My dad has a 1930 Ford Model A. It is 95 years old. He drives it basically every day, just about anywhere. Here’s a picture of it dressed up for Independence Day.
(He should have period-correct flags next time.)
Everywhere he goes, everyone loves the car. People smile, point, and wave. All kinds of people, young and old, just love this thing. He keeps up his side of the deal and sounds the oooga horn in response to all the attention. People enjoy the Model A simply because it exists.
My daughter drives a 2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser. Nobody smiles or waves or points. Nobody cares. This is interesting because, well, when the PT Cruiser was new, everyone loved the thing. They sold tons of them; people loved the unique design and the amazing utility… but today, a car that is much less objectively “good” and “useful” gets a lot more attention, and brings a lot more joy.
Why am I writing about cars on a Thursday? Well. Let’s get some terms defined first.
Modernism:
A cultural movement from the late 19th to mid-20th century that believed in progress, science, and universal truths. It celebrated new ideas, technology, and art that aimed for clarity, order, and timeless beauty, like sleek buildings or stories with clear meanings. —grok
Postmodernism:
A movement starting in the mid-20th century that questioned modernism’s big ideas. It embraced relativism, saying truth depends on perspective, and used irony, playfulness, and mixing styles—like art that combines old and new or stories that don’t have clear endings. —grok
Contrast:
Modernism celebrates efficiency, hard work, and usefulness. To a point, form follows function, but the form itself is also a function, it must be beautiful, even that beauty only expresses itself in a purely mathematical sense. Things need to be symmetrical, purpose needs to be clear, and that purpose needs to be executed in the best way possible. Is it Good; Is it True; Is it Beautiful? is a very modernist view.
Postmodernism, to poorly summarize the best Regular Car Reviews episode ever (and partial inspiration for this article) - https://youtu.be/hoxqtnI4I4c , began the instant the first atomic bomb exploded over Japan.
”If everything you and your ancestors ever worked for can be gone in an instant - why work hard?” -RCR
Likely more important to the concept of postmodernism than the effort put into the work is the moral obligation to observe and appreciate everything for what it is - because, after all, it could be gone in a second. This is the driver behind FOMO; Fear Of Missing Out.
What’s old is new again, or, better stated, old and new do not exist. All media deserves to be appreciated, regardless of the genius or effort put into it. Actively mixing cultures and media together makes something new that is just as important or perhaps even more important than the original sources it drew upon. It’s not about the effort and work it took to create something, it’s about the number of different ideas that came together.
A system built with a modernist worldview will reflect those concepts. A modernist system will have functionality, efficiency, and universal - timeless - principals baked into the design. Form will follow function, but the lines will be clean. The system will be built for reliability and universal applicability (but note applicability is not the same as flexibility). It will do what it does, and do it well.
A system built with a postmodernist world view will reflect those concepts. A postmodernist system will prioritize diversity of ideas, being made to exist in certain contexts, and easy flexible to new roles. Postmodern systems will actively question existing universal standards, and favor designs that actively mix aesthetics and cultural references with intentional ironic and playful twists. Everything old is new again.
Interestingly, while these world views are fundamentally incompatible with each other, they can both exist in the same world relatively peacefully and sometimes even in agreement. Both the Model A and the PT Cruiser drive on the same roads, and they both have caused response and joy out of people at different times for different reasons.
Back to the article
The Model A is a hardcore “Modernist” car - ironic because it’s the old one - and the PT Cruiser is hardcore postmodernist. The reason the Model A gets a more consistent reaction is because it causes positive reactions from both worldviews:
-
The modernist is amazed at a system so well made it persisted for so long, arguably launching the entire American car industry. They see the genius and effort that went into refining the design and perfecting it. They see the invention of the assembly line and the work Ford put into making the lives of factory workers better. Many appreciate the Model A over the previous Model T specifically because of the clear work put in to evolve towards a better, more beautiful and true solution.
