Post-Modernist Bush and SC Deconstructionists
xo...@my-deja.com
From
Derrida, Dame Edna, and George W., Postmodernist
by Ron Rosenbaum
http://www.observer.com/index_go.html
2) George W. Bush, Postmodernist
I feel a little bad now, having called him "the Austin pinhead" in a
previous column, because it has become obvious that my Yale classmate
George W. was not sleeping through his classes to a gentleman's C.
Clearly he was auditing advanced seminars on linguistics and comparative
literature at Yale, the place where the postmodern movement in America
first took root.
George W. a postmodernist? Yes! It's there in the Bush team's furious
opposition to any examination of the best attempt to look at the facts
in the re-count dispute, the so-called undercount ballots, the ones
that didn't register a vote for President when they went through the
inadequate, error-prone machines. It's there in the Bush team's
astonishing contention that we would be better off if we did not
know-now or ever-what those ballots reveal. It's right there in the
relentless attack on the attempt to look at the facts by W.'s team,
ranging from James Baker and the Bush appeal lawyers to his supporters
on the U.S. Supreme Court and certain of his yapping lapdogs in the
media. It's the signature attitude of postmodernism: distrust of
knowledge, of evidence, of the possibility of ever knowing the truth,
the futility of the search for "facts." An attitude that bears all the
hallmarks not of "strict constructionism" but of deconstructionism.
Bear with me as I try to elucidate the profound philosophical principles
that are clearly guiding W. and his team in his judicial war to prevent
anyone from seeing those ballots. On the surface, it might seem that
they have been arguing against examining the ballots-the crucial facts
in the case-and going so far as to tell the American people (as Justice
Scalia did) that we are better off not seeing them ever, in effect
saying to us: "You can't handle the truth." But in fact, it's much
deeper than that: The Bush team's argument isn't "You can't handle the
truth"; it really is "There's no such thing as truth." Or as the great
Roman philosopher Pontius Pilate, the first postmodernist, put it: "What
is truth?"
When you think about it, it all comes down to the schism between
modernism and postmodernism on the nature of facts and ambiguities. The
schism that was emerging between the New Critics and the
Deconstructionists at Yale just about the time W. and I graduated.
(Could Jacques Derrida have cracked a keg at Deke with George W.? Did
Roland Barthes sneak into Skull and Bones?)
The New Critics were obsessed with ambiguity, the fact that words and
phrases in texts could yield-just like the chads on undercount
ballots-different, even conflicting interpretations. New Critic
classics such as William Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity celebrated
ambiguity, celebrated the beauty of resonant variants as an invitation
to greater attentiveness, to closer examination, to "close reading."
They celebrated the active engagement of critical intelligence with
facts and ambiguities. It was a belief that critical intelligence can
discern and expound the range of possibility just as a jury does with
evidence and doubt.
But the postmodernists can't handle ambiguity and doubt. In a
puritanical rage against the messiness and complexity of ambiguity, of
truth, of life itself, they flee to a position of nihilistic absolutism:
There's no such thing as historical truth, there are no facts, there
are only texts, the interpretation and "construction" of which can not
be separated from the hidden agenda of those doing the "constructing."
All such judgments thus need to be de-constructed, delegitimized. There
is no point in acquiring further knowledge, more facts, such as might
be acquired from examining the disputed Florida ballots, because votes
are texts too, and there are no truths about texts, just
interpretations.
You can see this attitude in one of the Bush team's mantras: The Florida
Supreme Court order to hand count disputed ballots in all Florida
counties was fatally flawed because there would be "no consistent
standard." When, in fact, the Florida Supreme Court's order explicitly
defined a single consistent standard, the one set out by the Florida
legislature: canvassing boards were to determine "the clear intent of
the voter." The Bush team might not have liked the standard; they might
have been concerned that the standard would produce results they didn't
like. But there was a standard- one set out, as the U.S. Supreme Court
insisted, by the legislature, not the courts.
Some might call the repeated declaration that there was "no standard"
just a blatant, self-serving lie. But I prefer to believe that it can
be seen as arising from George W.'s principled devotion to the tenets
of postmodernism. To the belief there can be no such thing as a valid
interpretation of intent. It's, like, all subjective, dude.
In fact, it's an aspect of the postmodernist condemnation of the attempt
to interpret the intent of the author. George W. and his team seem to
have adopted Roland Barthes' postmodernist "death of the author"
ideology-that works of literature are not "produced" by writers and
authors, but rather are the product of eddies in the linguistic
"codes," the "floating signifiers" that use the apparent authors like
ventriloquists' dummies. Because the Bush team has delegitimized, in a
postmodernist way, another kind of authorial intent: For the "death of
the author," they have substituted the "death of the voter."
One should also acknowledge the important influence of Michel Foucault
on the Bush legal team: To look at the ballots would give only the
illusion of more knowledge, because there is no such thing as knowledge
beyond perspectives and constructions. Which are themselves the product
of the power relations in a society.
