A Postmodern Presidency

Given thirty years of postmodern relativism in our universities, we were bound to get a postmodern president at some point.

Postmodernism is a fancy word — in terms of culture, nihilist; in terms of politics, an equality of result and the ends justifying the means — that a lot of people throw around to describe the present world of presumed wisdom that evolved in the last part of the 20th century.

“After modernism” or “beyond modernism” can mean almost anything — nihilistic art that goes well beyond modern art (think a crucifix in urine rather than the splashes of modernist Jackson Pollock). Or think of the current English Department doggerel that is declared “poetry” (no transcendent references, echoes of classicism, no cadence, rhyme, meter, particular poetic language, theme, structure, etc.) versus Eliot’s or Pound’s non-traditional modern poetry of the 1920s and 1930. In politics, there is something of the absurd. The modern age saw life and death civil rights marches and the commemoration of resistance to venomous racial oppression; the postmodern civil rights marches are staged events at the DC tea party rally, as elites troll in search of a slur, or Prof. Gates’s offer to donate his “cuffs” to the Smithsonian as proof of his racial “ordeal.”

[More]

This entry was posted in Web Logs and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to A Postmodern Presidency

  1. nomdeblog says:

    “Given thirty years of postmodern relativism in our universities, we were bound to get a postmodern president at some point.”

    Yes this is the enemy within that is far more dangerous than even Islamofascism. That’s because we have been propping up this beast internally. This beast brainwashes our youth (and the Woodstock progressives) who went out and voted for Obama because the postmodern MSM did no due diligence on him.

    These progressives are parasites on the host of democratic capitalism which sustains them. Darwin would do his work on them but they are propped up by the benefits of our innovative entrepreneurs, free markets and the enormous advantages of global trade , all of which they paradoxically want to unwind. Progressives are so inept they want to chop off the hand that feeds them. It is similar to oil propping up otherwise unsustainable tribalism in the ME.

    The solution is the Tea Parties who want to return to the Constitution and government accountable to We the People. People are waking up, Hope and change will come in November thanks to Obama who has created more conservatives than Reagan and Thatcher.

  2. Cy says:

    Relativism is a scare word, and unjustly so.

    The core of most of the provacations on this site are based around the right-supported idea that morality is absolute and can be traced back to the magna carta. It must follow that one can cite the core moral values of that period and be met with overwhelming support from those loyal to “the west”. After all, absolute morality doesn’t bend for social trends right? Only liberals and West-hating leftists do that, right?

    So explain – why do so many of you get mad when your values are likened to the pre 1960′s values of conservatives? Why do you spend so much time denying any trace of certain attitudes in your movements (like the tea party) when these attitudes were proudly on display by your deeply relgious and pro-west forefathers as short as 50 years ago?

    This is a contradiction – if you are contrasting yourselves to your grandparents or parents’ generation then you are asserting your values RELATIVE to theirs … unless you are claiming that they were just plain idiots and your generation is the first to interpret Western values correctly. Which is it?

  3. Undecided Voter says:

    Well said Cy. You certainly have a way with words, a well educated and good thinker by the sounds of it.

  4. Lee says:

    Re #2 and 3:
    Cy, you owe me a new keyboard.
    “Provocations” indeed, Lmao.

  5. Joe says:

    According to the theory of relativity there IS an absolute its called the speed of light. According to the theory there IS an absolute its called ‘there are no absolutes’.

    Put it another way, “A man who stands for nothing falls for everything”.

    Years ago I used to teach people how to navigate using a map and compass through the woods. Once it was determined which direction to go the best way to get there was to use a compass to ascertain the direction then look where the compass pointed and find the most distant object you could see where indeed the compass aimed and then walk toward that object counting your steps as you went. Using that method you can find a note taped to a tree miles away. We used to give added incentive by sending our students out to find their lunch which we had previously hung from a tree.

    Postmodernism (the philosophy of spoiled brats who want to do their own thing) removes the map, compass and then ignores the technique. Its the reason there are no ‘post modern’ engineers.

    A philosophy that, though beguiling, rapidly results in tyranny.

    BTW has anyone ever met a happy post modernist? Every one I’ve ever met has so large a chip on their shoulder there is no room for their head. Must have something to do with that ‘spoiled brat’.

    I do wish though that post modernists would just once learn to take the log out of their own eye before they go digging digging around trying to take the speck out of someone else’s.

  6. Cy says:

    That didn’t even come close to answering the question. A bit of science masking a strawman. The question was why are absolutists so absolutely relative when taken to task?

    It’s very foolish to assume that people who question hypocrisy and injustice have a chip on their shoulder, though one can picture King Edward III saying something to that effect about those poorly behaved colonials in the new world. That sure worked out for him…

  7. nomdeblog says:

    “morality is absolute and can be traced back to the magna carta.”

    We’ve evolved since the Magna Carta. We’ve experienced the Enlightenment and the Reformation which allows for faith and reason to continue to evolve together.

