Posts
Liberalism of the 1950s and '60s exalted civil liberties, individualism, and dissident thought and speech. "Question authority" was our generational rubric when I was in college. But today's liberalism has become grotesquely mechanistic and authoritarian: It's all about reducing individuals to a group identity, defining that group in permanent victim terms, and denying others their democratic right to challenge that group and its ideology. Political correctness represents the fossilized institutionalization of once-vital revolutionary ideas, which have become mere rote formulas. It is repressively Stalinist, dependent on a labyrinthine, parasitic bureaucracy to enforce its empty dictates.
Read the whole thing.
14 comments:
Interesting post. I'm just becoming acquainted with Camille Paglia but so far she comes across as a classic liberal in contrast to the totalitarian left who try to pass themselves off as "liberals". Her comments about the need for a study about comparative religion is also spot on. I'm appalled at the arrogance of the left that leads so many to claim that they know more about Islam than Muslims themselves and further claim that Islamists have misunderstood their own religion.
Fun reading on Paglia.
But I think she misses a couple points, along with most pundits.
Trump was elected by people who want more jobs in America. Not more welfare, not more imports, not more foreign wars.
Think about it: Trump won the GOP nomination by broadly suggesting he would get out of the Mideast, close the southern border to illegal labor, and reduce imports (or increase exports). More jobs in America, in short.
Hillary was clueless, talking about more dole and trade adjustments etc. and a 17-point program to bring peace to planet Earth under her global leadership.
While many disagree with Trump's trade and immigration stances, I cannot fault Americans who want to work, and are offered no better options by the establishment parties. In fact, I admire Americans who want to work. Egads, Trump voters should be respected, not held up as buffoons.
Another note: Actually Trump lost the election, and Paglia should have noted that. Trump won in the electoral college, though down by 2% in the popular vote. Hard as it is to believe, more Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Frankly, the GOP could do a lot worse, and has done a lot worse, than Trump. Our last three major foreign entanglements (Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq) have been counterproductive yet fantastically expensive, and we we ain't out even yet.
And it is revolting to read GOP columnists sniveling about tight labor markets.
As I always say, if we want voters to embrace free enterprise, then I suggest tight labor markets to the moon.
Good article. It should me noted what Paglia calls "liberalism of the 1950s and 1960s" is not the correct term.
It's Cultural Marxism. Pushed by the Frankfurt School. Interestingly supported and financed by the CIA.
Seriously? Literally anyone who voted for Sanders and then (gulp) Stein is UNserious. Either would have been a disaster for this country. I take nothing they say as even in the ballpark of reality. Free college ed, healthcare, universal basic income. C'mon! Utter nonsense.
steve: I agree that Paglia makes a lot of sense except when it comes to her votes.
What's interesting to me about his article, is how someone who is extreme left is surprisingly quite supportive and defends Trump on the far right. What they have in common is they are both populist. It looks like the far right and far left are actually becoming the mainstream of each party with fewer in the middle; a political barbell. The media is exactly the same and plays to either the far left or far right reinforcing their beliefs. The rhetoric on both sides is extreme and promotes anger and hatred. I personally believe the true risk of Trump and right wing populist agenda and tweets is that when the pendulum swings back to elect a democrat in office, the backlash will result in a democrat populist (not Bernie Sanders but someone similar) and they will get control of the Senate and House and enact extreme liberal legislation.
Both sides need to stop enacting legislation without discussion and compromise and votes from the opposition. Both sides need to stop the childish rhetoric and thinly veiled lies and insults. But only the party in power at any given time can initiate that change. If that doesn't happen by the republicans, ultimately the democrats will get control and their next candidate will be a populist leader which will not be good for the country.
She's not a liberal she's a contrarian.
All of his problems are over his own making.
Same facts and Hillary is president, she would already have been impeached by this Congress.
So let's not have a sliding scale of law and morality merely because we want our policy choices implemented.
Nothing is stopping Congress from let's say starting with repatriation and using that money to fund a tax cut.
AMEN! Another fantastic voice these days is Canadian Psychology professor, Jordan Peterson. He is incredibly articulate about the onslaught of cultural Marxism, and literally faces physical violence as the Leftist SJWs invade his lectures and his life.
Search YouTube for his discussion with Joe Rogan #877. You may find yourself rewinding several times to fully appreciate his thoughts.
https://youtu.be/04wyGK6k6HE
We're actually bemoaning physical violence when Trump invited fights at his rallies during the campaign?
Gimme a break. Paid SJW's invaded Trump's campaign stops like Nazi Brownshirts in the 1930s.
Obama told His sycophants to bring a gun to a knife fight. Lefty celebs threaten to assault the POTUS and stage Trump killings in their pics, plays and videos. Then some left wing goon tried to assassinate PUB Congressmen. The country is sick of Leftist idiots. Sick to death of them.
I'm amazed you even tried to go there.
Paglia's interview is extremely tedious to read.
She seems to love long sentences with multiple commas, and multi-syllable words -- jumping from subject to subject -- and data-free conclusions.
It is so far from a logical and concise presentation that I wonder how anyone can read it from beginning to end.
I lasted five minutes -- five minutes of my life wasted.
I should have stopped reading after she admitted to being a Bernie socialist.
I have no clue why a meandering, difficult to follow interview was recommended reading at an economics blog, or anywhere else.
I have a general rule of thumb that a person unable to discuss a subject in simple easy to understand language, is not likely to be an expert on that subject.
Paglia gives an initial impression that she's an expert on almost everything -- long complex sentences with one unsupported data-free conclusion after another -- I think she's an expert on almost nothing.
"I lasted five minutes -- five minutes of my life wasted."
Amen, brother.
Addendum to last post: 95% plus of what Scott posts is perspicacious and well planned.
Respectfully, this wasn't one of them. Just my opinion.
I liked the content on this site. Would like to visit again.
Commercial Real Estate Las Vegas
Post a Comment