First, I have said many times that Bill Clinton is our first postmodern president, but Gene Edward Veith demonstrates that Gore's efforts in contesting the Florida votes is further evidence of the postmodern grip on American culture. Let me summarize his argument. Key to postmodernism is the conviction that truth-claims and moral absolutes are nothing more than personal or social constructs. Politically, this means the politics of spin- doctoring (professional construction of plausibility paradigms), image manipulation (since style, not substance, is what persuades in an era without truth), judicial activism (since law is just a matter of interpretation), and ruthless power politics (since truth is nothing more than the imposition of power).
Both Bush and Gore engaged in some of these tactics but Gore routinely change his persona from week to week, audience to audience. Further, postmodernism teaches that ideological and cultural disagreements are not just differences of opinion, but rather issues of power and that culture is a thinly disguised mask for groups in power oppressing those who are not, who in turn must be empowered. Thus, Gore pictures himself as a warrior setting groups against groups and promising," I will fight for you."
Second, as evidence of the modern commitment to science and technology, voting machines were gradually introduced into elections earlier in the 20th century making it more difficult to cheat and countering the notorious ballot-stuffing of corrupt political bosses with the certainty of modern technology. But now Gore and his legal team are challenging this tenet, saying that even hard, scientific evidence is susceptible to various interpretations. So, the outcome of the presidential election hinges on the hermeneutics of chads, as humans attempt to divine the intent of the voter by examining dimpled chads, hanging chads, three-cornered chads, etc. Certainty is gone and ballots are now a mere matter of interpretation. Furthermore, according to Gore's legal team, only the interpretation of three Florida counties matters!!
Third, since truth claims are not valid anyway, you win by personal attacks. Consider the case of Katherine Harris. Over three weeks ago, she was a feminist heroine. A dynamic, successful woman, Harris had achieved a high elected office, the Secretary of State of Florida. In addition, she headed Florida's affirmative action committee, served on the Florida Supreme Court's gender bias commission and on the advisory council for a women's resource center. Also, Habitat for Humanity is one of her pet causes (which, incidently is one of Gore's too). But, when she made the unforgivable error of meticulously applying Florida state law in the election, she was destroyed by the Gore legal team. A Washington Post writer blasted her for her, of all things, makeup!!!! She compared her to "Cruella DeVil. . . with 10 tons of mascara, four pounds of lipstick and day-glo blue eye shadow. . . ."
What feminists and supporters of Gore have done is destroy a woman, not for her decision or because of her character, both of which were within the bounds of legitimacy and decency. They destroyed her for her appearance, something feminists have always resented: A woman's appearance is never the issue; it is her competency and character unless, of course, you go against the feminist presidential candidate!!
Finally, postmodernism denies that law is a matter of discovering absolutes; rather, law is a matter of interpretation and of legal constructs. Hence, the unremitting legal warfare in Florida. As Robert Bork has written, there is a "spirit of inflamed partisanship [that] is revealing fault lines throughout our society. An open and unashamed win-at-all-costs mentality has been let loose upon the land, due initially to Bill Clinton but now practiced if possible, even more blatantly by his acolyte Al Gore."
The Bush position has consistently been that the disparities between voters in different parts of Florida and between those whose ballots are examined under shifting standards in the same counties, deny voters the equal protection of the law and due process. That proposition, even for the intellectually honest, is difficult to deny. What the US Supreme Court seemed to affirm and what Judge Sauls argued as well is that the rules for selection of electors have to be in place before the election and the legislature, not the courts, must decide the manner of designating electors. If this is upheld, then the postmodern application of law to this election will have been denied. But with 42 cases still pending, do not get your hopes up too much! Judge Learned Hand once wrote: "[This] much I think I know that a society so riven that the spirit of moderation is gone, no court can save; that a society where that spirit flourishes, no court need save; that in a society which evades its responsibility by thrusting upon the courts the nurture of that spirit, that spirit in the end will perish" [Quoted by Bork].
Further, as Stephen Carter argues, by turning over to the lawyers the closest election in our history, the campaigns have done little to ensure Americans that justice is being done, and kill off the straggling remains of the myth that the courts are impartial. But they have done something far worse: So shaken is popular trust in the electoral process that, no matter who winds up in the White House, millions of Americans will be certain that the winner stole the election." This election manifests the curse of postmodernism upon our land and, at least in the short term, nothing can rescue us.
