Liberalism and Post-modernism

Today's liberal is the political expression of postmodernism and those we know as liberals tend to represent all the characteristics of postmodern thinking foisted on them by contemporary higher education, exposure to modern media etc. To successfully thwart modern (not classical) liberalism, some understanding of postmodern thought and its vulnerabilities must be considered and acted upon. Using this line of reasoning has helped me understand the liberal mindset and the stubborn incapacity of liberals to see something other than the truth of things. I haven't made many conversions, but the postmodern argument helps me make inroads as it takes the argument away from confrontation to an convincing explanation of the framework underpinning one's liberal ideology.

There is no doubt in my mind that postmodernism underlies today's liberal movement. The most frightening aspect of that is the fact that postmodernism is every bit as nihilistic as existentialism, but with no positives of its own. It is the ultimate in reactionism, serving no greater function than the wholesale condemnation of anything that IS, in favor of anything else.

By the way, if you want to refute postmodernism, you can get a start by reading Jurgen Habermas, who dallied with that idiocy before he moved past it.

“I haven’t made many conversions”

And you probably won’t. Postmodernism and liberalism borders on religion — faith in a world view. They eschew facts and logic in favor of subjectivity and relativity. Because there is no truth (except their own) it’s about activism or conversion on most campuses: missionary work. Compassion and social justice are the buzzword beads of their rosary. They are the self-anointed exemplars of morality from which to judge the world. Therefore, arguing with these people gets you nowhere. It only raises their zeal and makes them feel more self-righteously certain in their PC crusade. A secular priestly class if there ever was one.

Postmodernism is intellectual insanity (literally), and it is self defeating: for every statement (of fact) that a post-modern makes, I can come back and simply say that you ARE making an objective statement therefore it is untrue (in your worldview).

AKA: The statement that there is no (Objective) truth, is itself a statement of truth/falisty (objective truth-albiet a false one) and therefore self defeating in its premise!

"There is no doubt in my mind that postmodernism underlies today's liberal movement."

You should have some doubt, perhaps. A lot of it, in fact. This is because those calling themselves liberals are behaviorally indistinguishable from the old, boring XIX century Marxists, and there was no talk about post-modernism then. If you put forth the above thesis, the onus is on you to explain the striking similarity I mentioned. Seems to me, the neo-communists and socialists merely appropriated the word "liberal."

... those calling themselves liberals are behaviorally indistinguishable from the old, boring XIX century Marxists

Yes, they are. Today's liberals are not seeking to destroy the status quo and start the Workers' Revolution, they are simply seeking to destroy the status quo. There is a blurring of the line between the socialist/Marxist and the anarchist. Marx -- for all his madness and the utter illogic of his theories -- at least advanced a substitute for capitalism. A thoroughly unworkable and ultimately discredited substitute, to be sure, but at least it was something. Today's nihilist post-modernist offers nothing. And Nothing.

... there was no talk about post-modernism then.

There hadn't been two world-wide conflagrations that virtually destroyed the fabric of European civilization either. Napoleon had only recently been defeated, and his shadow was still looming, but the czars were still in power, monarchies ruled most of Europe, either in fact or in name, and although there was a growing sense of discontent, there was still faith that tradition was viable.

If you put forth the above thesis, the onus is on you to explain the striking similarity I mentioned.

I don't know what similarity you refer to.

Seems to me, the neo-communists and socialists merely appropriated the word "liberal."

I won't argue that. Classic liberalism is not a bad thing, but it bears no resemblance to the redistributionist, falsely egalitarian failures that qualify as modern Liberalism.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.