Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
dream_weaver

Donald Trump Is The First President To Turn Postmodernism Against Itself

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

David Ernst writes for The Federalist

Donald Trump Is The First President To Turn Postmodernism Against Itself

If politics flows downwards from culture, then it was only a matter of time before a politician mastered the role. Love him or hate him, Donald Trump cracked that code.

The author's use of Scarface in this article sets a basis for similarities to establish President Trump as an anti-hero. The article also has a summation of postmodernism that is indicative of its essence in these three paragraphs.

In contrast to the many religions, systems of moral thought, and other ancient traditions that have distinguished every effort to better the human condition, postmodernism presumes that all of these endeavors are the cause of human failure. It therefore operates according to just one moral imperative: discredit anything that other people presume to stand for goodness, because the belief that anything is superior to anything else inevitably results in prejudice, interpersonal strife, and inequality.

Thus, the Venus de Milo has no more aesthetic value than a crucifix in a jar full of urine; Beethoven’s symphonies are no more profound than the latest round of top 40 hits; all religions are fundamentally the same, and their “moderate” postmodern adherents are all comfortably represented on the “Coexist” bumper sticker. In a sense, it isn’t culture at all, but rather an anti-culture that measures success insofar as it deconstructs anything that other people value.

Postmodernism Merely Hides Its Hypocritical Idealism
Provided that the postmodern man believes in nothing and values nothing, one wouldn’t be unreasonable in concluding that he cares about nothing. But anyone who knows postmodern man also knows that nothing could be farther from the truth. Rather, the “cult of non-discrimination” is filled with bright-eyed idealism about making the world a better place, and in the cases where it challenges baseless prejudice, it does make the world a better place. Like other utopian visions that seek to remake human beings into something alien to their nature, however, it is incapable of compromise, and thus lends itself to hypocrisy and fanaticism.

Several concrete examples follow, as well as a synopsis of how the Democrats miscalculated and underestimated him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the following two paragraphs from the link are insightful:

Perhaps the best example of Trump’s provoke and win strategy was his approach to immigration. Any proposal for restricting immigration, no matter how modest, will invariably meet charges of nativism and racism. So why fight it? Trump opted to meet the challenge by initially proposing something truly appalling: the deportation of tens of millions of people. When the predictable outrage machine kicked into high gear, he didn’t go into damage control as expected. Rather, he dismissed the accusations and let it ride.

After Trump brushed off his hyperventilating critics who were frantically calling him a racist, fascist, and everything in between, their rage gradually abated because it didn’t have the desired effect. Now, all of Trump’s clarifications on the issue are on the table for consideration, seem reasonable by comparison, and any subsequent PC outburst against them will ring hollow. Like so, Trump tamed and harnessed the outrage machine over and over again: the Muslim ban, killing terrorists’ families, insulting John McCain for being a POW, all until it won him the Republican nomination.

 

Reagan was the Teflon President - nothing ever stuck to him.  Trump is like my well seasoned cast iron skillet that I never wash - so much stuff has stuck to it in the past, that there's no room left for anything new to stick.

We live in interesting times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Populist demagogues have been around for a while. He's not doing anything new or innovative.

Has modern philosophy made American society more vulnerable to that tactic? Sure. But the credit doesn't belong with the orange loud mouth for "cracking any code". He probably has no clue the code even exists. He's just doing what worked for others like him, before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×