-
The postmodernist sees a car out of time and space and loves the mixing of media; the irony and beauty of seeing something pretty and out-of-place. They are happy to witness that moment, and appreciate the owner taking their time to mix the media, and pay attention to something just because it exists, not because they are focused on the utility.
The hardcore modernist can’t understand the hardcore postmodernist, but they both smile when the Model A drives by, just for different reasons. Both worldviews can exist at the same time, with the same observed reality, just interpreted differently. This is some of the “two movies on one screen” that Scott Adams sometimes talks about.
…. Again, this is about Disney, right?
Riding in my dad’s Model A shows me why I like Disney. I like the forethought and genius it took to build this place. It’s amazing to me how it is has persisted, and exactly how timeless it is. Magic Kingdom, in particular, is an amazing case study. Magic Kingdom (and Disneyland) were built before any other theme park and are still here today, outliving entire other empires cradle to grave. Just like the Model A, it’s still here, still useful, and still easy to appreciate.
The universal applicability of the Model A has helped keep it alive. It works on modern streets, dirt roads, farms, in the woods, just about anywhere. The car just works for just about everyone, to the point that it is minimally customizable. While you could get different bodies, everyone got the same chassis, engine, and body color. Over time there were customizations, of course, but at first it came from the factory universally applicable, not universally flexible. You didn’t have to change it to make it work for you.
Magic Kingdom has the same concepts behind it. Space Mountain is just a space ride, it’s not tied to some specific intellectual property. The Haunted Mansion was built way before there was a Haunted Mansion movie. Pirates of the Caribbean was a ride long before it was a movie. It didn’t matter what specific pirate or ghost or space story you liked, the rides all worked for you. They are applicable to everyone.
Of course Disney World also attracts the postmodernist, because everything old is new again. Disney opened the Seven Dwarves Mine Train in May 2014 - a ride based on a movie released when the Model A was just a few years old. Disney can remix old things to make new things and does on a regular basis, causing the postmodernists to want to see what the new concoction is and appreciate it regardless of the overall quality.
And this ability to appeal to these opposing worldviews is why Disney has done so well. It’s why Chrysler sold a whole lot of PT Cruisers, too. Most people won’t admit it, but the PT is a good car from a modernist standpoint. It has space, it has good functionality, it’s reliable, it’s reasonably efficient, and they were able to build over a million of them at reasonable prices. A PT Cruiser in good condition today is simply a good deal - while also being a remix of old and new styling.
The Coexistence
In modern times these concepts have coexisted so well that the lines between them have sufficiently blurred. There’s still obvious extremes, but most of reality lives in the modern middle, appreciating effort and quality while also appreciating things for just being.
The trick to being successful since the late 60’s has been to cater to both modernist and postmodernist world views. Both existed at the same time, in the same people, so you had to make something that was efficient and modernist while also pulling in the postmodernist elements of irony and concept and cultural mixing. Every successful thing over the past 3-4 generations has been a blend of these opposed concepts.
The original VW Beetle was very modernist but also out of place on American roads, so embraced by the postmodernists. The rash of retro-styled cars show this reality; the 2005 Mustang took on an old look, the PT Cruiser, the Camaro, the Chevy HHR, the Chevy SSR, the New VW Beetle, the modern Ford Thunderbird, and the incredibly long-lived 2008-2023 Dodge Challenger.
Look in basically any product category and you’ll see something similar, look at movies and you’ll see modern, high budget remakes. Superhero movies have simple, direct stories (modernist) with lessons and subplots making sure even the little things that may have gone unnoticed are special and noticed (postmodernist).
Since this is an article about Disney, not cars, I have to point out one of the biggest examples of modernist and postmodernist conflicts ever built: Epcot.
