Camille Paglia interview in Salon...

Flame me if you must, but I love this woman. She is one of the few truly honest intellectual people out there. I don't agree with a lot of her perspectives and positions and opinions (namely the blame Clinton thing and also her continuing to find bush* to be sincere) but she's never by the numbers and to me she's the truest meaning of the word liberal in that her positions are based not on a strict adherence to one or the other party line but rather based on an entire world view that takes as much information into account as possible and forms her opinions based on that information and world view. Like I said I disagree with her on a lot of not only her political opinions but her ones on culture, media, and sexuality. But I will always enjoy reading her work and her interviews.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/10/29/paglia/index.html

<snip>
Unless there's some huge change, I'll be voting for Dean in the Democratic primary, simply as a gesture for the antiwar side. But I'm not thrilled. I don't think Dean is remotely presidential in manner. He hasn't thought any of this through -- the style of presidential authority. You can't just run around wildly with this dour, dyspeptic, sanctimonious persona. Dean's ability to galvanize a wide-ranging electorate is very limited. I don't see how he's going to inspire or attract African-American or Latino voters, or anyone outside white upper-middle-class professionals and the media elite.

<snip>
For years, I was looking forward to voting for John Kerry. He is deeply knowledgeable about military and world affairs and is truly authoritative in presence, with a natural gravitas. I once talked in Salon about seeing him on C-SPAN and thinking, wow, he's so articulate and low-key -- how wonderful to have a president like that! This was in the early Bush period when Bush could barely get a complete sentence out. But I've been shocked by Kerry's performance on the stump. His manner is so strained, dead and aloof. One problem is that he's spent way too much time with rich people and fellow thinkers -- that burden of being a Massachusetts liberal that sank Dukakis. And the hair! All that faux-Kennedy stuff that Democrats like Kerry and John Edwards can't get rid of. They're so out of it! Don't they see that hair styles have changed and that flowing locks don't signal authority? Look at Bush's short cut -- it's a Roman general's style. Rush Limbaugh hilariously refers to John Edwards as "the Breck Girl" -- perfect! And Edwards' whole chirpy, boyish manner -- who thinks that's going to fly in the age of terrorism?

she's right on about that!

...and I think she correctly identifies our culture's all around lack in both areas as the source of major problems.

...they both have very original thoughts and a keen analysis of history

I don't know if I agree with either of them on everything, tho.

Paglia's criticism of the woman's movement irks me a bit.

Not being a woman, I would get myself in trouble. Let's just say I agree with some of her points on the subject and disagree with others.

Camille is a conservative in many ways and has supported Pukes--i would not be surprized if she voted for * in the last round.

But her main subject, her only subject in the end, is HERSELF--she is if nothing else a complete Narcissicist.

I think her shtick is the same as a lot of Greens and as Nader's position was. She wants to see the Democratic party get back to it's roots, and absence of that she will vote third party and is not above throwing some figurative bones to the other side in the process if it will acheive that end.

I disagree with this tactic completely, but nonetheless find it interesting.

I read that interview and she seems to be a non-conformist non-partisan Conservative. So I assume she voted for Nader as a "none of the above" vote. Bush* is obviously an idiot, and unless you are blinded by partisanship it was clear even before the elction that he would make an incometent President. As a Conservative she wouldn't vote for a pedantic, insider pseudo-Liberal like Gore, so she voted for Nader (with the knowledge that there was no way he could win) as a protest vote.

n/t

is a narcissicist? ya, you got that right. i`ve read a few of her books and articles and came to the same conculsion.

that if "she's the truest meaning of the word liberal" then we---or let me say "I"--am in a world of trouble.

On edit: Might as well elaborate instead of hit-n-run. Somebody like Ruben NAVARRETTE (Affirmative Action, Harvard) is far less educated, knowledgeable, and natively intelligent than she is, but crudely exemplifies the ivory tower gaming class I submit PAGLIA belongs to: Doing the angels-dancing-on-the-pin thing, taking "unexpected" policy positions FOR THE SAKE of being original and independent, and---surprise, surprise, after all kinds of contorted arguments, ending up simply on the Shrub or wingnut side of things. Actually, she is one of the Classics Dept types, like HANSON, NIETZCHE, and STRAUSS ---AND the NeoCons---who are the opposite of "new", being pre-Christian/Ancient-Greece believers in pride, power, conquest, glory, fine with me---that is, fine on a personal level, but working against us on a policy level.

