Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
2016: An Art Scholar’s Take
Camille Paglia is much more than a famous art historian. She’s a celebrated educator, author, and social critic; a liberal Democrat often more scornful of those who vote as she does then those who don’t; and an always astute commentator astride the nexus of politics, sexuality, media, and gender.
In the final installment of her three part Salon.com interview, Professor Paglia digs in to 2016. Her observations are, as always, surprising and refreshing.
Where is she right, where is she wrong? You tell me.
- Hillary Clinton has no discernible political skills of any kind.
- Ted Cruz is smirkily condescending.
- Rand Paul lacks gravitas as a physical presence.
- Early on, Barack Obama projected a sober, unflappable confidence, presenting with elegance and grace.
- Diane Feinstein is the only woman politician in America who has true gravitas.
- Sarah Palin, a dynamic new type of frontier-woman politician, was too reactive with the media.
- The public sector union issue will ultimately help Scott Walker.
- Inner-city children pay the price for the teachers’ unions valuing seniority over quality.
- Jeb Bush comes across as fuzzy and fumbling.
- Joe Biden handles himself well in debates – even though Sarah Palin defeated him.
- Vice-President Biden doesn’t have Hillary’s negatives, and isn’t a divisive polarizing figure.
See also part one of the Salon.com interview, Paglia vs. Bills Clinton and Cosby, establishment feminists, and political correctness; and part two, Paglia vs. intolerant liberals, Jon Stewart, and the Planned Parenthood videos.
Camille Paglia portrait by Salon.com
Published in General
When Prof Paglia was making the rounds for her book Glittering Images, she said one audience she had in mind was homeschool moms, to use it in their lessons.
That gave me a mental image of her doing a road show book tour in the homeschooling curriculum fairs that come up every spring. She could go incognito by wearing a denim jumper and athletic shoes from Discount Shoe Warehouse (or such like).
It would be an interesting confluence of cultures. There is no more strong-willed “my way or the highway” group of women than homeschool moms.
Ted Cruz is smirkily condescending
Phui.
Early on, Barack Obama projected a sober, unflappable confidence, presenting with elegance and grace.
…as long as he stayed on the TelePrompTer.
Diane Feinstein is the only woman politician in America who has true gravitas.
Diane Feinstein is the only Democrat politician who has any gravitas.
Vice-President Biden doesn’t have Hillary’s negatives, and isn’t a divisive polarizing figure.
That whole “dumber than a bag of hammers” thing is a bit of a handicap, though.
Exactly. Without it he stammers, carefully, like a drunk driver wondering what the cop wants to hear.
I’d go with “dumber than a sack of hair” from that Law & Order episode about mom from Wichita Falls who killed her idiot stripper daughter’s rich husband for his money. But I think we’re on the same page.
Is phui a political science technical term?
Then, back in the hotel, the visiting professor peels off the hideous jumper, pours a drink, opens her laptop, and finishes that intriguing Toni Bentley piece in Vanity Fair which she’d started on the plane …
I don’t mean to be negative but her opinion was…. how would I put it….. droll. It reminded me of reading Leon Trotsky’s Notes on the October Revolution. A leftist puritan that acts as though she is some font of political knowledge (which if you can establish the credentials and argument then I stand no contest) that arrogantly asserts certain things and doesn’t give much reasoning to support those assertions (like a leftist Goldilocks).
I mean as already noted by Percival she thinks that people like Diane Feinstein or Martin O’Malley or Joe Biden would be good or okayish candidates for the candidacy. She attacked the current poor field on the Clinton Machine and literally missed the fact that its the Democratic Party that is still operating out of the old 1900s party machine politics. People seem to forget history all too well (some because they never needed to know it and others because its better to forget and cover it op) and the Democratic Party literally sewed itself to the labor movement and fostered those party machine like politics (FDR was literally of the same political class heritage and only got to where he was based on wealth and the name game plus an economic depression).
She also talked of Cruz as being condescending (for disclosure I am not a Cruz supporter) and I remember not too long ago he actually debated the Code Pink leader rather courteously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QCbpafD3Pw
Sometimes it is rendered “phooey” but I prefer the spelling Rex Stout used in the Nero Wolfe novels.
My preferred spelling: pfui. With the p pronounced.
She reminds me of Christopher Hitchens. A well spoken leftist who shares a revulsion for the Clintons and has one or two kind words for the right.
This is an interesting post a good and fair summation, but it lacks perspective. Camille Paglia is talking about much more than this in her interviews, so check out the whole thing.
