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.