End of History

ILLIBERALISM IS NOT A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE eND OF hISTORY:

It may not feel like it, but hope is on the horizon: Trump, Netanyahu and Putin’s powers appear to be waning (Simon Tisdall, 5/17/26, The Guardian)

Intense negativity characterises European and, to a lesser degree, North American political sentiment. In France, 90% of people questioned by Ipsos believed their country is on the wrong track. In Britain, it was 79%; in Germany, 77%; in the US, 60%. Europeans feel similarly glum about the bigger, global picture, unlike the Chinese, Saudis and Nigerians who are broadly upbeat, according to a GlobeScan survey.

Pew Research Center polling in 25 countries last year found that the US, Russia and China are seen, by most but not all, as the biggest international threats.

OPEN THE BORDERS:

Make Trade, Not War: How Capitalism Creates Peace: Open markets lead to closed battlefields. (Walker Wright, 5/15/26, Human Progress)

While the liberal peace theory remains influential, a growing wave of empirical research over the last three decades suggests that markets may play a bigger role than the ballot box. This shift in consensus toward what’s known as the capitalist peace theory posits that trade openness and economic interdependence are among the primary forces that mitigate war. Of course, scholars continue to debate over how much trade and economic freedom contribute to peace. But liberal peace theorists now include economic interdependence as an essential element within the broader liberal peace project. Economic interdependence is “part of the glue that cements the ‘liberal peace’ together.”

More Reagan/Bush, less Trump/Biden.

LIBERALISM VS IDENTITARIANISM:

Heroes of 1776 Shows That Remembering the Past Is Key to Progress: Neil Gorsuch’s new book reminds us that to accelerate progress, we must first acknowledge the progress that has already occurred. (Nick Gillespie | 5.11.2026, reason)

Neil Gorsuch: There’s no doubt that the Revolution, the Constitution, and our country have always had challenges living up to the Declaration. I think of the Declaration as sort of our mission statement, the Constitution our how-to manual. But look at the mission statement. The mission statement is all of us are equal, that we all have an inalienable rights, and that we have the right to self-rule. Those ideas are perfect ideas. They exclude no one.

FUKUYAMA WINS AGAIN:

Why postliberalism failed: Orbán’s warning to the Right (Samuel Mace, 4/20/26, CapX)


This result does not even spell the beginning of the end of our own populist moment, but the failure of Fidesz and the scandals which brought down Orbán’s illiberal regime represent an overdue reckoning with reality for the postliberal dream.

That dream imagines postliberalism as a new and more effective way to govern, delivering conservative priorities through state power and institutional and civic dominance. Fidesz exposed the practical limits of this vision in Hungary, but the problem is far more fundamental.

As Paul Kelly writes in ‘Against Postliberalism’, postliberalism operates as a negative ideological force fighting against the dominance of liberalism and liberal ideals. Even when it arrives in power, it is trapped by this focus into antagonistic political gestures lacking genuine innovation.

Despite the efforts of authors like Adrian Vermuele and Patrick Deneen, the postliberals have had little success imagining something new. Postliberalism remains just the latest intellectual reaction created by the success of liberal democracy, rather than a serious rival to replace it.

THE eND OF hISTORY IS UNDEFEATED:

The Rise And Fall Of ‘Petty Tyrants’: History shows that bad leaders can successfully undermine democracy — but the story always ends the same way. (Danny Hillis, April 23, 2026, NOEMA)

Once in power, every leader, good or bad, faces difficulties. The fork in the road is how they choose to handle unwelcome realities. For vain leaders, admitting difficulties would mean admitting personal failure. The psychological stakes of honest assessment are unbearable, so they take the path that avoids it.

Setbacks are blamed on the incompetence of subordinates. Those who insist on bringing up unpleasant truths are replaced with sycophants who reinforce petty tyrants’ exaggerated sense of genius. Eventually dissenters are frightened into silence.

To hide the truth from the outside world, petty tyrants must deceive and distract. Detachment from reality does not require stupidity, just the willingness to choose an appealing story over obstinate facts. So energies become focused on fabricating and supporting a convenient story and demonizing scapegoats. Institutions responsible for gathering objective information that might contradict the narrative are deliberately weakened. Critics are portrayed as traitors.

As the leaders and their associates concentrate their efforts on deceiving others, they begin to deceive themselves. To sustain the illusion, they must act as if they believe their own lies, as must those around them. Whether they actually believe becomes irrelevant. They are trapped in their own illusion.

As appearance replaces performance and loyalty replaces competence, the system begins to reward flattery rather than governance. Insiders learn to exploit the tyrant’s vanity, not only to stay in favor, but to advance their own agendas. Corruption becomes systemic. Extraction replaces stewardship and, as parts of the system become parasitic, the deterioration accelerates.

Once decisions are based on false premises, weaknesses are made invisible. But reality does not care. When Mussolini’s troops invaded in summer uniforms, winter still came.

As reality diverges from the fabricated narrative, the functional damages — the military defeats, the economic collapses, the institutional failures — create catastrophes that cannot be hidden. The spell is broken not by some moral awakening, but by these concrete disasters. Once a sufficient portion of the loyal supporters realize they have been duped, the leader will eventually fall.

The energy required to deceive is unsustainable. Reality is relentless. The tyrant who chooses to fight it is doomed.

MORALITY CAN NOT BE DERIVED RATIONALLY:

Most of the world thinks differently to us: Universalism is based on irrational ideas about human nature (Daniel Dieppe, 17 April, 2026, The Critic)

The reality is that we can trace the philosophical cause of our weird Western thinking to Christianity. The fundamental equality of all human beings stems from the belief that all are “made in the image of God”. Welcoming the stranger is encapsulated in The Parable of the Good Samaritan. Our intrinsic sense of guilt is a word-for-word reading of the fall and the Christian doctrine of original sin from Genesis 3. As the historian Tom Holland concluded in Dominion:The Making of the Western Mind, we “are heirs to the same revolution: a revolution that has, at its molten heart, the image of a god dead on a cross.”

