No one's In Charge... Except the Strong Man

There's a strain of anti-foundationalism at the heart of Postmodern Theory that has been popularized and adopted by a large swathe of the population, particularly youngsters. Whether this anti-foundationalism's vector is an Intro to 20th Century philosophy class, or pseudointellectual chatter or real research into Deconstructionism, it affects our intellectual climate.

As you can probably gather from the biased and inaccurate way I'm representing it, this anti-foundationalism, which can likely be traced from the relativistic science of Einstein and Heisenberg or the Structuralist language critiques of Saussure, is a phenomenon I oppose. What this set of ideas tells people, at least in its popular form, is that all authorities are suspect, particularly preexisting rich white male authorities. Now, this is all well and good. We should be skeptical of those in positions of power, and in America, those in power tend to be rich white heterosexual men. However, this idea, and associated ideas, tend to aid the very centers of power they purport to hinder. Anti-foundational tendencies among progressives tend to alienate the vast majority of people, who say they want change, but don't want any change that threatens their position in the world. Anti-foundational arguments also tend to damage the perceived credibility of all existing institutions and power centers, which creates circumstances in which only strength, in the authoritarian sense, has real credibility.

The source of these ideas tends to be Postmodern critical theory, which is, obviously, a critical intellectual movement. As such, it doesn't really propose justifications for alternative power centers, nor strategies for building these alternative power sources. It tells people to fight the power, but fighting the power without establishing a way to create new legitimized power has a name, and that is destructive nihilism.

The problem with a progressive movement fueled by thes anti-foundational concerns is that it lacks strategies to build the sustainable, beautiful, utopian world it asks for. Along with this, did anyone, for one second, wonder what America would have been like if Ralph Nader had won the 2000 election? Who would he have chosen as Secretary of State, or Commerce? What would he have asked for in the 2002 budget? Could he have passed any legislation, or would he have had to issue veto after veto.

We live in a diverse country, and that means that for every progressive, there's at least one guy who hangs onto Rush Limbaugh's every world. Not only is an anti-foundational progressivism's success unlikely in the short term, but it is defined in opposition to the vast structure of American society. Anti-foundationalism's rise to power is only suited to a revolutionary rise to power, in the Bolshevik sense. And this is something that can't be accomplished in today's America.

A progressivism that is built upon gradual incremental change is the only progressivism that is capable of permanently altering the American landscape for the better. Of course, that means engaging with the existing, admittedly crappy, political process. It means creating voices for progressives, and I think that's more likely if progressives run on the Democratic ticket. To date, Greens have only had enough success to win elections for the Republicans.

As they exist today, progressive movements tend to be anti-foundational and opportunistic, which is an unhealthy combination. To take a somewhat extreme example, PETA demands a change in American habits that is almost unprecedented, but does so through attention-getting stunts that do little to encourage the type of serious thought and consideration that people need to change. This has to change if we are ever to live in the America we want to live in.