"Post-modern" as relates to Obama is explained in this post. Now we know our enemy.

paste up to this point - 3/11/10

Commentary as to the notion of "postmodern" may be different in politics than religion, I don't know, but this editor does know something of the notion of "postmodernism" when it comes to religion.

Let's not forget that Midknight Review believes Obama is much more a minister of Black Liberation Theology than he is a politician or a leader of men. With that in mind, perhaps our comments are as timely as others.

In matters of religion, "modernism" has to do with the more traditional points of view. If theology was a narrative, "modernism" would have to do with the larger narratives - the Bible, the Westminster Confession, the Reformation, Karl Barth versus liberalism, and so on. In politics, the larger narrative would be things like the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, WW II or WW I, the Great Recession and so on.

A modernist has the larger narratives as a frame of reference. As a result, she will see history or truth or the particular [larger] narrative more in terms of "black and white" than, say a post-modernist.

"Post-modern" literally carries with it the meaning of being "after modernism." In short, the larger narratives have been left behind in terms of reference for the "post-modernist."

The modernist takes "truth" quite seriously and is more inclined to speak in terms of black and white, when it comes to truth. The post-modernist sees "truth" as existential and, even, anecdotal, changing from one circumstance to another; lawyers tend to be in this latter class of persons, especially if they are not "grounded" in the larger narratives of their parents or forerunners.

As relates to Obama, he is clearly our first "post-modern" President with principle. He is critical of the US Constitution for not being activist enough and has spoken specifically on this issue. While he rejects our historical values as a nation, he is not a purist when it comes to Marxism or Black Liberation Theology. He has made the claim that he is not an ideologue. Indeed, it is a worthy question as to whether a post-modernist can be an ideologue !!

If we were to give Obama a label, Midknight Review would argue that he is a secular existentialist - a post-modernist using himself as the final authority for matters philosophical. Where Obama disagrees with the Constitutional provision, it is because he, himself, has concluded "thus and so." You will not hear him argue from a larger narrative. Rather, he will simply assert the rightness of his position and act on that assumption.

Technically speaking, is he an ideologue? No he is not. Obama is not wedded to any particular philosophy that has precedent over his own personal point of view -- and that is the very definition of a "post-modernist."

Why is this important? For one thing, it opens the door to a more accurate analysis of the man who occupies our White House. Understand that Obama is not totally unaffected by certain historical realities.

Apparently he has been affected by the early American history of African-Americans and intends to set that community on a track set for success, whether via education or the transfer of wealth.

Further, he has rejected the larger narratives of "free market capitalism" and traditional Christianity. Midknight Review often refers to Obama as a "Marxist." There are two kinds. On one hand, there are those who are schooled in Marxism and are wedded to Marx's societal solutions. On the other hand, there are those see Marx as one of many critics of free market capitalism, along with Mao and Stalin and Chavez and Castro. Fascism should be in this grouping, but most cannot get past the murderous efforts of Hitler so we leave this political philosophy out of the mix. Of those just named, Obama does have more in common with Karl Marx than the others. Marx was not a murderer. He killed no one but was as much a revolutionary as the others. Ditto for Saul Alinsky. Jeremiah Wright falls within this descriptive frame work as does Father Pfleger and Louis Farrakhan. And so, the non-violent radical is seen everywhere within Obama's Administration. Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Eric Holder, Andy Sterns and on and on -- literally, radicals are everywhere within his Administration and that is the case because Obama is of the same bent. While some within his Administration might be Marxist ideologues, Obama is simply too arrogant to fall into that category. He wants to be as seen on the national and world stage as important a leader as Marx or Mao. This is why he gave that speech at the University of Cairo and campaigned for President of the United States in Germany and gives orders to the Israeli leadership and micromanages all of the public relations output of his Administration (726 speeches and personal appearances in 2009 - literally 9 months worth of talk and personal exposure).

If we understand all of this as relates to Obama, he becomes more predictable and politically more vulnerable -- jds
.
.