The Florida Supreme Court majority-the ones who voted for the
re-count-were clearly onto this Foucauldian attitude towards principles
on the part of the Bush team. In fact, they devoted a long footnote in
their majority opinion to an awestruck elucidation of the Bush team's
postmodernism. In the footnote-which I commend to anyone as the key
text in the case-the four justices describe "a substantial and dramatic
change of position after oral arguments" by the Bush team. In their
original argument against extending the Katherine Harris certification
deadline to include the manual re-counts, the Bush team had argued that
the so-called protest phase (after the election, but before
certification) did not permit time for hand counts, which were more
properly done in the "contest phase," the phase we're in now. At which
time, one Bush lawyer said he didn't "think there would be any problem
in producing … that kind of evidence [the manual re-counts] in an
election contest procedure."
Those italics, by the way, are not mine; they are the italics of the
Florida Supreme Court majority, stunned by the reversal of the Bush
legal position, which has now done a 180-degree flip: Where once they
said it was fine to look at evidence and have court-supervised re-counts
in the contest phase, now they revile this as utterly impermissible.
Some might say they were just using what George W. calls "legalistic
language" in their original position to pull a bait-and-switch deal;
some might say this argues a complete lack of principles, that the Bush
team lied and deceived the courts.
But I'd argue that it's a product of their touching devotion to the
principles of postmodernism, which insist that there are no such things
as principles except as convenient opportunistic masks, cat's-paws of
power-disposable, reversible, dispensable.
One can see this consistency of attitude in the U.S. Supreme Court
justices who have supported the Bush position. Yes, it's true that
they've devoted themselves and their careers to resurrecting and
protecting the doctrine of state sovereignty, states' rights, deference
to state courts. And it's true that in staying the re-count, they
totally trashed and dispensed with these principles in order to arrive
at an outcome which will ensure a President who has praised "strict
constructionism," and is likely to appoint more colleagues who will
agree with them. And it's true that (as Jim Dwyer points out in the
Monday, Dec. 11, Daily News) Antonin Scalia told a magazine that he
would quit the Court if Bush didn't win the Presidency, because that
would end his hope of being promoted to Chief Justice. But I'm sure
this has nothing to do with Justice Scalia's unseemly zeal to promote
the cause of the man who could promote him. It's not political
opportunism trumping principles, but in fact what you might call strict
deconstructionism. Power trumps principle, and words can be redefined to
mean their opposite in the service of sucking up to power.
Antonin Scalia, meet Michel Foucault! Jacques Derrida, come on down!
George Bush has a place in his Cabinet for you.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
John H. McCloskey
daddy. Definitely more of a *pre* type all around.
--Internet Critic
"The man is father to the child."
--G. M. Hopkins
Tom Robertson
<snip>
>one of the Bush team's mantras: The Florida
>Supreme Court order to hand count disputed ballots in all Florida
>counties was fatally flawed because there would be "no consistent
>standard." When, in fact, the Florida Supreme Court's order explicitly
>defined a single consistent standard, the one set out by the Florida
>legislature: canvassing boards were to determine "the clear intent of
>the voter." The Bush team might not have liked the standard; they might
>have been concerned that the standard would produce results they didn't
>like. But there was a standard- one set out, as the U.S. Supreme Court
>insisted, by the legislature, not the courts.
>
>Some might call the repeated declaration that there was "no standard"
>just a blatant, self-serving lie. But I prefer to believe that it can
>be seen as arising from George W.'s principled devotion to the tenets
>of postmodernism. To the belief there can be no such thing as a valid
>interpretation of intent. It's, like, all subjective, dude.
Yes, there was a standard, but that hardly did away with all
ambiguity. You're right that, with most ballots, intent is clear,
but, no matter what the standard, there will always be ambiguity. The
Florida legislature could have written 100 pages making the standard
more precise, and there'd still be ambiguity. But to try to solve the
problem of ambiguity and differing standards by simply not counting
all the ballots is unjustifiable. When the Miami-Dade undervotes were
about to be counted last Saturday, it was decided that justices would
do it all, so as to minimize, I assume, any perception of bias. If
the United States Supreme Court justices were so concerned about equal
protection, why couldn't all the ballots in Florida that the machines
didn't register a vote for President be taken to the United States
Supreme Court and have them count them all? How could any reasonable
person believe that just not counting them is better?
I think you're going too far in saying that the Bush team really
believes there is no such thing as truth, though. The simple fear of
a recount showing that they lost is an adequate explanation.
<snip>
xo...@my-deja.com
You understand that I did not write this, Ron Rosenbaum of the New York
Observer wrote it. I just find it incredibly perceptive and I enjoy the
irony--the literary technique he employs to mock Republican sophistry. I
think Rosenbaum would agree with everything you said. I certainly do.