The end of history is not nigh; there are plenty of critiques of liberal democracy, including the following:
1. God has revealed his truth to the world, including how to organize and run government. The purpose of government is to please God, not mankind. This is the theocratic model. Nothing in the syllogism is self-evident or acceptable to liberals.
2. The vast majority of the people are way too stupid to run their own affairs. They will plunder the rich, run the country into the ground, or both. Only the educated and refined people should have a real say in the operation of the government. The oligarchical model made more sense before education became universal and information became so easily available. Today, if you were trying to define a proper oligarchy, you would have a tough time laying out the boundaries.
3. Liberal democracy never results in complete and perfect equality. Guilty as charged! History teaches us that the cost of creating a perfectly equal society far exceeds its benefits. And, for what it’s worth, even communist countries never came close to the ideal. A large welfare state is, however, perfectly consistent with LD.
4. Liberal democracy overemphasizes the rational parts of people and puts inadequate emphasis on their emotional needs. Patriotism, solidarity, security, the need for drama, spectacle, and glory, and the desire to identify with a strong leader are fatally neglected. This is the fascist model. A liberal democrat would point out in response that the LD model leaves people free to find emotional satisfaction almost anywhere they want, so the charge is not completely correct. And anyway, when has fascism worked well for anyone except the leadership?
5. Liberal democracy in the 21st century leaves the country open to subversion and defeat by other, more closed societies. Call this the Chinese model. It is true that liberal democracies, with a great deal of assistance from the Soviet Union, managed to transform their political and economic systems sufficiently to win World War II, and then revert back to something like normal thereafter. It can be argued, however, that 21st century technology doesn’t give us the same kind of breathing space that we had in the 1940s; the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, for example, do not protect us from cyberwarfare. How does this critique turn out? Let’s hope we don’t find out.