Some may say that Bush can't even spell deconstuction, but that is just their own meta-narrative!  For all that Jacques did or didn't do, I've found this thought by E.O. Wilson in Concilience to match my own.  Paraphrased:  "When reading Derrida, if I understand correctly, I have no reason to believe what he says.  It is akin to the old proverb; A Cretan told me all Cretans are liars."  That's a mouthful from a man with a materialistic worldview.

The quote “All those years of Jacques Derrida and we still got George Bush" that is anonymous is interesting on several levels.  My English professor here at MSU once remarked a person lives in two worlds; one of symbolism or one of irony.  The world of irony is where "nothing is ever what it seems" becomes the main motto. I think postmodernism is similar to the world of irony in that behind every uttered statement is someone's agenda hiding, and so communication quickly becomes pointless, because there is no point of reference from which things can be discussed.  Postmodernism devalues opinion and reduces opinion to the many thousand other opinion running wild, crashing into each other, and progress is not made anywhere. So postmodernism is like an urban ghetto; lots of screaming kids and no parents in sight.  When postmodernists critique the American empire with Dubya at the helm, they prevent their own critique because the other side will simply say, "That's just your truth, your claim to power, your agenda." And so criticism breaks down.  But postmodernism is also not totally evil.  Eric the mrrena.com has written, "The real strength of postmodernism is a recognition of our limitations." (http://www.mrrena.com/king.shtml) I have been reading N.T. Wright's article ("The Christian Challenge in the Postmodern World"  http://www.spu.edu/depts/uc/response/summer2k5/features/postmodern.asp )    where he mentions modernity thought it could solve the world's problems with tinkering with the tax code, passing some laws, improving some technology, relying on scientific evidence and then  9-11 comes along.  And we see that problem of the actuality of evil is what modernity cannot solve.   So postmodernism makes us aware of the limits of solving all the problems on our own with objective knowledge as when Wright later writes, "Under God, the role of postmodernity has been to announce the doctrine of the fall to arrogant modernity, and to say, it’s not that easy, guys, you’ve just been building the tower of Babel, and God is coming down to have a little giggle at it and to confuse your languages." I have not finished the article but it seems N.T. Wright says Bush and the Bush doctrine that many believe in, including myself, in some ways does not recognize the "Fall" of man and the world.  Through empire, he argues, "But that’s what I’m talking about — the global empire, particularly in its economic outreach, and what that does to the rest of the world," America and the Wester world believe it is our "obligation" to spread to the rest of the world democracy, technology, freedom, justice, peace.  So in some sense after 9-11 we have become more in touch with "modernity," less with "postmodernity," thinking we can solve the world's problems thus leading us to a logical end, a sort of establishment of utopia on earth.  But Christianity tells us man cannot, by himself, transfrorm the world.  The fall of man, the original sin, is at the center of the problem of the actuality of evil.  Perhaps I, and others who believe in the Bush doctrine, however well-intentioned, have been to ambitious and are rushing to fix things by believing we can really, totally fix things.  And perhaps by doing such we have forgotten God and His grace, and Christ and the Church, and how the Church is light of the world, and how God uses it to transform the world and us.  So with this in mind and that I have not finished reading this N.T.Wright's article, I highly sugget going on  http://www.spu.edu/depts/uc/response/summer2k5/index.asp and reading the 4 or 5 articles/lectures done by N.T. Wright when he visited Seattle Pacific University.

I couldn't agree with you more.  Wright and others such as Guinness have questioned our foreign policy because of the facts you have stated.  I also agree with the charge of empire building/cultural imperialism you've used here.  Many politicians and journalists have lambasted Bush for trying to build an empire, but I disagree with them in the sense they are using it.  They usually mean a takeover of Iraq's economic goods and political power in the Middle East.  What they don't realize is, is that they are endorsing the real cultural imperialism in wanting to force democracy on the rest of the world.  They then wonder why the terrorists still hate them even though they don't support Bush's overall policy.  The problem as I see it is strictly of a pragmatic nature.  What is democracy?  It is rule by the people.  Now I know we limit the mob effect of democracy by republic style  representational government, but you will still have the net effect of having a government that reflects the peoples' morality.  Do we really expect for an Islamic people to vote for leaders that are against strong readings and followings of Islamic law?  Highly unlikely, once we are gone the leaders of Iraq will bend their democracy to theocratic principles effectively cutting the democracy at its roots.  We saw the same thing in Russia.  After nearly a century of totalitarian rule, the Russian people received a democracy and had a hard time dealing with its implications.  Before long the people were looking for a stronger leader than a Yelstin and they eventually gave power to Putin who has dramatically altered the democracy he inherited.  Democracies can only be as strong as the morality of the people being ruled.  That is why many of the founding fathers felt that a democracy could only stay successful when the people were religious and had deep regard for God.  They understood that a morality achieved through an understanding that people were not ends in themselves or ultimate deciders of truth and justice would keep the morals of the democracy stable and not subject to opinion polls or utilitarian ideals.