It seems that Michael Walzer ignores the possible dangers of moral minimalism. In a way, it can feel like the closest thing to his argument would be the populist movements that have occurred in the 21st century. These movements thrive off of elites being bad, the government being corrupt, and elections being rigged. However, another segment of the population has developed other minimalism ideas which are completely different from these populist ideals. Therefore, it seems that politics in many Western democracies have turned into debates between these ideals. For me, this shows it is completely impossible for an entire population to develop a universal set of minimalist ideals. Walzer’s essay depends on a vast majority of the world adopting the same ideas. Ironically, these simplistic ideas seem to be the source of tension in many countries.

In comparison to Walzer, I’m more inclined to believe Fukuyama’s End of History essay. However, this is more because his essay is impossible to falsify. Its structure allows Fukuyama to counter any criticism with: “Well, everyone is heading towards a democracy eventually.” It leaves the reader in the awkward position of trying to invent a completely new political doctrine just to counter an essay. Overall, I don’t buy the End of History. I think it’s more productive to focus on the present, rather than trying to predict events centuries ahead of time.

As countries transition from military dictatorship to democracy, there is the question of what to do with criminal officials who ordered both torture and murder. While in a perfect world they would be put on trial and imprisoned, it is rarely that simple. Generally many officials retain their position in the military during the transition. This means they have the power to end the process of democracy whenever they feel threatened. Perhaps the best example of this is in Uruguay. When the population voted on a referendum asking whether crimes of the former military dictatorship should be prosecuted, there was a general fear that the military would take the government back. This was fueled by the military’s ambiguous answers as to whether or not they would comply with the referendum.

Everyone can agree that former officials should be prosecuted for their former crimes. However, there are rarely systems that can handle this sort of pressure. Lawrence Weschler seems to struggle with this question throughout his book. He paints Uruguayan officials in a very negative light while also begrudgingly accepting what they have to say. Aiming for a democratic future is the best thing new officials can do to ensure the crimes of the past nothing happen again. Once a strong core is established, the question of punishment can be revisited when the threat to a democratic future disappears.

Lerner is very upfront with his sympathies for the Grocer in his article. He mentions his feeling of sadness when he learned that the Grocer had died. We are made to believe that the Grocer is the prime example of modernity. For example, the author writes, “As one saw it now, the Grocer had shown the way…” While it is certainly true that the Grocer had values consistent with the future development of Turkey, it seems that Lerner primarily believed this because he saw the Grocer as a Western figure. Among other things, he continuously points out the Grocer’s idealization of the United States. Through the story of the Grocer, it feels that Lerner is arguing that the only way to modernize is to imitate the West. Perhaps the best example of this is when the Chief’s son opens his store. Lerner writes, “The Grocer’s words of aspiration came leaping back to mind…His dream house had been built in Balgat – in less time than even he might have forecast – and by none other than the Chief!” This struck me as a strange sentence. It seems that the Chief’s son had no real agency, he was simply following the example of the Grocer. This is not the only example. Every development in Balgat is traced back to the Grocer. In this way, Lerner westernized the development of Balgat by explaining it through the vision of the Grocer.

In “Shooting an Elephant,” George Orwell argues that the colonized hold an exceptional amount of power over their colonizers. To prove this point, he describes his experience as a British police officer in Burma. One day, he is called in to take care of an elephant that went on a rampage in town. When Orwell finds the elephant, it has returned to a tranquil state. While he has no interest in killing the elephant, a crowd from the village has followed him and they expect the elephant to be killed. Due to this, Orwell ultimately kills the elephant. He ends the story with, “I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.”

While Orwell believes the natives drove his eventual decision, I think his story speaks to the power of British imperialism over its own officials. Orwell continuously bashes the British Empire throughout his story. He mentions, “…I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I chucked up my job and got out of it the better.” However, even with this belief, Orwell loyally obeys the Empire when he kills the elephant. While he may have been concerned about his own personal pride, it seems just as likely that he was unconsciously concerned with the image of the Empire. Imperialistic powers can never appear weak. That often means officials have to perform actions they disagree with. Perhaps the strongest forms of power are only evident below the surface.