Maggie's Farm

Hiomer Simpson: Facts? You can prove anything with facts!

I think the article should have more properly focused on aspects of Enlightenment thought that are under attack, rather than the named movement. Specifically, the emphasis on reason, observation, objectivity, and especially the courage to act on those, rather than simply note them and talk about them. If you listen to these supposed anti-Enlightenment forces, you will find that they willingly engage in reason when it suits them, and they can be quite good at it. (Compare CS Lewis's satan-inhabited Watson Perelandra). Many of these academics could easily teach a course in how to spot logical fallacies.

But since the economic versions of Marx collapsed so thoroughly as to be unusable, the Marxian focus switched to power, as you note. All is viewed through that lens. The Gramscian Long March through the institution encountered unexpected pushback in the last few decades, not from the forces of tradition, as expected, bur from other radical groups who took them at their word and said "Hey, you're right! It is all about power! Give it to us or we will destroy you!"

What we would understand as conservativism* has little influence in the academy and in the elite media at this point. The struggle is between liberals who played a double game with reason, using it or abandoning it as suited them at the moment, and interest groups who use reason even less. The former group is attempting to rely on Enlightenment principles now that the whirlwind has been unleashed. Likely too late.

*Because conservative (and liberal) have meant different things in different ages I strive to find other words to make my meaning clearer when communicating. They do not mean quite the same thing they did in 1971, let alone 1821. Use of the terms to describe earlier movements and phenomena is usually emotive rather than logical, highlighting a few feattures at the expense of others in a propaganda effort.