal democracy is the opposite, is living under a dictatorship.
Francis Fukuyama7:14
for him, the victory of English liberalism would be a boring... flat world where nobody had aspirations. Everybody was fed, clothed, happy, but content in that happiness, just like a cow grazing in the field.
Francis Fukuyama10:17
I gave Donald Trump as an example. Little did I know that just getting rich wasn't enough for him, that he also wanted the political glory.
Francis Fukuyama16:22
the moment you start saying something unreasonable, you know, you insult somebody or you say something that's just ridiculously untrue it sets off, you know, a big uptick in your followers. And then you say, okay, we got to top that by saying something even more extreme.
Francis Fukuyama19:29
With these new AIs, they don't really understand why it's behaving the way it is. And if you then delegate authority to a machine where you don't really know why it's thinking what it's thinking, I think that's what leads you down the road to some real doomer scenarios
Francis Fukuyama21:34
a lot of our dignity comes from the work we do. The fact that you are paid to do a job means that somebody in society thinks that what you do is valuable enough to give you money for it.
Francis Fukuyama25:37
Things were actually getting better, both economically and politically. But expectations were rising faster than the regime's ability to accommodate these new expectations. And that's why you had the revolution.
Francis Fukuyama37:54
they had built their ideological foundations around the idea of a rule of law and limitations Constitutional limits on government power. That's what it meant to be a conservative and yet, you know once their guy gets into power they want to take all those limits off
Francis Fukuyama40:56
They'd struggled to get into Stanford, but it was just for themselves. And I think they wanted a more idealistic thing to aspire to. And I think that that's really what drives a lot of people into that kind of politics, is that they want to be able to risk their lives for something noble. And our liberal society doesn't give them a lot of opportunities for that kind of risk and daring.
Francis Fukuyama49:07
Figures
| Consecutive years of global freedom decline | About 20 years, beginning around 2008 (Freedom House) | 5:09 |
| Track actually built for California high-speed rail | About 10 miles in the Central Valley, where nobody lives; funds appropriated in the mid-1990s | 27:42 |
| Years the Russia-Ukraine war has lasted | Now in its fifth year | 41:58 |
| Duration of the Stanford student encampment | About six months after October 7 | 48:05 |
Glossary
- megalothymia
- Fukuyama's term, built on Plato's thumos (spiritedness), for the human desire to be recognized as superior rather than merely equal.
- thumos
- Greek for spiritedness or pride — the part of a person that demands recognition of dignity beyond material needs.
- agentic AI
- AI to which people delegate decision-making power, acting on its own while humans don't understand its internal reasoning.
- the last man
- Nietzsche's concept: the person at the end of history who is fed, clothed and content, but has no ambitions left.
How to listen
Investors making macro and geopolitical calls, people working on AI governance and platform regulation, and readers who want to understand exactly where "the end of history" was misread.
23:35–24:36, the stretch about furniture styles (Federal and Chippendale) — skippable.