*********QUOTE*****
Mexifornia: http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_2_do_we_want.html
Full HANSON archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Nat'l Cathedral: (History or Hysteria?) http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson032803.asp
.... In disgust at the hysteria, I took a drive to Washington to the National Cathedral on Sunday. Big mistake. All except one of the entrances were closed due to security concerns. I walked in under the wonderful sculptures of Frederick Hart, an authentic American genius who almost single-handedly restored classical realism to American sculpture. A small statue of a kneeling Lincoln, who sent thousands into battle to eradicate slavery, was in the corner. A plaque of quotations from Churchill, about the need for sacrifice in war, was on the wall. So I was feeling somewhat good again — until I heard the pious sermon on “shock and awe.” In pompous tones the minister was deprecating the war effort, calling down calumnies upon the administration, and alleging the immoral nature of our nation at war.

Such a strange man at such a strange time, I thought. His entire congregation, by its own admission, is in danger from foreign terrorists (why else bar the gates?). His church is itself a monument to the utility of force for moral purposes. His own existence as a free-speaking, freely worshiping man of God is possible only thanks to the United States military — whose present mission he was openly deriding at the country’s national shrine. ....

*********UNQUOTE********

I personally think there is a vast difference definition wise between a liberal and a leftist. A leftist is someone who has left leaning opinions on a majority of issues. A conservative is someone who has a right leaning opinion on a majority of issues.

To me a liberal is someone who looks at all sides of an argument or an issue from a variety of perspectives both cultural and historical, and bases his/her opinions on that rather than emotion. I just happen to think that more often than not that way of thinking lands more on the left side than the right side of the spectrum but I still consider myself more of a liberal than a leftie.

Just my perspective or definition, I know but it's what I think and I'm sticking to it. I can understand having a different opinion though.

I appreciate your insight.

She reminded me of Dennis Miller, in that she thought it was appropriate to attack presidential candidates based on how they look.

Pissed me off so much I couldn't finish it. Kerry's hair?

irony isn't lost on her!

for president right up until he did, then Imus conveniently decided he didn't like him because he was "just a typical politician." Yeah, good reason. It's so transparent, just like Tweety worked for Tip O'Neil 80 years ago, so he's a Democrat.

"I'll be voting for Dean in the primary, but..(insert long litany of negative attacks here)."

"I used to really like John Kerry, but...(repeat litany of oh-so-pithy attacks)"

Notice how she also said "back when Bush couldn't get a sentence out".. Like he can NOW?

Pick a side, Camille. And preferably theirs. I don't want you on mine.

Paglia is all about contrarianism. If you told her that you thought feeding hungry children was a good thing, she'd write a mocking little essay, devoid of any intellectualism, taking the position that it was SO naive to think something that pollyanna-ish.

I've got no use for Paglia. Her little act is tired.

"Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson". It's a thick, heavy read with an original take on art history & culture. ...A pity she never followed up on it.

Apparently, she found reviews & short essays an easier source of income. She prefers writing brief, snarky (ultimately repetitive) comments on pop culture to producing substantial works--of interest mainly to weirdos with too many books.

And she does tend to whine.

I used to work at a bookstore in Philadelphia and Paglia would call and have us booksellers find books by other female non-fiction authors and then ask us to read the the blurbs to her. She'd do this all the time. One of my coworkers told me that she was alway trying to keep track of what was being said about other female authors. Sounds a bit insecure to me. It also bothered me that I could hear her chewing gum while I read. Utter pain in the ass.

a couple of years ago that the TV show "Charlie's Angel" was the perfect depiction of the successes gained during the Women's Movement of the 1960's and 70's. :eyes:

She's trotted out every now and then as an example of a "positive" feminist. Personally, I don't think there's one iota of difference between her and Coulter -- they're both certifiable.

with the usual fake preface of how liberal she is supposed to be and then the attacks on thier "manliness" and images. This is on Sullivan's page about Clark:

PAGLIA ON CLARK: "What a phony! What a bunch of crap this Clark boom is. Clark reminds me of Keir Dullea in "2001: A Space Odyssey" -- a blank, vacant expression, detached and affectless. There's something sexually neutered about Dullea in that film -- a physical passivity necessitated by cramped space travel -- that I also find in Clark. And the astronaut Dullea plays is sometimes indistinguishable from the crazed computer, HAL -- which I find in Clark's smug, computerized vocal delivery... Doesn't anyone know how to "read" TV? The guy's an android! He gives me the creeps. And don't they realize how short he is? He's a slick, boudoir, salon military type who rubbed plenty of colleagues the wrong way. Clark is not a natural man's man. And he's no Eisenhower, who was a genial, charismatic leader with a genius for collaboration and organization."

On edit: It's from the same interview.

seen her speak it felt and looked like an act, some sort of
role she feels she can play to stay in the public eye and make a little cash. I am vastly underwhelmed by her on just about every level.