She’s a fearless cultural critic and she has intellectual and scholarly chops. See my member feed post.
Otherwise right except
I don’t get the Ted Cruz creep out, others here would agree with her though
Obama has a kind of physical grace. He’s elegant, how Democrats like their black folk.
Though I’m a fan of Rand Paul, I have to admit he could be seen that way
Biden is a moron. That Camille doesn’t point this out makes me question everything about her.
If you heard the entire paragraph on Jeb, it’s more than just “fuzzy and fumbling”.
You’re right on all points. I don’t have much experience writing the “tease.”
A communication scholar I know (very left wing, and a loyal foot soldier in their media army) was one of the first to school me on internet communication. She said best to offer incomplete thoughts, not too well written. Invite all forms of participation and perspective, from completing the thought to making corrections.
McLuhan referred to the “interval” as a characteristic of cool, inviting, interactive media. (When someone said a waitress in fishnet stockings and not much else was undressed, he said “nonsense, they’re wearing us” — the voyeur fills in the blanks.)
I prefer making limited, defensible statements, tightly “pinned down” as they say in the quiz show game. It’s not ideal for this medium.
I think the combination of elegant suits with colloquial language is distinctive among pols, but the timbre of the voice, more of a natural gift, sets him apart and can’t be copied.
The smile didn’t hurt, either. I don’t know if he still has it, but at one point it really could light up a room.
Camille Paglia?
Leftist, yes.
Puritan? Just the opposite.
Remember the CoC. You’re triggering me.
He turns it on light a light switch, too. Very effective, very controlled.
The smile is the most under-rated political tool of them all. Great way to separate from the pack. Jimmy Carter was a walking Gleem commercial.
Donald Trump would actually have a chance if a smile replaced every use of that fixed, scowling game face which he defaults to at every opportunity.
Hillary has terrible political instincts, and is a particularly wooden speaker. She also comes across as condescending and school-marmish.
Ted Cruz has always been very courteous when I’ve seen him, though he does like to speak truth to power. He’s also very smart. I think it’s his courtesy combined with being unflappable that gives her an impression of condescension. He’s not my first choice, but I’d happily vote for him, though I don’t think he’s very electable. His intelligence, confidence and willingness to be combative makes the left afraid of him and therefore very hateful toward him.
Does Rand Paul lack physical gravitas more than the other candidates? Yes, I think that is a fair observation. He has more than his father though, both in his speaking and person.
Obama is a rather elegant figure, it is true, but he is the one who is smirkily condescending.
Feinstein is rather dour. Does that count as gravitas? I can’t take much of what she says seriously, though she has occasionally defended the military against Obama, I will give her that.
I doubt anyone could have avoided being reactive against a media that attacked their family and constantly treated them condescendingly, but my complaint about Sarah Palin is that she’s a walking bunch of talking points and cliches, not very interestingly delivered.
I agree–Scott Walker’s taking on the PS Unions helps him. Most people in America struggle and resent the leg up that public sector employees have that is paid for by working people’s taxes.
Yes–inner city children pay the price for a lot of things that Dems throw their way.
I haven’t seen enough of Jeb to know if he is fuzzy and fumbling. I think he’d be a decent president, but don’t think the nation wants another Bush.
Joe Biden seems affable, but he’s the quintessential good ol’ boy. I thought he was rather disgusting in his debates with Paul Ryan though, nasty and mean-spirited.
Divisive and polarizing aren’t the words you’d apply to Biden, but he doesn’t have gravitas and he is not well-spoken and not someone to take seriously.
One another segment of the interview she praises Trump for being a comedian and performer. She likes him because he is entertaining and populist. All that is true, but there’s also a big ick factor there.
I’ve always liked Paglia’s liveliness and her wit — her description of Naomi Wolf as “a pretty airhead” was the most perfect three-word-review of The Beauty Myth imaginable. But is anyone else driven mad by her narcissism? As Kate B. might say, she has a pronoun problem. Count how many times she says “as I said,” “as I was the first to say,” “I’m the only one who did,” etc.
She must be insufferable in person.
Insufferable if you’re trying to participate in some sort of two-way conversation or take what’s happening seriously, hilarious if you stand back just to see what random crap you hear.
She seems a little bit like Trump.
She has more than just a kind word for conservatives. She actually takes conservative ideas seriously.
Apparently, she and Rush Limbaugh have dined together. The ego at that table must have been breath-taking.
Yes–I am too. She is rather perceptive and honest, but obviously pretty full of herself. She’s no doubt best in small doses.
