Postmodernism / Election 2008
The New Tolerance

There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Ronald Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate, West Berlin, 12 June 1987

The above words were spoken on the day before my 40th birthday. All my conscious life the USA had been in tension with the Soviet Union. It was called the “cold war”. It was a struggle between two ways of life…freedom for folks in the USA and repression for those in the Soviet Union. The Soviet rulers had their boots on the throats of their people.

When the Soviet Union began its rule, many hailed it as a new way of bringing equality to all the people, especially in the economic sense through socialism. But as the years passed, it became apparent that the communism espoused by Marx and Lenin was not possible and was clearly not the way it was in the Soviet Union. Yet, to avoid a “hot war” there was a “peaceful coexistence” that developed between the ideals of the Soviet and American rulers. Many wanted to take that to the level of “moral equivalence”. Thankfully that did not happen. Enough folks in the USA, including Reagan, believed we were right and the Soviets were wrong although we “tolerated” their position to avoid a nuclear holocaust.

But, as evidenced by he remarks above, Reagan and others never gave up on pressing for a change in the Soviets…a change that would promote freedom for the people under Soviet rule and thereby peace among state adversaries. DA Carson has opined that a big change that postmodernism has brought is a redefinition of “tolerance”. That is, it used to be that we acknowledged differing positions held but never gave up the belief in right/wrong or true/false positions and our need to advance the right and true. We “tolerated” other positions even though we knew them to be invalid.

Today, that has changed. Postmodernism with its views that “truth” is constructed culturally and is not universal, now demands that all positions be “tolerated” as TRUE. You know all the catch phrases: “what’s true for you is not necessarily true for me”, or “its all relative”. This is real “moral equivalence” because no one can impose their ethical system on another because there is no one right and true system, idea or proposition.

I for one am glad Reagan was not a postmodern president. Without delving into his theological reasons, he never quit striving to point out that the repression of freedom by the Soviets was wrong and their system was an invalid expression of a state in human history. This is an important point to consider in the 2008 election. Who wants to press for the good, the true and the beautiful? Who wants to see the dignity of man enhanced?

I am not talking about programs that make us more reliant on government or shifts resources from one person to another. These are political gimmicks to buy votes to stay in office. I am talking about the candidates approach to ideas and propositions that enhance the well being of all citizens and not special interests or segments of the population. Are the policies and positions of a candidate going to change our way of life; our view of family, land, and faith; our security and safety, all because the candidate believes we stand for nothing but the expedient and pragmatic? And, what we once stood for is not better than any other ideal or system in this world? When a candidate talks of “change” what is it he/she wants to change? Let us beware of candidates who would become postmodern presidents.