...I used to hate her, but having spent many years in academia since that time, I can understand her bitterness, even though I still don't agree with a lot of what she says. Academia is very cliquey. I can understand why she's angry, even if a lot of it is misdirected.

I thought her first book, which was basically a re-write of her thesis, was overrated, but then I come from an art background.

It's funny she's backing Dean though, who is the favorite among the academics she so despises.

She gives liberal men permission to be misogynists, and they adore her for it. She is a lightweight, shallow phony — another liberal who hates liberals. Like Hitchens, without the talent.

I profoundly disagree...just because this witty women doesn't march in lock-step withthe PC crowd. More power to her. Here she eviscerates the Bush administration and people still pick her apart. Her media analysis is top-notch. She gets its! I find her a fine, fine writer (even when I totally disagree with her.) Wordsmithing is a true art form. Too bad, many of today's BEST writers/wordsmiths aren't hard-boiled lefties any more.

But c'mon....be literally LIBERAL -- god dammit -- and keep your mind and senses OPEN to provocative thinking. It's OK...it won't turn you into a Republican, it really won't!

that was TERRIBLE! You find more "provocative thinking" in the Yellow Pages.

"I don't personally hate Bush. I think he's sincere and well-meaning. But I feel very sorry for him. Every time I watch him, I feel his suffering, and I suffer with him. But he's out of his depth in this job. His view of the world is painfully simplistic -- like a Wild West video game where the good guys wear white hats and always win. But he's surrounded by manipulators -- like Vice President Dick Cheney, the invisible man, the shadowy puppeteer."

Does the buck EVER stop with Bush? Is he EVER to be held responsible for anything? It's a scam - they just keep passing the buck around and nobody is ever accountable.

I mean, poor widdle baby, why did he want the job then?

Her prose is labored and awkward, and a chore to read. Her insights have all the depth of Teen People magazine. She writes about men like a lesbian from some distant planet who has never met a man, let alone been married to one, but has learned about men and heterosexuality only from watching daytime soaps. She is provocative in the same way your average, run-of-the-mill internet troll is provocative, a roll-your-eyes kind of provocative. Why make admiration for this wretched woman some sort of litmus test for liberalism?

there's a difference between classic libderalism (in which camp I'd surely put Camille Paglia) and more forthright Leftist writing, a la Chomsky. Despite the flames here, she's fascinating because she stirs-the-pot intelligently. There's an art-form and usefulness to being an agent-provocateur. Her media-analysis and her take on pop culture are totally first-rate. She writes as she speaks; I view her "Style" as Philly-native -- straight and to the point.

As another poster put it, how dare I advocate anything that doesn't berate Rush? Because -- for better or worse -- he redefined a.m. radio. It was a moribund media until he started wailing. (And notice how HARD we are still trying to catch-up!)

Her comments on Madonna and Wes Clark are priceless....Kier Dullea in 2001 indeed. Yeah, she knocks Al Franken but she also destroys the vile Sean Hannity like no DUer has ever done; and he's flamed here constantly.

THERE IS A PLACE IN THE DIALOGUE AMONG PROGRESSIVE FOR CONTRARIANS!

"how dare I advocate anything that doesn't berate Rush? Because -- for better or worse -- he redefined a.m. radio. It was a moribund media until he started wailing."

I agree, I'm so tired of these liberals and left wing communist-ANSWER types moaning and whining about Rush Limbaugh, surely an underappreciated cultural force here on Democratic Underground... once his smooth, supple voice started spinning its web of charismastic, silky ideology, America was caught... spellbound by a doughy charmer with a twinkle in his eye, a spring in his step, and opiates flowing through his bloodstream.

I'm not supporting Rush Limbaugh, for cryin' out loud. I'm trying to point out media impact. t's a totally different animal that addressing content. Why did you have to twist my comment into something I don't even recognize? The media is a finite and measurable commodity, as are the people who communicate. Most of us hate Limbaugh in great measure because he IS a major radio figure who influences people disproportionately. To pretend otherwise is to lose an important handle on reality. Know thy enemy...now that's a big idea!

Praise Pogo.

When she was claiming to be the only feminist who didn't hate sex or something - she was selling a caricature to the anti-feminists.

But I think she's way over their heads, because that crowd isn't terribly cultured or literate. Those people probably didn't even read her book - they were probably too busy reading the sports page or some biography about a general.

She's not as popular as she used to be, because they can't use her as a stick to beat feminists with anymore.

God, have you ever seen her on TV (it's been awhile)? I remember her attacking Patricia Ireland on just about every women's issue. Then someone told me she was a liberal. On which planet?

