PrintSeptember 10, 2008
Paglia speaks (updated)
Marc Sheppard writes:
I looked forward to today with particular fervor, knowing that Camille Paglia's monthly column would be appearing in Salon and that hers would be quite a different "feminist" take on the Palin phenomenon than we've all been subjected to of late. The pragmatic and eloquent Obama-supporting Democrat did not disappoint - attacking the Left's lies, the "establishment feminists'" patent hypocrisy and the occasional liberal sacred cow. Here are just a few excerpts:
"Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment. " [..]"Over the Labor Day weekend, with most of the big enchiladas of the major media on vacation, the vacuum was filled with a hallucinatory hurricane in the leftist blogosphere, which unleashed a grotesquely lurid series of allegations, fantasies, half-truths and outright lies about Palin. What a tacky low in American politics -- which has already caused a backlash that could damage Obama's campaign. When liberals come off as childish, raving loonies, the right wing gains. I am still waiting for substantive evidence that Sarah Palin is a dangerous extremist. I am perfectly willing to be convinced, but right now, she seems to be merely an optimistic pragmatist like Ronald Reagan, someone who pays lip service to religious piety without being in the least wedded to it. I don't see her arrival as portending the end of civil liberties or life as we know it."
I hope you'll manage to hold your nose through the requisite "McCain bad -- Obama good" theme of the opening page, and then sit back and thoroughly enjoy the bulk of this inspired and important piece at Salon.com.
On Paglia's disdain for McCain, Brett McCrea writes:
Update -- Rosslyn Smith writes:
On Paglia's disdain for McCain, Brett McCrea writes:
John McCain's recent resurrection from political obscurity has apparently upset those with a liberal agenda. One of the consistent drumbeats from the leftist "intelligentsia" is the how does Senator McCain's imprisonment in a North Vietnamese prison qualify him for President? Camille Paglia went so far as to drone on:
Oh, the sadomasochistic tedium of McCain's imprisonment in Hanoi being told over and over and over again at the Republican convention. Do McCain's credentials for the White House really consist only of that horrific ordeal? Americans owe every heroic, wounded veteran an incalculable debt of gratitude, but how do McCain's sufferings in a tiny, squalid cell 40 years ago logically translate into presidential aptitude in the 21st century? Cast him a statue or slap his name on a ship, and let's turn the damned page.
I grow tired of leftists musing how does McCain's "sufferings" translate into being presidential? The explanation is simple, John McCain served his country in one of the darkest, loneliest places on earth, a place few have been and where none would ever want to be. Upon capture, he was initially denied any medical treatment and left to die. He did not die, he chose to fight on. He was routinely interrogated and tortured, but he continued to fight. He was offered freedom by his captors, he refused. He was brutally beaten, broke under tremendous pressure, and then had to rekindle that spirit to fight. Put simply, John McCain stood tall in Hell.
For the five years he was imprisoned, John McCain had to face the consequences of his decisions alone. By contrast, Senator Obama's was able to dodge difficult decisions by voting "present." One of the hardest decisions by John McCain was to choose to stay imprisoned when his captors would let him go. By contrast, a difficult decision for Senator Obama was to move his nomination acceptance speech from an arena that housed 40,000 to a stadium that could seat 80,000. One person made the decision to honor his country, the other to aggrandize himself.
Ms. Paglia desperately wants to turn the page because she does not want to be constantly reminded of the fact that the Republicans have a heroic veteran and her side does not. There is nothing in Senator Barak Obama's life that can come close to the circumstances John McCain had to face alone....and that is Presidential. Presidents have to make tough decisions and live with those consequences. Of the two candidates, I know John McCain will make the right decision when he is all alone. He has demonstrated that ability and that is experience that cannot be matched by his opponent.
One of the ways Ms. Paglia wants to "remember" John McCain is putting his name on a ship. May I suggest an aircraft carrier, an elected President often gets that honor.
Update -- Rosslyn Smith writes:
While much of what Paglia writes about pop culture is pure nonsense and her defense of abortion is indefensible when carefully parsed out, Paglia does have one virtue. She stands alone as an academic feminist who loathes the cult of the victim. Her advice to young women interested in politics to study military history rather than taking women's studies courses, with their rote agenda of never-ending grievances is spot on.
As Rick Moran pointed out today, Americans elect a president based in large part upon a comfort level of shared values. Those pampered, petulant bourgeois feminists, always looking to blame their complaints about life on someone else that Paglia has always loved to skewer simply do not inspire much comfort among voters. Nor do the many career women I have known over the years who try to outdo men in being mean, foul mouthed and overly aggressive as they belittle traditional feminine virtues.
It is instructive to look at those few women who have taken on the job of head of government in modern times. The shrill, the foul mouthed, the mannish and the grievance monger are nowhere to be found. From Margaret Thatcher pointing out troop placements with a polished pink toenail as she walked across a map of the Falklands spread out on the floor at 10 Downing Street to Golda Meir astounding an American journalist by fetching him a slice of cake she had made herself before she began their interview, they have been intensely feminine women.
