'cookieChoices = {};'


The Right of the People to be Secure in their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects,
Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures,
Shall Not Be Violated

click.jpg

Friday, June 16, 2017

An Absolutely Brilliant Interview With Camille Paglia: On Trump, Democrats, Transgenderism, and Islamist Terror


From the Weekly Standard:
JVL: Donald Trump has recently feuded with Jim Comey, Bob Mueller, Sadiq Kahn, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, NATO—we'll stop the list there. You were one of a very small number of people who understood Trump's populist appeal early on. Looking at his presidency so far, do think he's continuing to deliver on that appeal? What is he doing right? What is he doing wrong? 
Camille Paglia: Some background is necessary. First of all, I must make my political affiliations crystal clear. I am a registered Democrat who voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary and for Jill Stein in the general election. Since last Fall, I've had my eye on Kamala Harris, the new senator from California, and I hope to vote for her in the next presidential primary. 
Like many others, I initially did not take Donald Trump's candidacy seriously. I dismissed him as a "carnival barker" in my Salon column and assumed his entire political operation was a publicity stunt that he would soon tire of. However, Trump steadily gained momentum because of the startling incompetence and mediocrity of his GOP opponents. 
What seems forgotten is that everyone, including the Hillary Clinton campaign, thought that Marco Rubio would be the Republican nominee. The moment was ideal for a Latino candidate with national appeal who could challenge the Democratic hold on Florida. 
Thus Rubio's primary-run flame-out was a spectacular embarrassment. Under TV's unsparing camera eye, he looked like a shallow, dithery adolescent, utterly unprepared to be commander-in-chief in an era of terrorism. 
Trump's frankly arrogant self-confidence spooked and crushed Rubio—it was a total fiasco. Ben Carson, meanwhile, with his professorial deep-think and spiritualistic eye-closing, often seemed to be beaming himself to another galaxy. 
With every debate, Ted Cruz, despite his avid national following, accumulated more and more detractors, repelled by his brittle self-dramatizations and lugubrious megalomania. 
There were two genial, moderate Mid-Western governors who could have wrested the nomination from Trump and performed strongly versus Hillary in the general—Ohio's John Kasich and Wisconsin's Scott Walker. But they blew it because of their personal limitations: On television, Kasich came across as a clumsy, lumbering blowhard while Walker shrank into a nervous, timid mouse with a frozen Pee-wee Herman smile. 
The point here is that Donald Trump won the nomination fair and square against a host of serious, experienced opponents who simply failed to connect with a majority of GOP primary voters. 
However, there were too many unknowns about Trump, who had never held elective office and whose randy history in the shadowy demimonde of casinos and beauty pageants laid him open to a cascade of feverish accusations and innuendos from the ever-churning gnomes of the cash-propelled Clinton propaganda machine. In actuality, the sexism allegations about Trump were relatively few and minor, compared to the long list of lurid claims about the predatory Bill Clinton. 
My position continues to be that Hillary, with her supercilious, Marie Antoinette-style entitlement, was a disastrously wrong candidate for 2016 and that she secured the nomination only through overt chicanery by the Democratic National Committee, assisted by a corrupt national media who, for over a year, imposed a virtual blackout on potential primary rivals. 
Bernie Sanders had the populist passion, economic message, government record, and personal warmth to counter Trump. It was Sanders, for example, who addressed the crisis of crippling student debt, an issue that other candidates (including Hillary) then took up. 
Despite his history of embarrassing gaffes, the affable, plain-spoken Joe Biden, in my view, could also have defeated Trump, but he was blocked from running at literally the last moment by President Barack Obama, for reasons that the major media refused to explore. 
After Trump's victory (for which there were abundant signs in the preceding months), both the Democratic party and the big-city media urgently needed to do a scathingly honest self-analysis, because the election results plainly demonstrated that Trump was speaking to vital concerns (jobs, immigration, and terrorism among them) for which the Democrats had few concrete solutions. 
Indeed, throughout the campaign, too many leading Democratic politicians were preoccupied with domestic issues and acted strangely uninterested in international affairs. Among the electorate, the most fervid Hillary acolytes (especially young and middle-aged women and assorted show biz celebs) seemed obtusely indifferent to her tepid performance as Secretary of State, during which she doggedly piled up air miles while accomplishing virtually nothing except the destabilization of North Africa. 
Had Hillary won, everyone would have expected disappointed Trump voters to show a modicum of respect for the electoral results as well as for the historic ceremony of the inauguration, during which former combatants momentarily unite to pay homage to the peaceful transition of power in our democracy. 
But that was not the reaction of a vast cadre of Democrats shocked by Trump's win. 
In an abject failure of leadership that may be one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the modern Democratic party, Chuck Schumer, who had risen to become the Senate Democratic leader after the retirement of Harry Reid, asserted absolutely no moral authority as the party spun out of control in a nationwide orgy of rage and spite. 
Nor were there statesmanlike words of caution and restraint from two seasoned politicians whom I have admired for decades and believe should have run for president long ago—Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. 
How do Democrats imagine they can ever expand their electoral support if they go on and on in this self-destructive way, impugning half the nation as vile racists and homophobes? 
All of which brings us to the issue of Trump's performance to date. The initial conundrum was: could he shift from being the slashing, caustic ex-reality show star of the campaign to a more measured, presidential persona? 
Perhaps to the dismay of his diehard critics, Trump did indeed make that transition at the Capitol on inauguration morning, when he appeared grave and focused, palpably conveying a sense of the awesome burdens of the highest office. 
As for his particular actions as president, I am no fan of executive orders, which usurp congressional prerogatives and which I was already denouncing when Obama was constantly signing them (with very little protest, one might add, from the mainstream media). Trump's "travel ban" executive order in late January was obviously bungled—issued way too fast and with woefully insufficient research (pertaining, for example, to green-card holders, who should have been exempted from the start). 
The administration bears full responsibility for fanning the flames of an already aroused "Resistance." However, I fail to see the "chaos" in the White House that the mainstream media (as well as conservative Never Trumpers) keep harping on—or rather, I see no more chaos than was abundantly present during the first six months of both the Clinton and Obama administrations. 
Trump seems to be methodically trying to fulfill his campaign promises, notably regarding the economy and deregulation—the approaches to which will always be contested in our two-party system. His progress has thus far been in stops and starts, partly because of the passivity, and sometimes petulance, of the mundane GOP leadership.
GO READ THE WHOLE THING:

Camille Paglia: On Trump, Democrats, Transgenderism, and Islamist Terror
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link#

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

But then Paglia blows it all by singling out Kamala Harris as her 2020 fave? Harris is Elizabeth Warren in black face. She owes her entire career to Willie Brown who appointed her to high profile bureaucratic offices in exchange for pussy and blow-jobs.

In Senate she's now blowing her own nasty horn as a heckler in the Maxine Waters style only less hampered by ebonics. Don't expect any actual output from this poser.

I figure her political trajectory takes her to the Governor's mansion in Sacramento since "the people" of California have proven they will elect anything. She'd make a great follow-on to Moonbean and she could mend fences with the Latinos by appointing Sanchez to replace her.

But, inspired by Obama's example that any inexperienced empty head can achieve the highest office in 21st century what's-left-of-America, she will likely throw her hat in the 2020 ring. I doubt she does much. The Latinos hate her for taking "their" Senate seat away from Sanchez. And she has nothing to offer but a big mouth and an "up against the wall motherfucker" message.

Friday, June 16, 2017 9:49:00 am  
Anonymous thelastenglishprince said...

Have enjoyed reading her analysis thus far and believe much of it is fair and measured.

Again, we are a democracy and Ms. Paglia can support whomever she wants. It does not necessarily discredit her thoughts nor should an us v them paradigm continue as part of our political experiment. Until Dem's take the lead and set a Congressional example, the hatred will be fomented.

Friday, June 16, 2017 12:48:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Well, sure, Anonymous. I didn't say I agreed with Paglia. Just that she is brilliant.

Her analysis is on most of the time, and when it is, it is interesting and far deeper than almost anyone else on the scene.

What she says here about Trump, Rubio, and Cruz is awesome.

Friday, June 16, 2017 1:36:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And so my questions remains...how can someone so astute at observation be simultaneously so completely vapid in her personal politics. It's a contradiction that defies any rational explanation.

Friday, June 16, 2017 4:05:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ditto 4:05:00 anonymous comment. She's well written - but poorly thought out.
====>"...two seasoned politicians whom I have admired for decades and believe should have run for president long ago—Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. "<====

Good gawd - WTH is she drinking?!

Friday, June 16, 2017 4:18:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

She's a Leftist Feminists, you guys.

Take it for what it's worth.

No matter what, though, she sees the GOP MORE CLEARLY THAN DO 90% OF CONSERVATIVES.

Friday, June 16, 2017 5:19:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


Older Posts Newer Posts