I agree with whoever said that Paglia is a narcissist. Sometimes, a narcissist's personality is interesting enough to sustain a writer's talent. Norman Mailer and Henry Miller come to mind. In most cases, however, the compulsion to write only about oneself, directly or indirectly, undermines the writer's talent by turning it into unwitting self-display.

Camille Paglia and Cris Hitchens are good current examples of this.

They have a lot in common also: Because their personalities aren't very interesting, their way of attracting attention is to appear as "contrarians," desparately trying to shock their audiences.

It's the verbal equivalent of exposing themselves on a busy street.

I read Paglia's dissertation (Sexual Personae). The scholarship is incredibly shoddy and the extremely simplistic thesis (romanticism as pagan sexuality) has probably been asserted in thousands of book reports by college freshmen since the 1960s.

Since then, Camille seeks her place in the tiny niche market for "celebrity intellectuals" -- a market characterized mostly by its transitoriness.

Basically, all Camille has to say is that there is a strain of prudery in modern feminism, which most people already knew.

I don't find anything vaguely interesting in Camille's self-promotion which more and more resembles desparation. (Like Hitchens.)

"They have a lot in common also: Because their personalities aren't very interesting, their way of attracting attention is to appear as "contrarians," desparately trying to shock their audiences."


Nail on the head, my friend.

feminist:

"They're calling anti-woman a woman who has spent hundreds of hours with her head between other women's legs. And who loves it and is great at it, because I played the clarinet for years. So did Woody Allen."(From "Hurricane Camille Wreaks Havoc!" San Francisco Chronicle Image Magazine, 9/27/92)

And the comparison to Woody Allen? Paglia made this comment at the height of the Woody Alllen incest/pedophilia controversy; was that an intelligent or sensitive comparison for a so-called feminist to make?


Paglia self-proclaimed feminism deserves about as much credence as GWB's proclaimations of pacifism.

I defer to Molly Ivins's early take on CP: "Let me leap to correct this unfairness by saying of Paglia,
Sheesh, what an asshole."

http://bush.cs.tamu.edu/~erich/misc/ivins_on_paglia

I was annoyed by people touting the book as if it were revolutionary, just because it was the most heavily promoted culture book in the neo-con media.

There are all sorts of wonderful books out there if you want to read about classical culture or aesthetics or popular culture, and the nice thing is that they deal with research and facts instead of telling you what to think.

Like I said, I met a number of people who loved the book but who had no idea what she was talking about half the time. She basically skips from one cultural reference to another - I think that impresses people who take only a passing interest in art or literature.

Particularly British scholars such as Antonia Fraser, for example.

Nobody nails modern media like Paglia! Howie Kurtz can't touch her. And if she's so easily dismissable, why is every single wensite I've been to today talking about this essay?! WHY?! She speaks truth to power, even if the powers-that-be frown upon us not marching in total lockstep. You crush dissent too easily, my friend.

in that case, Hannity is the hero of my genration... finally, a voice for FREEDOM!

And she hardly gives Bush a pass...I'd have been harder on him but I don't believe 100% ideological purity advances our goals. have yoyu ever heard the " big tent?" It's this really neat idea that from all different perspectives can find common ground to advance common goals. Some of us in the Democratic Party see populist strength in returning to that. There are flaws in every single one of the nine Dem. candidates. Swallow hard and then get over it!

insert long drawn out laugh here

Republic?

She does some REALLY nasty hit pieces on other women that are simply cattiness taken to a virulent extreme. I agree with her sometimes. Then I read something like her hit piece on Gwyneth Paltrow and I just want to throw-up. It's one thing to make fun of a political figure. It's a whole 'nother thing to eviscerate a blonde twenty-something for having high maintenance hair. I mean, you have to wonder why a Camille Paglia expends SO MUCH energy hating an actress and her hairdo.

Go figure.

From _Mother Jones_, September/October 1991, pp 8-10
(Italics are indicated like _this_.)

Impolitic, by Molly Ivins.

I Am the Cosmos

Austin, Texas --- ``So write about Camille Paglia,'' suggested the
editor. Like any normal person, I replied, ``And who the hell might
she be?''

Big cheese in New York intellectual circles. The latest rage. Hot
stuff. Controversial.

But I'm not good on New York intellectual controversies, I explained.
Could never bring myself to give a rat's ass about Jerzy Kosinski.
Never read Andy Warhol's diaries. Can never remember the name of the
editor of this _New Whatsit_, the neo-con critical rag. I'm a no-hoper
on this stuff, practically a professional provincial.

Read Paglia, says he, you'll have an opinion. So I did; and I do.

Christ! Get this woman a Valium!

http://bush.cs.tamu.edu/~erich/misc/ivins_on_paglia