My take on Joe Biden is somewhat different. I’m beginning to believe that he might be in the early stages of dementia. He has repeated the story that his first wife was killed by a drunk driver which was not the case at all. Perhaps the first time he told that story it was done to garner sympathy. Constant repetition of the story leads me to believe that he might be having difficulty distinguishing fact from fantasy. I would hate to think that he is deliberate liar.
Oooh! Let’s wind up Camille and Richard Epstein and see what happens!
“Tonight on Uncommon Knowledge…”
Most of your comments are based on a combination of politics and appeal. Paglia is giving us more of an impression here, an art critic’s personal take on what’s on the canvas.
Cruz is a brilliant debater, and probably a great guy one on one. His speeches, however, come down from on high. His voice is elevated. Does he raise his jaw and look slightly downward at us? Do his eyebrows steeple? Does he sweep across the stage with flourish, as if he’s about to say “ladies and gentlemen of the jury …” I haven’t exactly pinpointed the tone or gestures, but here’s how we talk about him at home.
She
He still sounds like a phony.
Me
But he is brilliant.
She
Women won’t vote for him.
Me
He’s a champion debater. What is it you don’t like?
She
He sounds staged. Controlled. Insincere. Breathy. The face doesn’t help either.
Me
He does sound like he’s giving a speech.
She
He won’t connect with most people.
Me
He’d make a great federal judge, but he thinks he has a higher calling.
I guess I like a woman who has a giant ego and doesn’t apologize for it. I’m not put-off by her in the least. I also loved Orianna Fallaci, another Italian scatola di fiamiferi.
I read all three segments last night. Her view of 90’s feminism hurting the feminist cause and how feminists basically are clueless to the difference between men and women were likely met with a snore from the Left.
I love her disdain for Clinton. I kept thinking that if Paglia was a renowned Conservative she would have been raked over the coals for her statements.
Her highly educated view on religion was wonderful and refreshing.
She poignantly lasered in on the discomfort I feel with Rubio and Walker: They appearance of suspended physical youthfulness is certainly an issue that I haven’t heard anyone else yet discussing.
It’s nice to read someone who considers themselves a Leftist to be honest and not follow the Wasserman-Schultz talking points.
Not much mention of herself here. She’s mesmerizing. If you get overwhelmed, skip to the end where she blasts Obama and Democrats.
This woman would vote for him. How much you notice other things depends greatly on how critical you are inclined to be of him in general.
There’s a difference between narcissism (Obama) and the effusive confidence which can wrap the true genius parcel. Professors paid to be the “sage on the stage” do develop loquaciousness as a conditioned reflex. McLuhan was labeled both genius and a charlatan, but his intellectual swagger was spellbinding.
How about those egotistical guru evangelists who go around bedazzling Ted and techie audiences with their visionary wizardry? No one accuses these men, and they are mostly men, of bravado. Their monomania has given birth to liquidity events, so please, do show us pictures of the baby!
Along comes this brilliant, energetic polymath, a unique woman whose subject matter expertise includes art, culture, media, politics, psychology, sexuality, archetypes, iconography, and the evolution of gender roles through history. Why not let her lay it out for us however she wants to do it?
Heck, PBS gave Milton Friedman a ten part mini-series deal. Paglia deserves no less, and her personality puts her miles ahead the guys who’ve gotten such gigs, from Dr. Jacob Bronowski and Carl Sagan, through Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
So no, not insufferable. Fascinating! She can dine with us anytime!
I’d put Paglia’s pronoun propriety up against O’Reilly or Limbaugh any day of the week. Those chest-pounding male primates mark their territory the old fashioned way, but away from the microphones, I’ll bet they become tame, cuddly and respectful around the brilliant Dr. P.
I see her as a class act, with just enough edge to keep the ordinary at a distance. If she quotes herself and points out some twenty-five year old prediction which has come true, maybe it’s because she is too modest to hire a squad of publicists to do it for her.
If you can find it (it’s no longer on the Ricochet podcast feed) I recommend listening to Emily Esfahani Smith’s Acculturated podcast from a couple years ago, where she “interviews” Paglia about her book Glittering Images. I place that word in quotes, because Smith just basically introduces her guest, and sits back for Paglia’s hour long monologue; she quickly gives up even trying to get a word in. Funny, yes… but it’s an engrossing podcast, Paglia’s thoughts and commentary blasting out a mile a minute, and going off on interesting tangents. I’m amazed at her energy and thoughtfulness.