Some analysts argue that the triumph of liberalism over other ideologies, such as communism, signifies the "end of history.". Why? What threats still exist that may make proclaiming the "end of history" premature? What position do you find most persuasive?
What will be an ideal response?
To many observers, the history of world affairs is the struggle between tyranny and
liberty. The contest has taken various forms since antiquity: between kings and mass
publics, despotism and democracy, ideological principle and pragmatic politics. Labels
are misleading and sometimes dangerous. However, they provide the vocabulary of
diplomacy and inform theoretical discussion of governance and statecraft. History, in
this image, is a battle for hearts and minds. It is an ideological contest for the allegiance
of humanity to a particular form of political, social, and economic organization.
You might also like to view...
In a direct democracy, decisions are made collectively by citizens using __________
a. indirect democracy b. majority rule c. enlightened representatives d. oligarchy
When India gains access to short-range nuclear weapons, neighboring countries like Pakistan feel less safe. As a response, Pakistan might attempt to procure their own nuclear weapons making all of the countries in the region (including India) feel less safe. This is an example of
A) anarchy. B) interdependence. C) the prisoners dilemma. D) the security dilemma. E) tragedy of the commons.