ma is enamored of a Greek term favoredrnby the Straussians: thymos, meaning (tornfiim) the essence of the human condition.rn(Another of his key chapters bearsrnthis title: “The Rise and Fall of Thymos.”)rnThis word he stuffs promiscuouslyrninto his fruitcake, while coiningrnother words such as “hypothymia” andrn”megalothymia,” etc. According to myrnGreek dictionary thymos means thyme, arnpleasant spice. Unfortunately Fukuyama’srnthymos has nothing to do withrnspices.rnOwing to lack of space, but also becausernhistory (and human nature) dornnot follow the laws of physics—meaningrnthat while it is easier to wrestle withrna weak body than with a strong one, it isrnmore difficult to wrestle with a weakrnmind than with a strong one—in thisrnreview I must let Fukuyama speak forrnhimself. Fukuyama has given his chaptersrnsuch titles as “The Weakness ofrnStrong States II, or. Eating Pineapplesrnon the Moon,” and “The Victory of thernVCR.” In his introduction, he writes:rn”In lieu of conventional thanks to a typistrnfor helping to prepare the manuscript,rnI should perhaps acknowledge the workrnof the designers of the Intel 80386 microprocessor.”rnHe should. And it shows.rnEarly in his book Fukuyama says thatrnwhat he meant by the end of history wasrnnot history, but History (his capitalization):rn”history understood as a single,rncoherent, evolutionary process, whenrntaking into account the experience of allrnpeoples in all times.” Whew. Fukuyamarnsays that he gets this concept of Historyrnfrom Hegel, but he later adds that hisrnphilosophy is really a compound ofrnHegel and of the latter’s modern cxegete,rnKojevc. Thereafter he refersrnsometimes to “Hegel-Kojeve,” which tornme evokes something like “Haagen-rnDazs.” “Our deepest thinkers,” hernwrites, “have concluded that there is nornsuch thing as history—that is, a meaningfulrnorder to the broad sweep of humanrnevents.” “Deepest thinkers” isrngood. “Virtually everyone professionallyrnengaged in the study of politics and foreignrnpolicy believed in the permanencernof Gommunism; its worldwide collapsernin the late 1980s was therefore almostrntotally unanticipated.” Not by this reviewer,rnbut that is not the point. Thernpoint is Fukuyama’s uncontrollable affectionrnfor such words as virtually andrntotally: “For many Americans the family,rnnow no longer extended or nuclear, isrnvirtually the only form of associationalrnlife or community they know.” Tell thatrnto the Marines. (Or to the Mafia.)rn”People in the Soviet Union and PRCrnturned out not to be the atomized, dependent,rnauthority-craving children thatrnearlier Western theories projected themrnto be. They proved instead to be adultsrnwho could tell truth from falsehood,rnright from wrong, and who sought, likernother adults in the old age of mankindrn[what was that?] recognition of theirrnown adulthood and autonomy.” (I sawrnone of these young Chinese adults inrnTiananmen Square, beaming at anrnAmerican television reporter, speakingrninto the camera: “I like American girls,rnAmerican girls can sec me now!”)rnTo continue: “It is possible for a countryrnto be liberal without being particulariyrndemocratic, as was eighteenth-centuryrnBritain.” (The political termrn”liberal” did not then exist, but no matter.)rn”Not everyone can be a concertrnpianist or a center for the Lakers, norrndo they have, as Madison noted, equalrnfacilities for acquiring property.” “KenrnKesey’s 1962 novel, One Flew Over thernCuckoo’s Nest, provides an illustrationrnof the totalitarian aspiration.” “Peoplerntoday resemble Woody Allen’s characterrnMickey Sachs.” Then Dr. Fukuyamarnclimbs Mount Fujiyama, looksrnaround, and ponders: “What is man?”rnClap and Trap. The other grand contemporaryrnwork dealing with the conditionrnof mankind and with its principalitiesrnand powers is Graham Fuller’s ThernDemocracy Trap. (The proof copy saysrnthat the introduction is by FrancisrnPlikuyama, but I was relieved not to findrnthat in my copy.) Fuller is more realisticrnand pessimistic than Fukuyama, but forrnthe wrong reason. Someone once saidrn(it is not a very clever saying) that a pessimistrnis an optimist with experience.rnYet quality of experience (including bureaucraticrnexperience) depends entirelyrnon quality of thought. Fuller has plentyrnof thoughts, but of what quality? Hernwrites of the “Cold War Century,”rnwhose “struggle began in 1917 with thernchallenge to the capitalist world posedrnby the Bolshevik revolution.” I wouldrnhave thought that the world strugglernstarted in 1914, with a horrible woddrnwar of which the revolution in Russiarnwas but a consequence; but who am Irnto argue with a master policy thinkerrnsuch as Fuller? “The invention of thernteenager, in fact, is probably one of thernmost far-reaching acts of American socialrncreativity,” he adds.rnA fact is a fact, no doubt. Comparedrnto Fukuyama’s jappy calligraphy Fullerrnwrites like a red-faced ham-handedrnAmerican, vulgar to the core: “Whateverrnvalue the Cold War had in helping tornkeep the West’s ideological socks up inrnEurope and at home . . . ” Oh, for thernOrder of the Garter! In the end. Fullerrnon Fuller: “As a senior-level IntelligencernOfficer responsible for long-range NationalrnEstimates at the Central IntelligencernAgency (essentially crystal-ballingrnthe future of strategic issues for policymakersrnat the White House and thernState and Defense Departments), I hadrnbeen regularly required to think aboutrnglobal issues and trends as the heart ofrnmy daily work for the Director of CentralrnIntelligence.”rnThis is laughing matter no longer.rnFor anyone honestly concerned with therndestiny of the republic, it is a matter forrnrage, bitterness, and tears.rn]ohn Lukacs’ most recent book is ThernDuel, 10 May-3I July 1940: ThernEighty-Day Struggle BetweenrnChurchill and Hitler.rnLastest With thernLeastestrnbyf.O. TaternA Battle From the Start: The Lifernof Nathan Bedford Forrestrnby Brian Steel WillsrnNew York: HarperCollins;rn457 pp., $30.00rnSince Professor Wills has a way of relatingrnepisodes that transforms therndramatic into the soporific and turns thernconcrete into the abstract, this first biographyrnof Forrest to be written sincern1944 is probably the last that anyonernshould read. An unrelenting tendentiousnessrnwarps his interpretation ofrneven the most transparent matters, sornthat the essential simplicity of Forrestrnescapes the attention of the historian,rnas does the tragic conflict of the CivilrnWar.rnProfessor Wills’ way of interpretingrnaction is more likely to cause this vol-rn40/CHRONICLESrnrnrn