Because this has been an ongoing thread in many discussions on this site, I want to try to give my position on why Francis Fukuyama is way off the mark in his social/political analysis.

Modern Liberal Democracy has deep roots. We can go back to Aristotle's discourse on Natural Law and Man in a State of Nature. From there we might jump to Hobbes' Leviathan which adds to these ideas, the idea of Social Contract. From thence we can move to Locke and his democratic interpretation of Hobbes's Leviathan. All this Francis Fukuyama details in his writing. But then, finding the resulting bourgeoise state unsatisfying, he taps into a different tradition: the German Idealism of Hegel. Fukuyama's antipathy to the British empiricist tradition--its lack of a noble goal for humanity--results in his embracing of Hegelian dialectic. So in this sense Fukuyama accepts the Marxist critique of classic liberalism.

However, the grafting of a "Weltgeist" to what is essentially an empiricist view is unnatural and probably unwarranted to most social/political philosophers of an empirical bent. The very idea that there is some "end point" in human history, nay that there is any external reason at all to human existence is alien to current thinking ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ATLANTIC. That in short, is what I find artificial (and dangerous) in Fukayama's analysis. It is a fairy tale.