As for the resemblance between salvation and democracy, I would suggest that a more millenarian analogy is appropriate. It is not individual salvation that is the aim, but something more like the thousand-year Rule of the Saints.

Millenarianism was a creation of 16th-century Calvinists, when they realized that there was no pure Church lasting a thousand years in the Christian past. The Rule of the Saints that would precede the Second Coming must therefore lie in the future. In 17th-century England, this expectation drove work in the applied sciences, social reform, and the Re-Admission of the Jews.

With the collapse of English Calvinism in the late 17th century, God’s general providence was transformed into a faith in Nature and Progress. Overt millenarianism was less common, but it did continue in the work of such influential thinkers as David Hartley. More generally, it was transmuted into a belief in Progress inexorably creating a better world. This can be seen in the work of such heirs of Enlightement universalism as Hegel and Marx. Grimmer versions can be seen in the projects of the Leninists and the Nazis.

With the rise of dispensationalist theology in 20th-century America and its increasing politicization, the Rule of the Saints can be fitted back together with secular notions about spreading democracy, although not all fundamentalist Protestants would do so. Providence and Progress have a close family relationship.

Thus, it is possible to see “the Clash of Civilizations” and the “End of History” as secularized eschatology, albeit of somewhat different kinds. The enemy will rage, there will be wars, and then the righteous will reign for a thousand years.

Not to mention that there’s no reason to believe that “democracy” and “good” would be the default if you removed oppressive leadership. Quite the contrary, actually, according to Locke or Hobbes. And look at Iraq; Bush must have assumed that getting rid of Saddam would bring on the Democracy Fairy, to sprinkle goodness and flowers and bunnies over the country. Funny how that didn’t work out.

I guess the precedent is that the fall of the USSR created “democracy” in Russia, but anyone who knows anything about modern Russia knows it’s not all sunshine and kittens. Or even much of a democracy.

What is “humanitarian interventionism” supposed to mean.?

Something like “we’re invading your country and bleeping you over generally for your own good.”

Like driving heathen into the sea to baptize them before thy drown.

Something like “we’re invading your country and bleeping you over generally for your own good.”

That was my first assumption — this guy is saying something really subtle that’s going way over my head. Then I kept reading and realized, with growing horror, that he wasn’t. As far as reading it again … no way. Gave me a headache the first time.

Granted, I never read the book, just an essay by Fukuyama explaining his basic thesis. But I read what I read, and I stand by what I wrote above.

As far as an “end of history in a Hegalian sense — my understanding is that the “end of history” theme attributed to Hegel is, in fact, a misinterpretation of Hegel’s ideas. I am not expert on Hegel and could be mistaken. Still, I am uncomfortable with the notion that history is hurtling toward some fixed and predetermined goal. Perhaps it is, but as soon as individuals existing in a tiny sliver of the All (including Fukuyama and Hegel) begin to assume they know what the goal is, they’ve contaminated the process.

That’s in a Zen sense, btw.

OK, I give up…What is “humanitarian interventionism” supposed to mean.? Is it a fancy way to say shock and awe? Maybe it refers to our humane intervention in Fallujah with the use of white phosphorus?