The Progressive/Marxist left and Post Modernism

Dr. Paul Kengor has a depressing piece on Progressive Death in today's American Thinker. What Kengor is talking about is how the Progressives are always moving the goal posts, and what that means for what started out as simply an eugenics movement, but soon enough became a bloodlust for abortion. But where are they taking us now? Where does it end? They can not tell us. Some quotes from this wide ranging article:

Here is the essence of the problem with progressives and their movement, which is a gigantic problem for all of America: One of the only things we really know about progressives, and that they know about themselves and their ideology, is that they favor constant "change," "reform," an ever-shifting, ongoing "evolution," or, yes, progression. And therein is an inherent, significant difficulty: progressivism offers no clear, definable end. The goal-post is always moving, forever pushed further away. Ends are never ends; they always "progress," with culture and society -- all along relying on the ludicrous assumption that the changes are always (or largely) good.

And this:

Consider what else we know about progressives, evident from a track record of roughly 100 years: They consistently advocate more and more centralization of power, through collectivism and wealth redistribution. Inescapably, this leads to a progressively powerful state, one comprised of widening regulations and agencies and departments -- launched mainly under the presidencies of Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter, and now Obama -- fueled by a (literal) progressive federal income tax that in less than 30 years had skyrocketed from 1% (1913) to over 90% (1940s). It is a one-way expansion of power sliding almost entirely toward the national government.

Needless to say, this is, as a matter of plain fact, fundamentally antithetical to America itself, that is, our republic as conceived by its founders. The American system is based on limited government, on eschewing a single federal Leviathan, on limited taxation, and on circumscribed control over the citizenry. Of course, to the progressive, this means that the Constitution itself is unsuitable, as it, too, must always evolve; the Constitution is always a work-in-progress, never good enough, and certainly not etched in stone. (It's exasperating when progressive presidents like Obama and FDR wrap themselves in a publicly professed love for the Constitution. This is rhetorical pabulum -- mere cynical public relations.)

Or this:

As with nearly everything progressives do, where they started wasn't enough. Birth control and eugenics couldn't satiate the lust, which became a bloodlust for "abortion rights." Planned Parenthood's progressives blindly bowed to the next level, beckoned by what Pope Benedict XVI calls "the anonymous power of changing moods and current fashion." (Such power, notes Benedict, crucifies truth.)

In Europe, progressives have already moved on to euthanasia, and Progressives here have included the Death Panels in the new ObamaCare law. What's next? Progressives can't tell you that, but I suspect whatever it is, you won't like it.

So, what explains where all these whacky ideas come from? Many of them have no logic involved, yet become "common wisdom" among the pseudo intellectuals spouting their trash at us. One such that arose recently during the climate debate was the notion that we shouldn't eat red meat because cows fart greenhouse gases. But, with a little thought, it becomes clear that cows fart what they eat, and what they eat is grasses and grains that would, in any case break down into greenhouse gases. So, cows simply recycle existing carbon dioxide and methane back into the atmosphere, and in and of themselves create no new greenhouse gas. But such unscientific thinking is the subject of M. J. Braun's piece, also in today's American Thinker entitled Postmodernism: a unified theory of all the trouble in the world.

Except, it is not. What Braun is actually talking about is has been dubbed "post normal science." Whereas "science" is the search for truth, "post normal science" dispenses with all that clap trap and simply defends, using postmodernism, some politically correct agenda, such as the theory of anthropogenic global warming, what I call Goofball Wormening. Braun explains why this is happening best:

Science has succumbed to the same virus that beset literature, art, economics and the rest of the social sciences: postmodernism. Postmodernism is a progressive virus that negates reason, objectivity, and truth -- replacing them with relativism, subjectivism, and pragmatism. Having colonized every other branch of academics decades ago, postmodernism has now come for science.

There is no universally agreed upon definition of "postmodernism." Like the philosophy itself, it means whatever the person who espouses the position wants it to mean. Three general tenets are acknowledged: objective truth is unknowable, objectivity is fallacy, and modernity is a failure. By the later they mean that the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and the Industrial Age are all malevolent failures of reason and objectivity, as they failed to solve the world's existing problems and created new ones. Stephen Hicks, PhD. explains in his book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault,

Postmodernism rejects the Enlightenment project in the most fundamental way possible... (it) rejects the reason and the individualism... And so it ends up attacking all of the consequences of the Enlightenment philosophy, from capitalism and liberal forms of government to science and technology.

That we can never know objective truth is a true statement in the cosmic scheme of things. The theory of gravity, for instance, has never been known to be disproved, but there might be an exception out there where a tiny apple is repelled away from the massive earth rather than to be attracted to it. It is in that sense, we can never know objective truth. But billions of people rely on the theory of gravity every day, none the less. However, the postmodernists will tell you that gravity may be simply a construct of our imagination. It is by abandoning the search for objective truth, that they can deny the existence of gravity itself.

Now, all this may be fine for criticism of art and literature. But when it comes to explaining reality, you need to have common agreed terms, that have fairly precise definitions, using words that don't mercurially change their meanings from one individual to another. If one person kills another, it won't do to have as his defense that the person killed isn't really objectively dead. But then, I suppose the postmodernist will realize that his jail cell isn't really objectively there either.

In this instance, they ignored the fact that Marx's economic philosophy was based on rational objectivity. Ironically, postmodernism's rejection of reason, logic, and objectivity provided that rationalization. Accepting the premise that facts and falsehoods are culturally or socially constructed allowed them to sidestep the issue. As Hicks noted: "Postmodernism gives you, in effect, a get-out-of-jail-free card against any rational attack on your system."

Which is why reasoned discourse with these people is a waste of time. It is why ad hominem attacks are seen on the left as ending the debate for their side, but hitting below the belt for you. It is why they can, with a straight face argue for abortion on the one hand, and the freeing of murderers on the other. It is why the truth of AGW doesn't matter. It is why... well there are too many discrepancies to list.

But life sure would have been easier for me if I could have simply hung my structures from sky hooks.