I am not talking about some particular strain of post-modernist thought, but literally about people who don’t like modernism.
While reading Scarriet the other day, I saw Alan Cordle’s posting on modernism. He posits a couple of points – that the major figures of modernism (and also post-modernism) are primarily left leaning figures who view themselves as opposed to “late capitalism.” His second point is that this project was always doomed to failure, because modernism is intrinsically wound up with late capitalism.
I found some of the connections he made to be a little tenuous (Ron Silliman as a modernist? Post-modernism and modernism just lumped together?). Certainly, I don’t see modernism as inherently conservative (though I am very aware of the conservative trends running through post-modernism).
But what really got me thinking was his conclusion: “Centuries hence, Modernist art and poetry will be seen as sick, not great.”
He hedge his bets, by ending with a reference to Mann: ”
Of course, most of believe, without realizing it, what Thomas Mann told us: that artis sick, and therefore, yes, poetry like “The Waste Land” is a triumph. For now.”
Is modernism sick? I can buy, for example, The Waste Land as representing a sort of diseased and decadent sensibility (though I don’t mean that in any negative sense – Hamlet exhibits a diseased wit, for example).
Is modernism inhuman? Worse – is it dehumanizing?
That is the implication of Cordle’s accusation.
The whole discussion brings up all the nasty feelings inherent in appreciating the work of often unsavory people – Heidegger on account of his support of the Nazis; Pound for his anti-semitism and fascism; Hemingway for his misogynist streak; Eliot for his anti-semitism (anti-semitism seems to be a trend – linked perhaps to the relative importance of Jewish writers and artists to modernism?).
the coffee philosopher 
The problem of course is that Cordle’s characterization of modernism is nonsense. While there were a couple of progressives among the modernists (WCW in the US, some of the surrealists) many more were, like Pound, like Stein, like Eliot, like Stevens either slightly right of center or way to the right of center. One of the distinctions between modernism & post- is precisely that shift in politics.
I’m going to disagree with you on this – for me, post-modernism is the more inherently right-wing movement.
Despite the disgusting sentiments (often guided by European anti-semitism) of seminal modernist figures, I still see the modernist vision as being a pre-eminently progressive one.
Whereas post-modernism, despite the appearance of so many ostensibly left leaning figures, I view as more inherently right wing.
For example, the movement of the non-communist, post war left into the neo-conservative movement did not occur absent a supporting, intellectual framework in the post-modern period.
I don’t think you could call post-modernism specifically right-leaning. It’s more like…how do I put it…because they don’t believe in good or bad, it’s not hard for them do adopt stances that are fairly close to Social Darwinism.