The Era of Making Things Up: Postmodernism, Conservatism, and the Assault on Reality

A very popular conservative blogger recently wrote the following, about the so-termed Ground Zero Mosque project (which, by the way, as we all know by now, is not quite a mosque and isn't quite at Ground Zero either):

Yes it will take years and years but that did not stop Bloomberg and "Big Brother" Obama making it national issue in under 1 minute.

Except that this isn't true. It was Republicans, that party's New York State gubernatorial candidates in particular, who made the project a “national issue.” Republicans well outside of New York State were making it an issue well-before President Obama's remarks. (I'm not counting Bloomberg, because he's the Mayor of New York City, last I checked, and he of course addressed the issue in that capacity. Any Mayor of New York should have addressed it.)

Note the headline of this Fox News story, and note the date, 11 days before President Obama's remarks.

Other mosques, nowhere near Ground Zero and not in New York State, have also caused controversies. Note the date of that story too. The project (Park 51, Ground Zero Mosque, whatever you want to call it) was clearly a national issue well-before Obama's remarks.

On a probably not-unrelated note, a growing percentage of Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim. But he isn't. Not that a Muslim President would be a bad thing in and of itself. But, Obama is not Muslim.

I keep reading about how Andrew Cuomo wants to shut down local governments and the people will reject it. But when you actually read Cuomo's plan, which mirrors very closely one pitched by his father in 1994, you'll see (I should hope) that it isn't at all like it's sometimes portrayed.

That last example isn't as extreme as the others. Distorting your opponent's position is a long-standing tradition in American politics, as long as you remain more or less within the confines of reality. Ok, fine. One would expect Andrew Cuomo's opponents to distort his plans and ideas. If a plan of his would cost, say, $2 Billion, you'd expect his opponents to say it would cost "nearly $5 billion." 2 is nearly 5, right?

Fine.

But Barack Obama being a Muslim, when he isn't? Or him making the mosque a national issue, when it clearly already was one before he spoke? Those go beyond being distortions. Oh, let's try the one about the drapes in the Oval Office being switched to a Middle Eastern color. Nope, that one's not true either.

It's easy to say what you want when you, in essence, construct reality as an opinion. Opinions can be freely rejected, and everyone is entitled to one. Dinosaurs walked the Earth with humanity, and humanity domesticated dinosaurs, right down to putting them in English saddles for Dinosaur shows. (See Charles Pearce, Idiot America 2009, pages 1 to 12.) Except that neither of those things is true.

When you recast fact and analysis as opinion, all bets are off.

Al Gore wrote a book called The Assault on Reason (2007) wherein he outlined....Well, look at the title. But in fact what's going on, I would suggest, isn't an assault on reason, but on reality itself. The assault on reason is simply a technique. It makes the assault on reality easier. Without reason, reality becomes an opinion, and everyone's entitled to one.

Andrew Cuomo should investigate the funding stream for the Ground Zero Mosque (which again is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero). But we now know publicly what, it seems, has been known privately for a long time: There is no funding stream to investigate.

The project could not yet have been funded in an illegal, or even morally questionable, manner because it hasn't been funded yet at all, not to any substantial degree. This doesn't stop Rick Lazio from saying he should investigate that funding stream, even after the revelation that it didn't really exist.

Political Theorist Sheldon Wolin wrote in 1989 about how the conservative Philosopher Allan Bloom, who was extremely influential in conservative intellectual circles, was defined largely be a rage against Postmodernism (Sheldon Wolin, The Presence of the Past 1989, pages 47-65). Postmodernism is an academic movement that has sought over the years to challenge some very fundamental things about reality, about science, about reason. As Wolin put it:

Although the postmodern mind, as yet, hesitates to provoke a head-on confrontation with modern science . . . the subversion of the supporting culture of science is clearly under way. The postmodern individual has pretty much renounced the objectivist view of scientific knowledge, indeed all forms of knowledge. (Sheldon Wolin, The Presence of the Past 1989, page 70.)

Postmodern Philosopher Richard Rorty, exactly the kind of thinker against whom Allan Bloom was raging, once wrote that abandoning Western rationalism “has no discouraging political implications.” Society can abandon rationalism, the intellectual legacy of the Enlightenment, and retain the Enlightenment's politics of human dignity and liberation. (Richard Rorty, Truth, Politics, and 'Post-Modernism' 1997, pages 36-42.)