AT THE CENTER OF THE eND OF hISTORY:

PODCAST: Recovering the lost genius of liberalism, with Adrian Wooldridge (Geoff Kabaservice, 4/13/26, The Vital Center)

Adrian Wooldridge:

I think the primary thing that really defines liberalism is three things: one, individualism; second, tolerance; and three, a skepticism and worry about power. By individualism, I mean that the world starts with the individual and works upwards to the collective — the opposite of high Tory views and the opposite of socialist views. And by “the individual,” I don’t mean the notion of just allowing people the freedom to go shopping and to choose whatever they want in a free market. I think liberal individualism is a much richer and more profound philosophy than that. It’s about being our best selves. It’s about self-improvement, self-control, self-development. The essence of liberalism was to do with self-help, self-improvement, self-education. It’s a very questing, striving sort of notion of individualism.

Secondly, tolerance, that you must be tolerant of other people’s opinions. And the reason for that… It might sound like a nice thing to be, but the reason for that is a philosophy of knowledge: that we don’t know what is true, and we definitely don’t have the right to impose our theological views on other people. So the right thing to do is to be tolerant, is to be skeptical, is to be pluralistic about different knowledge claims.

And thirdly, and in some ways most importantly, is worry about power. If you’re a liberal, you’re saying that power is in itself a dangerous thing. It needs to be constrained, it needs to be disciplined, it needs to be governed by rules.

And so I think those are the three things. So you can have big state government; you can have a big-state liberalism, small-state liberalism. You can have nice liberalism, you can have tough liberalism. But you can’t have a liberalism that believes in strongmen, that believes in imposing religious beliefs on other people, and that believes that collectives matter more than individual self-development.

The genius though, is the way liberalism vindicates these concerns via republican liberty: so long as laws/rules are adopted in particapatory fashion and apply universally, we are all equally tolerated/free.

TRUMPISM IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO LIBERALISM:

Hungary: Orban’s ouster heralds thaw in EU ties (Timothy Jones, 4/13/26, AP, AFP, Reuters)


Hungarian voters turned out in force on Sunday to deliver a landslide victory to pro-European candidate Peter Magyar, who has pledged to turn the country away from its far-right, authoritarian course under Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Magyar’s center-right Tisza party is set to gain 138 seats in Hungary’s 199-seat parliament, giving it five seats more than the two-thirds needed to push through the reforms the 45-year-old former Orban loyalist promised on the campaign trail.

IMAGO DEI:

Sacred Limits and Free Institutions: How Jewish thought helped shape the West — and why it still matters. (Shmuel Klatzkin, March 21, 2026, American Spectator)

The most important of Chabad’s ideas lie in the deep insights of the Jewish mystical tradition into the nature of God’s creation. In the language of the 16th century Tsefat school of Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, before there was a creation, before there was time, before there was a “before,” there was only the Infinite Light of God. No boundaries or delimitations existed, no definitions, as nothing was defined, as there was no finitude, only the infinite.

How could a world of individuation come to exist when there could be no boundaries? Every particular thing would be overwhelmed by infinity.

But limitlessness means as well that there was no boundary to stop God from choosing to limit Himself in order to make a world that could endure and enter into a relation with God blessed by Him with a consciousness and an identity.

These are the preconditions of love. The world was created by God choosing to make love possible by making space to bring the beloved into being.

It is this world that God loves. He sees it as He creates it and calls it good, again and again. He sustains it by choosing again and again to make the space for His beloved creatures to know themselves and then to know Him. God becomes greater in this way than any being trapped in stasis, imprisoned in infinity.

God informs us in His word that we humans are created in His image and that He has put the world within us, enabling us both to work it and preserve it. We can become deputized creators, created in His image, making the world become better and preserving its ancient good, the way it has always been in God’s mind, which sees through to the end from the beginning.

We learn that we become great through making room for others — not by compulsion, for God is uncompelled — but by choice. We become greater through submitting to love, through choosing to limit our fixation with the infinite realm of our private self to willingly love our fellows and make space for them in every meaningful way, even to the last full measure of devotion.

HOW THE ANGLOSPHERE REDEFINED SOVEREIGNTY:

Sovereignty of the Afghan State under the Taliban: The Taliban’s rule violates international norms, but that doesn’t give Pakistan the right to violate Afghanistan’s sovereignty. (Atal Ahmadzai | March 23, 2026, FPIF)

Sovereignty is a fundamental characteristic of the modern state and the basis of contemporary international order, upheld by international law, treaties, and judicial decisions. Key elements of state sovereignty include territorial supremacy, independence, non-intervention, equal rights, and internal jurisdiction. The UN Charter supports these principles by emphasizing “sovereign equality” among member states, prohibiting the threat or use of force against states, and protecting domestic jurisdiction.

Although defined as a state’s supreme authority over its territory and people, sovereignty is not static or absolute but rather subject to change and limitations. Initially, an absolute right of monarchs in the seventeenth century, it evolved into state sovereignty in the eighteenth century, and now reflects modern popular sovereignty. In the aftermath of twentieth-century atrocities committed by states, the concept of sovereignty increasingly highlights the authority of the people through constitutional rights and elected representation. Consequently, modern international law incorporates human rights considerations, among others, that limit state sovereignty. This limitation is particularly relevant to the Taliban regime.

No regime that is not liberal has a legitimate claim to sovereignty.