Friday, February 27, 2009

What is postmodern man?

In the previous post, I offered a rough explanation:
The central facet of postmodern man is her recognition that every action and every thought entails a process of figuring a centre of sacred attention and hence a marginalized or alienated periphery of the sacred. Since every thought and statement creates a margin, only actions and thoughts that are "correct" can be contemplated by people obsessed with redeeming alleged victimhood. The centre is always under suspicion and one is not focussed on upholding the norms of those centres that, notwithstanding their limits in building Utopia, nevertheless allow for a maximum freedom of exchange on the periphery.
Here's another illustration of what I'm talking about, from Bill Clinton pollster and consultant Dick Morris:
In addressing this panic, the president of the United States must truly be the leader of the world — showing the way back to confidence.

Instead, Obama has been instrumental in purveying fear and spreading doubt. It is his pronouncements, reinforced by the developments they kindle and catalyze, that are destroying good businesses, bankrupting responsible people and wiping out even conservative financial institutions. Every time he speaks, he sends the markets down and stocks crashing. He doesn’t seem to realize that the rest of the world takes its cue from him. He forgets that he stands at the epicenter of power, not on the fringes campaigning for office. This ain’t Iowa.

Why does Obama preach gloom and doom? Because he is so anxious to cram through every last spending bill, tax increase on the so-called rich, new government regulation, and expansion of healthcare entitlement that he must preserve the atmosphere of crisis as a political necessity. Only by keeping us in a state of panic can he induce us to vote for trillion-dollar deficits and spending packages that send our national debt soaring.

And then there is the matter of blame. The deeper the mess goes — and the further down his rhetoric drives it — the more imperative it becomes to lay off the blame on Bush. He must perpetually “discover” — to his shock — how deep the crisis that he inherited runs, stoking global fears in the process.

So, having inherited a recession, his words are creating a depression. He entered office amid a disaster and he is transforming it into a catastrophe, all to pass every last bit of government spending and move us a bit further to the left before his political capital dwindles.

But the jig will be up soon. The crash of the stock market in the days since he took power (indeed, from the moment he won the election) can increasingly be attributed to his own failure to lead us in the right direction, his failed policies in addressing the recession and his own spreading of panic and fear. The market collapse makes it evident that it is Obama who is the problem, where he should, instead, be the solution.


Anonymous said...

As a writer, I have absolutely no intention of getting into some kind of dialogue over the Internet, as can happen when one has something less than complimentary to say, as I do, but I do wish to opine on this ridiculous post, as it hugely annoyed me when I came across it. To that end, I posted as 'anonymous'.

I came here, based on my research for a story as to just what post modern man is, and came away even more confused. But what put me off, straight away, was your usage of the word 'her'. Feminist much? 'They', 'them', 'us', 'humankind', 'society' . . . WHATEVER . . . Would be far more appropriate. Why 'her'? Does 'he' not come into the equation? Does 'she' encompass humankind? You try too hard. If you really want to be taken seriously, by writing such opinionated claptrap, that you go on to do, then recognize that there are BOTH male and female in the populace. You come across as being absolutely ignorant by simply using 'her' - whether your intended audience is geared towards females or not IT DOESN'T MATTER; there is, and always will be, mankind too.

Furthermore your post is pretentious and barely comprehensible insofar as what it is you are trying to say. It is highly pretentious and on a personal level, for whatever reason opinionated about, I don't know what? It gave me a headache. Sheesh.

truepeers said...

Well, this is the first comment on a six-year old post, so you must be right! As for "her" I can only imagine now that that was my weak attempt at sarcasm. Postmodern man isn't manly. As for pissing you off, well that suggests something about my point, however poorly articulated (perhaps you have to read the previous post referred above, though I didn't again so i don't know): postmodern man always imagines himself as alienated from hegemonic Being, instead of taking responsibility for the centres of shared attention that can serve as the basis for a shared understanding and freedom. Of course you don't want "some kind of dialogue".