In the front of the park we have an entire area that was originally dedicated to science and finding truth through research, effort, and learning (heavy modernism). The back of the park is a celebration of all cultures and things from all over the world, valuing everything equally regardless of objective success (definite postmodernism). The World Showcase area is also very adaptable to various seasonal festivals and overlays, again, very postmodern. As the story goes, the Imagineers working on Epcot’s initial concepts couldn’t agree on what it should be, so they decided to do both concepts in one park - a literal physical manifestation of the coexistence (and struggle) between these worldviews that inhabits basically everyone on the planet right now.
A huge part of the reason these concepts have been able to coexist for so long is because neither of them are fully right or fully wrong. Modernism doesn’t value some things that should be valued and misses out on many joys in life; postmodernism is eventually self-destructive, because efficiency and effectiveness does eventually become a requirement for survival. People have to embrace varying degrees of both in order to exist in this world.
Unfortunately it’s still a blend of conflicting extremes, which I believe has created the most confused, most disillusioned, and least happy population the planet has seen in several generations. Our own existence is constantly at odds with ourselves. Our own goals do not align with our own goals. Our own concepts of value contradict each other.
Worse still, if you don’t exist in the comfortable blend of modernism and postmodernism and instead gravitate to either side - the conflict is self-polarizing. If you are on the modernist side, you see the postmodernists as everything wrong with the world. If you are on the postmodernist side, you see the modernists as backwards and actively restricting all the good in the world. The only thing you can sanely do is dig into your position. Moving towards the middle is a betrayal of yourself and your entire world.
The unraveling
The coexistence has happened, but it has not been peaceful.
Modernism generally begrudgingly tolerates postmodernism, and sometimes even enjoys it if postmodernism reminds them of previous accomplishments - but in general, modernists dismiss postmodernists as “useless” - not seeking to destroy them, but certainly hoping they “grow up.”
Postmodernism wants to destroy modernism because it sees the modernist worldview as elitist and actively evil.
If all things are to be valued - if all media deserves an audience - and if it’s a moral imperative to make sure everything gets an audience because it could be taken away at any moment - the very concept of a meritocracy is heresy. The modernist views are preventing attention from media that deserve attention simply by existing.
The drivers in this battle are not balanced. Modernism tolerates postmodernism, but postmodernism literally sees modernism as evil. As such, postmodernism gains ground wherever it can; typically gaining ground until it runs into a fundamental truth of the universe - and then blames systemic issues for creating a truth that was really just always there.
The only real measure of postmodernism’s progress is the destruction of modernism; destruction of the meritocracy. And, well, they’ve largely gone as far as they can go.
There’s a lot of lost hope for the future in both sides. The postmodernists don’t know where to go from here; they can’t see how to get the world to realize all things have value and to appreciate it all - and the modernists see nothing but missed opportunities and inefficiencies everywhere with no effort to make sure tomorrow is better. Hope is lost and everyone is tired of the battle, both internally and externally.
The insidiousness of Merit
For a solid 10-15 years now postmodernism has been bouncing off fundamental truths of the universe and unable to get the evil, horrible meritocracy to fully disappear. There’s simply no more ground to realistically take. There’s no getting around the fact that eventually, quality and merit matters.
Without continuous wins and obvious battles to fight, there’s been a general feeling that postmodernism’s future is questionable.
At one point, “laughing baby” was the most popular video on YouTube - https://youtu.be/HttF5HVYtlQ
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great video - but to have a good video on YouTube today you basically need a TV studio. Quality, even in postmodernist culture mash-ups or captured moments in time, has become important.
Quality and merit are insidious, it is always there no matter what.
Postmodernists have been moving towards quality and merit while also trying to believe that everything deserves an audience regardless of quality and merit. If a work, or person, wasn’t getting the attention it rightly deserved, the postmodernist producer would pivot towards quality or even “impact” (a form of merit) to chase those views and likes.
Merit has persisted so long, and there’s so little ground left to grab, that postmodernists have been giving up and just making objectively better stuff.
