2016 Postmortem

Atman

(31,464 posts) Mon Oct 15, 2012, 07:58 AM Oct 2012

The Rise of Post Modern Politics (great read!)

This clip doesn't do the article just. You should read the whole thing (link at end). I would rather have put this in GD where more would be likely to read it, but it clearly belongs here.

----------

<snip>

Democracy requires a dialogue about its fundamental principles. But instead of a contest of political assertions relating to policy goals, our politics has become more about affirming a particular worldview and social consciousness. What we're seeing might be the first postmodern election.

The essential feature of modernism is the pursuit of objective and empirical truth. From a postmodern perspective, truth as a goal is as impossible as it is silly.

<snip>

For their part, candidates feed into the frenzy — Obama stays away from Fox, Romney stays away from MSNBC. But the media is under no compulsion to create a safe space for softball questions. And, conversely, if voters are going to hear what they want to hear, then there's little to be lost from giving it to them.

In short, the quest for objectivity and truth has rendered them both inconsequential. A refusal to believe scientific consensus not because of its uncertainty, but because of its certainty. The Dark Ages were dark because of superstition and ignorance. But the New Dark Age is dark because we've fitted ourselves with blinders. It's Orwell's 1984 — without the need for state tyranny.

<snip>

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-op-michels-truth-victim-of-campaigns-1014-20121012,0,4810153.story

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Rise of Post Modern Politics (great read!) (Original Post) Atman Oct 2012 OP

Some good observations but a bit fuzzy caraher Oct 2012 #1

I think the article pointed out what you said... Atman Oct 2012 #2

It did point out what I said caraher Oct 2012 #3

Centrist false equivalency BS. Odin2005 Oct 2012 #4

I disagree, Odin. He's pushing "both sides might be a bit too full of themselves." Atman Oct 2012 #5

caraher

(6,278 posts)

1. Some good observations but a bit fuzzy

Reply to Atman (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 09:32 AM

Oct 2012

The part I find spot-on is this:

If the goal before was winning elections and forming public policy, the new goal is more demanding but actually easier to achieve: righteousness

This is why, for instance, it was so satisfying for right-wingers to obsess about Biden's interruptions of Ryan's lies - it was "boorish" behavior that surely showed their side is civilized. They could wrap themselves in a cloak of civility even as their candidate advocates dismantling civil society on behalf of plutocrats.

And we're not immune to the siren call of self-righteousness. I've seen plenty of arguments in DU threads involving attacks on Republicans that shade the truth, with one camp calling for a stricter adherence to the truth in making our case (after all, aren't the facts on our side?) with the other camp saying we're just fighting fire with fire. For me it's less about whether the Republicans "deserve" a taste of their own medicine than it is about what our own tactics say about who we are.

Atman

(31,464 posts)

2. I think the article pointed out what you said...

Reply to caraher (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 09:50 AM

Oct 2012

"...we're not immune to the siren call of self-righteousness." I thought that was a main point of the article. We're just self-righteous about different things.

I like the line about the Conservatives wanting everyone to be the same, and are the party of exclusion, while Democrats are righteous about diversity and are the party of inclusion.

It was a bit un-focused in places, but certainly thought-provoking. My thought was "What exactly are you suggesting we do to change this situation?"

caraher

(6,278 posts)

3. It did point out what I said

Reply to Atman (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:43 PM

Oct 2012

I guess the part I emphasized just seemed clearer to me.

I think what worked for the US in the past was a different kind of "identity politics." It seems like we've lost the sense, as a nation, of being in this thing together, of being Americans first and Democrats and Republicans second (but without pretended we have no differences). Now we're in "red" or "blue" states, and the most comfortable way to negotiate the landscape is to throw one's lot in with the "side" one finds more congenial and man the barricades against the evil ones on the other side.

I do agree that "our side," by the very nature of our beliefs, is more amenable to drawing people with differing beliefs under the same umbrella.

I don't think there's an easy solution, but the first step has to be diagnosing the problem. Thanks for passing this on!

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)

4. Centrist false equivalency BS.

Reply to Atman (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:43 PM

Oct 2012

He's pushing the "both sides are lunatic ideologues" crap pushed by the Third Way types.

Atman

(31,464 posts)

5. I disagree, Odin. He's pushing "both sides might be a bit too full of themselves."

Reply to Odin2005 (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:00 PM

Oct 2012

It's a very different argument. Sure I hate the part about MSNBC and Fox being the same thing. It's simply NOT true, and plays into their hand. But otherwise, not much of what he said is wrong.

Conservatives want everyone to be just like them, and those who aren't wealthy and white and Christian can piss off. Progressives accept that everyone is not just like them, but still need representation.

It's difficult to sum up the article in a short DU post, because a lot of ground was covered. But, again, I totally disagree that this is just another "both parties are just as bad" argument. He's saying that both parties are just as passionate, and that the media plays along. Therefore, the entire well is poisoned.

.

Reply to this discussion