I'm not up to date on an inventory of post-modern conservatives, to which I made no claim if they exist or not. Once again you have ignored my actual claim: I am saying that not all liberals, not even all liberals further to the left, are post-modernists. If you want an example of that, I can give you one: John Rawls, one of the most famous political philosophers of our time, and a very liberal one at that. He was decidedly not a post-modernist, never writing a single paper on post-modernism as an epistemic philosophy he supported. If anything, his work evinces a concrete reality. Certainly there are those who read some post-modern influence into his work. Equally, conservative influence can be read into it as well: For one, he believed in objective truth. For another, he had no illusions of nor advocacy for any type of radical equality. Finally, he was a strong advocate of individualism, though he denied utilitarian thinking as a useful method of expressing individualism.
So, once again, I am simply saying that everyone on the left is not an post-modernist.
You appear to dislike post-modernism. I'm not a huge fan of it either. However, your disdain for that field of thinking seems to have focused your efforts on your area of dislike, on the excesses of those with whom you disagree. It may be a focus that blinds you to the wider field of modern epistemic thought, political philosophy, and nuance within the political spectrum that defies easy liberal-conservative dichotomies.
You cannot read the source works and/or criticisms of post-modernism, the source works and/or criticisms of libertarian/utilitation/objectivism and come away with an accurate picture of modern epistemic or political philosophy.
