Your criticisms here read to me like quibbles. This article is part of a series on what I call the old cold war between intellectuals and the unreflective masses. It's not about liberalism or science. I'm speaking very broadly to pick up on a historical pattern that's often missed. I'm sure you're right that I've missed some important aspects of modernity, but I didn't set out here to write a comprehensive history, so the question for me is whether your point about bureaucracies, for example, impacts my broader analysis of how the cold war in question might unfold. I don't see that there's much of an impact there. Maybe have a look at the other two articles in the series to see what I'm driving at? (Links below.)
I write at length about postmodernism, liberalism, and conservatism, elsewhere.
I wonder, though, why you'd insist on distinguishing between two conceptions of modernity, as if the political revolutions weren't related to the cognitive ones by secularism, individualism, skepticism, humanism, and so on. You're jumping the gun when you insinuate that only a postmodern relativist would view modernity as a coherent whole. My epistemology is pragmtic but not purely "postmodern," by the way.
