First, of all, I’d love to see where Fukuyama said that, Mark doesn’t provide a link.
Second, I agree with Mark that it’s odd, even a bit ugly, for Fukuyama to leave the impression that a post-sovereign European system is the preferable end to history. Though, in fairness, Fukuyama merely leaves that impression rather than says it outright.
Third, just because it is a displeasing thought, doesn’t mean it’s not accurate. I think many in the West really do want to live on a vast college campus at the end of history, where everything is graded pass/fail and it’s against the rules to be mean to anybody. It doesn’t seem crazy on its face that globalization will expand Western values ever outward until the Davos crowd achieves its dreams.
A while back I wrote a piece for the magazine that cosmopolitanism is the real ideology behind a lot of elite leftwing and liberal movements, including Marxism-Leninism (after all, the Communist Manifesto begins “Workers of the world unite!”).
Fourth, again it would be interesting to see how Fukuyama fleshes out his argument because in his most recent book, America at the Crossroads, reviewed by me here, Fukuyama insists that everybody and his brother misinterpreted The End of History when they took him for arguing that History can be sped-up or nudged forward. That’s what those bad “Leninist” neocons think and that’s why we’re in Iraq. But if Fukuyama actually believes the European model is the one to be pursued and “emulated” (Cliff’s words), then isn’t he once again arguing that man can take a shortcut to the End of History?
Update: Fukuyama link is here. I’ll read it in a moment.