Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 05/30/2020 View Fri 05/29/2020 View Thu 05/28/2020 View Wed 05/27/2020 View Tue 05/26/2020 View Mon 05/25/2020 View Sun 05/24/2020
2018-12-05 -Land of the Free
Camille Paglia: ‘Hillary wants Trump to win again'
[Spectator] Camille Paglia is one of the most interesting and explosive thinkers of our time. She transgresses academic boundaries and blows up media forms. She's brilliant on politics, art, literature, philosophy, and the culture wars. She's also very keen on the email Q and A format for interviews. So, after reading her new collection of essays, Provocations, Spectator USA sent her some questions.

You've been a sharp political prognosticator over the years. So can I start by asking for a prediction. What will happen in 2020 in America? Will Hillary Clinton run again?

If the economy continues strong, Trump will be reelected. The Democrats (my party) have been in chaos since the 2016 election and have no coherent message except Trump hatred. Despite the vast pack of potential candidates, no one yet seems to have the edge. I had high hopes for Kamala Harris, but she missed a huge opportunity to play a moderating, statesmanlike role and has already imprinted an image of herself as a ruthless inquisitor that will make it hard for her to pull voters across party lines.

Continued from Page 4



Screechy Elizabeth Warren has never had a snowball's chance in hell to appeal beyond upper-middle-class professionals of her glossy stripe. Kirsten Gillibrand is a wobbly mediocrity. Cory Booker has all the gravitas of a cork. Andrew Cuomo is a yapping puppy with a long, muddy bullyboy tail. Both Bernie Sanders (for whom I voted in the 2016 primaries) and Joe Biden (who would have won the election had Obama not cut him off at the knees) are way too old and creaky.

To win in the nation's broad midsection, the Democratic nominee will need to project steadiness, substance, and warmth. I've been looking at Congresswoman Cheri Bustos of Illinois and Governor Steve Bullock of Montana. As for Hillary, she's pretty much damaged goods, but her perpetual, sniping, pity-me tour shows no signs of abating. She still has a rabidly loyal following, but it's hard to imagine her winning the nomination again, with her iron grip on the Democratic National Committee now gone. Still, it's in her best interest to keep the speculation fires burning. Given how thoroughly she has already sabotaged the rising candidates by hogging the media spotlight, I suspect she wants Trump to win again. I don't see our stumbling, hacking, shop-worn Evita yielding the spotlight willingly to any younger gal.

Has Trump governed erratically?

Yes, that's a fair description. It's partly because as a non-politician he arrived in Washington without the battalion of allies, advisors, and party flacks that a senator or governor would normally accumulate on the long road to the White House. Trump's administration is basically a one-man operation, with him relying on gut instinct and sometimes madcap improvisation. There's often a gonzo humor to it ‐ not that the US president should be slinging barbs at bottom-feeding celebrities or jackass journalists, much as they may deserve it. It's like a picaresque novel starring a jaunty rogue who takes to Twitter like Tristram Shandy's asterisk-strewn diary. Trump's unpredictability might be giving the nation jitters, but it may have put North Korea, at least, on the back foot.

Most Democrats have wildly underestimated Trump from the get-go. I was certainly surprised at how easily he mowed down 17 other candidates in the GOP primaries. He represents widespread popular dissatisfaction with politics as usual. Both major US parties are in turmoil and metamorphosis, as their various factions war and realign. The mainstream media's nonstop assault on Trump has certainly backfired by cementing his outsider status. He is basically a pragmatic deal-maker, indifferent to ideology. As with Bolsonaro in Brazil, Trump rose because of decades of failure by the political establishment to address urgent systemic problems, including corruption at high levels. Democrats must hammer out their own image and agenda and stop self-destructively insulting half the electorate by treating Trump like Satan.

Does the ‘deep state' exist? If so, what is it?

The deep state is no myth but a sodden, intertwined mass of bloated, self-replicating bureaucracy that constitutes the real power in Washington and that stubbornly outlasts every administration. As government programs have incrementally multiplied, so has their regulatory apparatus, with its intrusive byzantine minutiae. Recently tagged as a source of anti-Trump conspiracy among embedded Democrats, the deep state is probably equally populated by Republicans and apolitical functionaries of Bartleby the Scrivener blandness. Its spreading sclerotic mass is wasteful, redundant, and ultimately tyrannical.