    Moreover, let’s fast forward up to 1776 and the Constitution which can be amended with the changing times. But the Constitution does have timeless basic principles of “We the People” ruling instead of the collectivism that Obama wants to control us with.

    The Tea Parties’ number one priority is to go back to the Constitution, ie separate Church and state, men and women are equal before the law and it champions the rights of the individual over the collective. Moreover its Federalism recognizes States Rights and that Texas isn’t going to be bullied by remote lawmakers in Washington.

    VDH is saying that Postmodern Relativism champions the collective. It’s a utopian plan for us peasants somewhere out in the future that has been drawn up by the elitists like Obama and his handlers to control us.

    But People are equal, not groups, not cultures. It is cultures that the relativists say are all equal despite the changes in population and local ecology, local economies; all of which are in a state of flux given technological innovation and global free trade. But cultures are not equal, some need to die out. It’s people that are equal before the law.

    VDH is trying to point out that Cy and his followers like UV have it exactly backwards. They are conservative in the sense of their resistance to change . They are the ones that want to freeze frame it by advocating all cultures are relatively equal. They will not allow for societies to adapt and change as individuals , with trial and error.

    The fact, proven over and over, is that only democratic capitalism can adapt fast enough to sustain large populations. Central Plans won’t work. ObamaCare won’t work. there’s too much change that needs adapting. And 16,000 new IRS apparatchiks forcing citizens to adapt to ObamaCare will not work and the middle class knows this.

    Unfortunately the postmodern elitists from Ivy League schools can’t figure that out. Moreover their motive is about control and the redistribution of wealth, it has nothing to do with Health and the middle class knows this.

  8. Cy says:

    VDH is trying to point out that Cy and his followers like UV have it exactly backwards. They are conservative in the sense of their resistance to change . They are the ones that want to freeze frame it by advocating all cultures are relatively equal. They will not allow for societies to adapt and change as individuals , with trial and error.

    Point out where this was said. You’re twisting again and trying to divert from the original point which was about absolutism – a term by definition that is more resistant to change than any ivory tower intellectual idea that threatens your “god given right” to exploitation.

    Also you owe UV an apology. He does not follow anyone, being an undecided voter. Contrast this to the Harper fanclub, who remain on board even as Harpy’s budgets start to look like LPC budgets.

    ObamaCare at least attempts to solve a problem that 20 years of fend-for-yourself social darwinism masquerading as capitalism couldn’t solve or refused to solve – what to do about the growing number of uninsured and underinsured people. Not everyone has a house to mortgage (and when the government tried to get them housing you also screamed communist). So what is the solution? It seems you are afraid to admit that your solution amounts to “let them eat cake”.

    (waits for the ant and grasshopper story)

  9. nomdeblog says:

    The Constitution isn’t about absolutism and neither is VDH. His article is about “Given thirty years of postmodern relativism in our universities, we were bound to get a postmodern president at some point.”

    The Tea Parties are about reversing that.

  10. Cy says:

    The Tea Parties are about skipping out on taxes and preventing government from giving any more services to the poor. Even the rampant racism is incidental to the proceeding and more the consequence of getting too many conservatives in one room. The Tea Party wants a lean and mean “eat what you kill” environment as provided by Reagan … ignoring the irony of the effect this had on the deficit, of course.

    The Tea Party has said NOTHING about separation of church and state.

  11. beentheredonethat says:

    It’s time for a little chuckle……better this than a Hollywood movie about presidential assassination.

    “You Picked a Fine Time to Lead Us, Barack” by Jonathan McWhite

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W57aBMYKvU

  12. beentheredonethat says:

    Another outstanding ‘Talking Point’ from Bill O’Reilly (today’s Newswatch Video). He perfectly exposes the left wing shrills (MSM) and their loyal minions who foam at the mouth at the mere mention of the Tea Party. Anti-Tea Party shills and their (misinformed or pinhead – chose one or both) thought process are to be pitied not scorned. The ranks of the ones on the ‘right’ side of the issue, and that includes conservatives, liberals and independants, are swelling as each day passes. The left lost their campaign to beat the right into submission by labelling everyone who dared critcize Obama as racists and have now turned their sights on the Tea Parties. They’re going to lose this one too.

  13. Don says:

    #11

    Great video I received it in my e-mail the other day and forwarded it to Shaun Hannity with the hope that he might see fit to air it on his program.

  14. nomdeblog says:

    “The Tea Party has said NOTHING about separation of church and state.”

    The Constitution does and it is a living document that allows for adaptation with changing times.

    Returning to the Constitution is the number one priority of the Tea Parties!

    This is opposite to Obama who has made it very clear over the years that he does not respect the Constitution. And now we can see why.

    The November elections will be about whether or not the Constitution still has enough significance to Americans or if they have given up on their exceptionalism and prefer to join Obama who in turn wants America to join the riff raff of the rest of the world and become “equal” to it.

  15. beentheredonethat says:

    “Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they’re black — or that most tea partyers are white — should have nothing to do with it, they say.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/06/black-tea-party-activists-called-traitors/

Comments are closed.