from a column written by a graduate of mb’s alma mater:
Conservatism, both as a modern intellectual and political force, is a recent occurrence born from the minds of those who willingly challenged and/or moved beyond the then-prevailing postmodern ideology, which permeated all of society’s dominant institutions.
i’m not sure i agree…not because i believe postmodernism is superior intellectually—i am a postmodernist in a lot of ways, rendering me skeptical of such judgments—but because i am not sure what he means by conservatism in this context. does he refer to conservatism as desire for constancy or for holding to tradition? it seems like he is trying to imply that conservatism is “holding to absolute truth” in contrast to postmodernism, but a belief that truth exists in the world around us and is knowable seems neither necessary nor sufficient for being an intellectual conservative. what do you think about this? (it is friday, so please don’t get all pissy about conservatism vs. postmodernism.)
I disagree, too. It’s every conservative’s favorite story about the movement: out of struggle, legitimacy; out of legitimacy, results. The story, however, always falls apart at the details. Never mind deciphering what it means to “challenge and/or move beyond” anything, let alone postmodernism. This is God and Man at Yale writ large. Yet even William F. Buckley’s story was essentially a conflict between modernisms, not between post- and post-postmodernism.
And if the struggle is muddled, the results are even moreso. Indeed, if he was expecting anything short of conflict from this conservative White House, he wasn’t paying any attention to recent history. I mean, why would anyone expect Rove/Delay-type governance to do anything except celebrate handouts and empty promises? These conservatives in power, if anything, are more postmodern than anyone they supposedly “challenged and/or moved beyond.”
I could go on. Suffice it to say, though, that this sort of hand-wringing on conservatives’ parts amazes me.
by greg—Oct 14, 08:04 AM
should we read that as pissy? :)
by chris—Oct 14, 09:04 AM
it occurs to me that as a former lit. geek, the only way i think of postmodernism is in terms of plotless plots and such.
that aside, i will no longer be able to walk down the street at night without fear of being o’connored or soutered.
by kathy—Oct 14, 10:08 AM
some states still have laws against soutering—even against consensual soutering between adults.
by chris—Oct 14, 10:58 AM
and i was trying so hard not to be pissy…
Those laws may still be on the books, but the Supreme Court did strike them down last year. If my state tries to prevent me from being o’connored—well, let me just say it won’t be pretty!
by greg—Oct 14, 12:16 PM
pretty soon people will be o’connoring donkeys…i mean, if the laws get struck down everywhere.
by chris—Oct 14, 12:40 PM
:)
by greg—Oct 14, 12:51 PM
Ugh, I was so interested to follow the link to find out who from my alma mater writes a column and it’s this blowhard.
Here’s the quote I love:
“Reagan was wrong and O’Connor’s tenure on the court has been one of disappointment and, oftentimes, betrayal of the principles she was appointed to uphold. ”
Hey, aren’t we just looking for someone to uphold the constitution?
by mary—Oct 14, 01:09 PM
Not uphold it, since strict constructionists believe that the Constitution stands up just fine on its own. The “principles [O’Connor] was appointed to uphold” are generally to let well-enough alone. Which, frankly, I think O’Connor did. She didn’t particularly repeat social conservatives’ mantras, but she was pretty business friendly.
On a similar note in respect to the Miers nomination, I find Ezra Klein’s read on what’s happening a convincing one. Basically, it’s this: Bush has been vanilla-enough that he’s the kind of president that everybody makes much of but don’t particularly know for himself.
by greg—Oct 14, 01:18 PM
but isn’t social conservatism more the issue than business-friendly conservatism? guess it depends who ya talk to…
by kathy—Oct 14, 02:56 PM
ok
i’ve only read a few paragraphs…and can’t go on anymore.
the understanding the country’s shift and the move from postmodern to modern convservatism…made me want to stop because buckley began before the “post-moderns” (who ever the hell they are, what ever the hell they stand for, since he hasn’t yet defined either) were post-moderns…before the talk of world-views, before the beats (well concomitant with them) and norman mailor, and the hippies, and bob dylan were around…so define for me what this postmodernism is that the conservatives are safe-guarding the country against…i guess it’s woodie guthrie
the republican soul burning with passion…made me want to stop even more
but i stopped when he said the greatest conservative triumph was the death of communism…yes, it “fell” with reagan in the white house….but the politics and the process that brought them down was put in place well before the teflon pres.
by hermit x—Oct 14, 04:03 PM
what i would’ve of wished for and why i stopped reading
clearer definitions and proof
by hermit x—Oct 14, 04:17 PM
see—jeremy’s pissy too!
by greg—Oct 14, 06:25 PM
true. the hermits are a bitter lot these days. i think of conan the barbarian sitting on his throne and brooding…but worrying that i may soon find that image disturbingly erotic, i quickly think of something else, like football.
by chris—Oct 14, 07:34 PM