I have been trying for decades to get my fellow Democrats to realize how unchecked bureaucracy, in government or academe, is inherently authoritarian and illiberal. A persistent characteristic of civilizations in decline throughout history has been their self-strangling by slow, swollen, and stupid bureaucracies. The current atrocity of crippling student debt in the US is a direct product of an unholy alliance between college administrations and federal bureaucrats ‐ a scandal that ballooned over two decades with barely a word of protest from our putative academic leftists, lost in their post-structuralist fantasies. Political correctness was not created by administrators, but it is ever-expanding campus bureaucracies that have constructed and currently enforce the oppressively rule-ridden regime of college life.

In the modern world, so wondrously but perilously interconnected, a principle of periodic reduction of bureaucracy should be built into every social organism. Freedom cannot survive otherwise.

There's a lot of buzz about the ‘intellectual dark web'. One of its leading figures is Jordan Peterson, who is in some ways like you ‐ he provokes, he works in an array of disciplines, he encourages individual responsibility. I saw your podcast with him. What did you make of him? Why is he so popular?

There are astounding parallels between Jordan Peterson's work and mine. In its anti-ideological, trans-historical view of sex and nature, my first book, Sexual Personae (1990), can be viewed as a companion to Peterson's first book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief (1999). Peterson and I took different routes up the mountain ‐ he via clinical psychology and I via literature and art ‐ but we arrived at exactly the same place. Amazingly, over our decades of copious research, we were drawn to the same book by the same thinker ‐ The Origins and History of Consciousness (1949), by the Jungian analyst Erich Neumann. (My 2005 lecture on Neumann at New York University is reprinted in Provocations.) Peterson's immense international popularity demonstrates the hunger for meaning among young people today. Defrauded of a genuine humanistic education, they are recognizing the spiritual impoverishment of their crudely politicized culture, choked with jargon, propaganda, and lies.

Is humanity losing its sense of humor?

I never fully understood Wilde's caustic satire of Victorian philanthropists and humanitarians until the present sludgy tide of political correctness began flooding government, education, and media over the past two decades. Wilde saw the insufferable arrogance and preening sanctimony in his era's self-appointed guardians of morality.

We're back to the hypocrisy sweepstakes, where gestures of virtue are as formalized as kabuki. Humor has been assassinated. An off word at work or school will get you booted to the gallows. This is the graveyard of liberalism, whose once noble ideals have turned spectral and vampiric.
Posted by 746 2018-12-05 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [270 views ]  Top

#1 An off word at work or school will get you booted to the gallows. This is the graveyard of liberalism, whose once noble ideals have turned spectral and vampiric.

Posted by Ulolet Ulealet2737 2018-12-05 02:48||   2018-12-05 02:48|| Front Page Top

#2 Deep State == Gormenghast
Posted by 3dc 2018-12-05 06:52||   2018-12-05 06:52|| Front Page Top

#3 the deep state is probably equally populated by Republicans

Ahh, the good old false equivalency "they all do it". I thought she would go beyond that.

Yes there are so called Republicans there (see also RINOs) but what it really is is the unified inner party of the beltway that is dominated by the Left since the antidote is individualism and the Left don't do that.
Posted by AlanC 2018-12-05 08:44||   2018-12-05 08:44|| Front Page Top

#4 She failed there, and the journalist for not retorting.

She just needed to be reminded of to whom Washington DC votes...
Posted by Spanky Whuter1088 2018-12-05 13:16||   2018-12-05 13:16|| Front Page Top

#5 A sound interview with a lot of insights, as usual.
Posted by Vernal Hatrack2366 2018-12-05 16:40||   2018-12-05 16:40|| Front Page Top

13:56 M. Murcek
13:30 Clem
13:28 Clem
13:28 charger
13:23 charger
13:21 charger
13:20 swksvolFF
13:15 Lex
13:15 Abu Uluque
13:14 charger
13:14 Lex
13:07 Clem
13:06 warthogswife
13:05 gorb
13:05 Lex
13:01 JohnQC
12:59 JohnQC
12:58 49 Pan
12:57 Abu Uluque
12:51 Abu Uluque
12:49 Lex
12:48 Skidmark
12:48 Clem
12:46 Abu Uluque

Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
3.235.172.213

Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com