This has been going on for the past 10-15 years, and it’s had the effect of pushing the hard postmodernists even further away from the blended middle, because the existence of merit makes them feel they must fight harder to get rid of it.
Fighting harder is also self-defeating, because it’s effectively using modernism to push postmodernism. There’s lots of outcomes here, but they all lead to at least some form of work and self-sacrifice to create perceived value. The postmodernist learns to move towards modernism, and/or the postmodernist destroys themself.
We’ve been witnessing the slow end to postmodernism, and modernism too, for that matter, as they have both become so intertwined. It hasn’t really happened yet - it’s just ready to happen. The energy is there, it’s been there for a long time. Nobody’s noticed yet.
Something new is coming, and just like every pivot in history, it’s just waiting for the right time and right catalyst.
The Catalyst
This feels like the Archduke Ferdinand of our time. —Some random person on X
It’s impossible to write something in September 2025 without mentioning the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
The worldwide reaction has been incredible. Huge. It’s been much, much larger than the reaction to any “normal” person being killed. People get killed every day and people who live in the same town don’t hear about it. The reaction is much bigger than the (disgusting) act itself, or even the person himself.
There are chants of “We are Charlie Kirk” happening in South Korea, millions in the streets in London, and tons of smaller tributes and vigils all over the world. Many people have come forward saying they will “pick up the mic” and continue Charlie’s work. The chapter creations for Charlie’s organization (Turning Point USA) have skyrocketed.
Why?
It’s definitely not because the entire world agreed with him. There are many people mourning his death that fundamentally disagree with him. Again, why?
Because no matter your politics, no matter your worldview, you could tell he was good at what he did. The world is mourning him because of the work he put in to do what he did the best he could do it. The modernists and postmodernists, the left and right, the whole world respected him on quality merit due to his capabilities.
That’s new.
We didn’t see this when Trump was shot. We don’t see this level of respect for any tech leaders; not even Elon who could be one of the most capable humans ever. We don’t see this for other world leaders. We saw it for Charlie. We’re still seeing it for Charlie. Why?
Charlie was good at what he did, and people from all worldviews could see that, because what he did was simple and direct enough for it to be universally applicable. Just about anyone can envision talking to someone about their beliefs. Not many people have the courage to do it; even fewer have the courage to do it publicly. The thing Charlie did was universally applicable, just as it was - and he was good at it - and even the postmodernists see and respect real merit now.
Postmodernism, and most of original modernism with it, is over. We’re entering something new now; exactly like what happened with the world when the Archduke was assassinated, or when the first bomb exploded. The turn that has been happening slowly was just waiting for a catalyst to make it official.
What’s next?
Well, who knows. But the old world is gone - it was headed out the door already. What’s coming next is hard to predict.
There is a concept of “metamodernism” being discussed, which is effectively the blending of the two concepts that have been battling since WWII. I think that could be an appropriate label, but the incoming situation is nuance-heavy.
Merit is winning so modernism is winning, but not without learning some things from postmodernism. Modernism has definitely learned to value experiences more, and beauty-for-the-sake-of-beauty more. This is good, because we do not need to go back to the very modernist but brutally boring buildings and cars of the 70’s and 80’s.
Whatever it ends up being, I’m here for it. I’m tired of humanity being uncomfortable in our own skins because all of us carry these blended but incompatible concepts with us every day.
I also believe that we’re slowly re-learning how to have hopefulness for the future. There’s a “guarded hopefulness” emerging; a belief that even though things have been confusing and hard for a long time, we can and will make things better in the future. If Charlie can step out and do something simple and direct that gets the entire world’s attention, maybe others can too.
Maybe not all hope is lost. Maybe there is a great big beautiful tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow’s successful products are tools that give people capabilities and hope. Maybe the modernist can learn to invest in hope instead of just known efficiency.
We’ll see.
But whatever it ends up being… I’m pretty sure dad’s Model A will still be around for it.
… I’m not so sure about my daughter’s PT Cruiser.