But there's an important thing Rorty and other Postmodernists didn't think of, and thus didn't account for. And that is that when the sources of reality and the very nature of empirical observation are questioned, when you can no longer accept the results of an empirical test (like dropping 2 objects at the same time to see if 1 falls faster than the other) all that you have left is power. Someone with the power to enforce his or her vision can ram it down the throats of everyone else. To use an exaggerated example from literature, if Big Brother says that 2 plus 2 is 5, then it's 5, even if it's not. Who are you to say otherwise?

In the absence of thought or reason or empirical observation, all that's left is power. Who has it, who doesn't, and how those with it can enforce their ideas upon those who don't.

The Federalist Papers repeatedly remind us that, in the American system, the base of power is with the people. Federalist Paper # 46 (attributed to James Madison) reminds us, for example, that a reliance on the people as the ultimate source of authority means that the American system can get away with having both a national government and state governments, and yet expect the two layers of government to work together and not against each other. The more-famous Federalist Paper # 51 (attributed to either James Madison or Alexander Hamilton) reminds us that, in a system where the people are the ultimate base of power, the people are also a source of potential oppression.

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.

In later years, this concept would come to be known as “the tyranny of the majority.”

Outside the offices of the Minority Leader of the New York State Assembly there once sat (and for all I know still does sit) a plaque with a quote:

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

The quote is variously attributed to either John Adams or Samuel Adams; I forget which one the Assembly Minority's plaque attributes it to. At first, this sentiment may sound healthy. And in fact in many circumstances the sentiment has been as healthy as it sounds like it could be. An irate minority can be a check against the potentially tyrannical majority feared by the authors of The Federalist Papers. Black people fighting for Civil Rights were nothing if not an "irate minority."

The dark side of the sentiment, however, is that you might not need a majority to do something horrendous. Sometimes an irate minority can do the trick. Majorities, after all, can be expensive and time-consuming to achieve. But an irate minority is pretty easy to come by these days, now that reality itself can be called into question so easily. Reality is expensive, almost as expensive as majorities are. But an irate minority that's been spoon-fed semi-plausible falsehoods? Cheap. And effective.

There were no death panels in the Obama health care bill. To bring things back to New York State politics, David Paterson is not “a drug addict,” any more than Carl Paladino is “addicted” to bestiality porn or “addicted” to fathering children out of wedlock.

These are two flawed men, who did what they did, and we judge them according to our wit and our expectations. But neither is, so far as we can reasonably know, addicted to anything.

“As far as we can reasonably know.” Reasonably know. Quite a concept there.

It even comes close to an objective fact that Thomas Jefferson is an excellent example of an important political philosopher. Indeed its hard to imagine someone whose political philosophy has been of greater importance in practical politics. Jefferson more or less invented what we now call American political values.

The Texas Department of Education, however, disagreed,

and agreed to replace Thomas Jefferson as an example of an influential political philosopher in a world history class.

Thomas Jefferson's thought, it seems, also didn't influence any important revolutions:

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

I can't think of any revolutions Thomas Jefferson inspired, can you? If you can, E-Mail the Texas Department of Education.

Reason has made America great. Our country was founded on reason, and New York State led the way for a very long time. Reason helps us deal with reality rather than bury our heads in the sand.

But now, New York State, and the nation as a whole, are losing reason, and reality along with it, and, while I suppose I could find some examples of liberal irrationality (in fact, with the crowd that's currently in charge of the New York State Senate I'm all-but-certain I could), conservatives are clearly leading the way. Fortunate for them that the abandonment of reality ensures they won't have to admit that they're abandoning reality.

Soon, we'll have conservative Christians turning the Bible into a wiki, editing their own Holy Book according to their preconceptions, rather than reading it, or hiring a professional to do a professionally done translation that's more to their liking. (There's plenty of conservative Bible scholars, after all.) Oh wait, that's already happening.

Thomas Jefferson wasn't an important political philosopher, it's President Obama's fault that the Park 51 project is a national issue, David Paterson is a drug addict, and the Holy Bible is a wiki.

Welcome, readers, to a new political era: The era of making things up.