No bullet quotes this time; merely one paragraph demonstrating that brilliance in one field — in Paglia's case, literary criticism — doesn't naturally translate into brilliance in another. From Salon's interview, Part II, the astute critic and bumbling political analyst declares:
I don’t see Hillary as even getting as far as the debates! If things continue to trend downward for her, in terms of her favorability and the increasing scandals, then the Democratic establishment will have to take action to avoid a sure GOP win. Hillary has way too much baggage for a general election–that should have been obvious from the start…. I don’t think Hillary wants to be defeated, so what I’ve been predicting all along is that there will be a "health crisis," and she will withdraw. Right now, her campaign is trying to change the headlines by releasing some new policy statement every day, but it’s not going to change the looming investigations into her conduct as Secretary of State. And of course the GOP is holding back its real anti-Hillary ammunition until she’s the nominee. Then we’ll all be plunged backward into the endless nightmare of the Clinton years–it will be pure hell!
Let us pass over the paragraph's opening. It's just too weird. Perhaps Paglia was speculating after a few belts of bourbon; maybe she had just emerged from a transcendentalist trance; or, it could be that she was only playing that old prediction game of long shots. There is a one-in-a-million chance she's right, and if so, she'll be hailed as a seer. If she's wrong — which she is — no one will remember. It's a paradox: In political punditry, long-shot predictions are the safest bets. (Mark it: I hereby predict that Ben Carson will be the Republican nominee. When he isn't, forget it.)
What beguiles are Paglia's strategic references to "looming investigations" into Hillary's recent official conduct and the GOP's menacing firepower aimed at her, now held in cunning reserve. In Salon Interviews Paglia Part I the critic admitted to habitually snorting "Drudge." Alas, her addiction may be catching up to her. There are no looming investigations; there are only Republicans' fifth, sixth, tenth, fiftieth rehashes of fizzled investigations. If I may enter Paglia's academic field for one moment: Theirs is merely a knockoff of Moby-Dick.
And my, how clever of the GOP to hold back "its real anti-Hillary ammunition" until Hillary is in the snare. Paglia doesn't reveal who these Bulging schemers are, but if they're really loaded for $600 hair, then they're a wickedly conspiratorial bunch capable of concealing the most magnificent counteroffensive in American political warfare. Clear throat. We're talking about the modern GOP here — a chaotic gang that shoots every which way but out.
The final sentence in Paglia's paragraphical insights is, sadly, all too true. Republican assaults throughout the general-election season (and into Hillary's presidency) will plunge us relentlessly backward into the nightmare of Gingrichism. But I look at this this way. As Kafkaesque as it all will be, Kafka is also endlessly entertaining. It's not as though there's an alternative to mad-dog electioneering or presidential butchery in American democracy; we are hooked on politics as a bloodsport, and that's that. Perhaps 2016's surrealism will metamorphose into rereadings of Dante's maiden cantos. Hellish? Sure. But an entertaining hellishness? You bet.
Her understanding of politics seems to be somewhat limited. If they had anything of substance GOP operatives would using it right now to change a news cycle, any news cycle be it ever so brief, away from the appalling litany of Trump driven insanity and internal infighting. Hence the valiant effort to magnify Clinton's e-mails into the crime of the century without, be it noted, citing the content of a single e-mail as evidence of wrongdoing.
It would not matter, of course, who the Democratic nominee might be. The smearing would be just as relentless and just as malicious. Their big problem with Hillary is that she is exactly the right candidate at exactly the right time. The boys who cried wolf so often and so many times are crying only to their own crowd. At this point anything they say will be pretty much dismissed as more of the same. Six hundred dollar haircuts? The leading Republican candidate is a profligate billionaire. Their last nominee owned about six mansions and had an elevator for his cars.
Posted by: Peter G | July 31, 2015 at 09:41 AM
So I read this Salon piece Part Deux and I remained puzzled as to Ms. Paglia stature as a thinker of thoughts. Her position re parties seems to be that the wealth of candidates of the Republicans is a good noble indicator of their health as opposed to the paucity of Democratic candidates which indicates their illness. Her position on candidates is that Hillary is awful as is virtually the entire Republican field none of whom she finds presidential at all. If I read a review of Paglia of any given work of fiction am I going to discover that she finds it a noble work worth reading, except for the words, which suck?
Posted by: Peter G | July 31, 2015 at 10:16 AM
Paglia is Trump with 50 more IQ points. She enjoys being disingenuous, bombastic and annoying.
Posted by: Bob | July 31, 2015 at 11:54 AM
Paglia has never interested me. I've attempted to read a few writing of her and they have either bored me or confused me. I'm going with p.m. on this one - a few belts of bourbon. That paragraph almost sounds Peggy Noonanesque. Does anyone truly think the Donald styles his own hair? That's an intricate piece of work. Nothing less than a top dollar professional could touch that.
Posted by: Joy | July 31, 2015 at 01:24 PM
Sounds like Dick Morris' predictions. ha ha
Posted by: teabow | July 31, 2015 at 05:35 PM