The contrarian message is exactly using evidence and argument to combat a stance that insists that there is only power and oppression. Not to try to exert oppressive power.

For a lot of the right, the postmodernists are correct. There isn't anything there, underneath it all, except maintenance of historical patterns of activity that, for instance, give power to traditionally advantaged groups, who at times abuse that power for their own benefit.

Railing against postmodernism from that perspective is silly. Just accept it (a la Rove) and start exerting power. If that's all there is anyway, why not be on the winning side?

Fundamentally, talking points are the wrong idea. It's the same "the proletariat is too stupid to defend their interests, so the virtuous philosophers have to form a dynamic unity with them" thing of critical theory, except someone else takes the spot of the virtuous philosopher.

If there's actually a difference it's in embracing that people might be distracted, and some are too dense or unwilling to be reached, but overall people can be reasoned with. And so you reason.

And if that's true--if there are a lot of people who can be encouraged to use reason--then it scales just fine. It's the entire premise of democracy, too: people are reasonable enough for it to be a good idea to give them each a small say in all of our future. If you don't believe that, you may as well just throw your hat in with authoritarianism, as both much of the right and, without admitting it, the postmodern left is increasingly inclined to do.